|
There have already been documented cases of private keys being compromised (not sure if that led to the shutting down of any CA but it might have).
The fundamental problem is that CA is *not decentralised* therefore it is a weakness and not something that can possibly *improve* the idea of Bitcoin (in terms of the Byzantine Generals problem and its solution).
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks, I've got it now. But now, the difference is huge, what were the reasons behind this value?
As far as I know it was another arbitrary choice but the fact that it is considerably larger reflects that the danger of a large re-org when it comes to coinbase txs is much worse than it is for normal txs. |
|
|
|
Thanks, but isn't this true for "normal" transactions as well? Then why the difference?
Only *blocks* are orphaned so typically a tx that has ended up in an orphaned block will just appear in the orphan's replacement block (or one very soon after it) but this is not the case with "coinbase" txs as they are tied to the one "specific" block that they were mined in (so effectively such txs are orphaned due to being unique to one specific block - so Bitcoin is being far more careful about the use of coinbase UTXOs). |
|
|
|
The primary user improvement I offer is ... My technique permits instant, certain-to-be-in-the-blockchain transactions with 100x lower fees. Transport Layer Security using X.509 certificates issued by the system's distributed Texai certificate authority credentials the system's paid full node operators. Each packet within the network is thus encrypted against tampering and tamper-evident logs at each full node permit remote attestation that allows peers to verify each other's good behavior. The trustless behavior of this system is provided by software agents whose algorithms are open source. Thus your "primary user improvement" is achieved by adding in a "centralised" (and known to be *broken* CA) system - it seems to me that your idea isn't going to go down very well on this forum but best of luck with it anyway. |
|
|
|
I think this depends on your definition of "double spend"
Very true - but by saying that "double spend attempts" are "double spends" unfortunately leads those with less technical understanding of Bitcoin to think that "double spends" are a "problem with Bitcoin" (and thus to completely miss the fact that Bitcoin solves the Byzantine Generals problem which is the whole reason that we even use it). |
|
|
|
I'd prefer to sell them, I would be too worried to lose them all making some mistakes using cold storage wallets.
Although not trying to solicit any sort of business (just trying to gauge how people are thinking) do you think if someone were to offer you a service to "help you to do cold storage" with M of N addresses (i.e. that needed say 2 of 3 sigs) would that change your mind? |
|
|
|
|
Avoiding the Byzantine Generals problem *doesn't solve it*.
So apart from adding the terms TLS/SSL (that are meaningless in this context) what exactly are you offering as an improvement?
(so far - I don't get it)
|
|
|
|
|
Danny is correct - there is actually *no such thing as a double-spend* (check the entire blockchain history and you'll not find one).
There are only "double-spend attempts" which then the miners have to decide on *which* of the options to accept (but only one).
|
|
|
|
|
You can *dump* the private keys using the console if you wanted to move them to another wallet (note that you need to be aware of *change addresses* if you go down this path).
|
|
|
|
|
I use the CIYAM Safe as it uses QR codes for all comms (no USB and no *wires* ever connecting online and offline computers - just screens and cameras).
All private keys are encrypted with GPG with a key stretched (scrypt) password so you can use the QR codes to also make safe "backups".
|
|
|
|
It is good to know,being a newbie isn't a crime.
As I stated - "we all were newbies once" so don't worry - if you find the forum interesting or useful then you'll *grow*. |
|
|
|
how long it took you to reach legendary? and since when did you join this forum?  Assuming you are asking me about this the answers are: - as soon as the legendary status was introduced (in the last week?) - I joined late 2011 (had lurked since mid 2011 which was when I first read about Bitcoin) |
|
|
|
|
When you are dealing with data that is mostly *binary* in nature a SQL DB doesn't really offer much advantage over a DB that is more "object based".
Basically you end up having to do *more work* with a SQL DB than a non-SQL DB to store/retrieve the records - so if you don't need SQL then it is actually going to be *faster* to not use it.
Understand that the *simplest* way to do things will always be the *fastest*.
|
|
|
|
But nearly as much as in the alt-coin sub-forum!
Haha - yes I am still "cleansing myself" after my unfortunate "dunk" in those waters. |
|
|
|
After some time we'll have as much legendary members as we have hero members today. What rank is to be introduced next? Maybe "divine hero"?  Yes - I am thinking "old fart" might be the next rank.  |
|
|
|
Disagree that people should categorically stay away from the Speculation sub-forum. Some of the most macro-economically thought-provoking discussion I've found anywhere over the past few years has occurred in the gold-vs-bitcoin threads that live in the Spec section.
You are braver than me. But okay - glad to know there is some useful stuff there after all. |
|
|
|
I am surprised to know members here sell their accounts. I assume that means they're not flush with money as everybody says?  The whole account selling thing is a problem but as long as the forum is going to allow it I think everyone needs to be warned not to trust accounts just because of "their status". If you ever see my account offering some *investment* then know that it is not me (in my entire post history I have never done that)! |
|
|
|
damn, i wish i had an activity of 1022 To be honest it has been hard lately as there has been few *quality* topics to post in lately. |
|
|
|
Logical reasoning is fine, but isn't logical reasoning followed by an experiment even better? Seeing whether the actual outcome agrees with the predicted outcome is enough of a reason to do it.
Agreed - Peter R has come up with a *useful test* so I think we should play with it and see where it takes us. |
|
|
|
Am I wrong in this? Is there anyone you regard as a bitcoin gem that came into it with zero useful knowledge?
There are a few *gems* here but unfortunately they are buried under the "pile of crap" that makes money out of of people that don't think carefully. Look towards those than generally only post in the Technical sub-forums for quality posts (steer well away from the Speculation sub-forum). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
