There is another hot topic - multisig transactions for better wallet security. What if litecoin implements BIP17 proposal? The bitcoin crowd seems to be slowly converging on BIP16. There is a heated debate over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61125.0This might bring some life and interest back into litecoin and it will truly compliment bitcoin by selecting a competing solution. I think I have posted about it here a few days ago, but nobody seemed to pay attention. Coblee, what do you think? That's an interesting idea. I will look into it. Will need to weight the benefit of this versus the cost of having to maintain a separate codebase than Bitcoin. Unfortunately, there aren't that many people working on Litecoin (only me right now), so if BIP17 introduces a security hole, that might be disastrous. So I have to be careful there. In the near future, I will merge in the latest bitcoin code and build a new Litecoin client. This will turn wallet encryption back on. Stay tuned. It seems that BIP17 has a problem when support goes below 50% all new multisig transactions become easily redeemable by everyone. Since litecoin hashpower fluctuates between 15Mhs and 30Mhs this might be a serious problem. So I agree that we should be careful here and not rush things, maybe wait for a better solution, like BIP22 by Mike Caldwell (Casascius). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62181.0 |
|
|
|
|
Awesome thread!
It's like programming FPGA in its own assembler language.
It might inspire a lot of people to start looking into these little things me included.
|
|
|
|
Gavin, I think you should separate 2 issues. This is not about an Opensource Project called "Official Bitcoin Client". The client is not really important - it's a reference implementation, nothing more. This is really about the *standard* any client must implement.
The movie you linked to is only about how an Opensource Project should deal with, what they call, "poisonous" people. But this simply is not about code. Perfectionism can be an impediment when it comes to code, but when it comes to a standard, perfectionism is essential.
I can't judge the BIPs for their merit, but it seems to me that this new standard did not have sufficient time to mature yet. Maybe the current quarrel should be looked at as a constructive effort to enhance a standard that is, in my humble understanding, revolutionary. You must get it right the first time. Please take your time!
Seriously, this post needs more love. As a bitcoin saver the way this protocol change has been tried to be rushed through is far more worrying than some potential technical bugs with the implementation. If this will become the precedent for how future protocol changes will be handled then I'm out of bitcoin. Satoshis way of a 2 year plan seem far more conservative and proper. Regarding the time frame, it could be that there are already other things in the pipeline related to scalability of the blockchain that would need to be addressed in a timely manner and that depend on how multisig is implemented. Imagine another bitcoin boom by this summer and the amount of transactions increases tenfold. You can't really wait another 2 years with this, maybe not even another 3 months. I think the next big thing to focus on is scalability and we need to have multisig settled down right about now. |
|
|
|
|
I believe there is enough space for everybody's ideas in this community. That's why we have alt-chains.
If there is controversy over a particular issue, let's make sure that both ideas are implemented (in separate chains)
and then the time will tell who was right.
Bitcoin has been driven by Gavin fairly well so far, and I hope this will continue in the future.
|
|
|
|
can we see theymos idea + non-backwards compatible new standard?
a blockchain fork will have to happen in the future.
see this as a good testbed, practice run or training level.
if we cannot get it right then bitcoin is doomed.
I can agree to this if there will be a mechanism to preserve "wealth" of current network and transfer it into the new one.. Really, can you, developers, come up with a script that does this? Like CTRL-C CTRL-V I think there have been a precedent like this in one of the alt-chains starting with S  They suspended 1.0 chain and somehow transferred all wealth into 2.0 chain which had new rules and its own genesis block. So it should be possible at least theoretically. |
|
|
|
There is another danger though even if bitcoin rejects the idea of multisig all together. Govt can always come up with their own network built with multisig in mind where one key always belongs to them. Make this network hash-compatible with bitcoin and start merge-mining it. Of course people won't know anything about it. Once govt network gains a lot of power, they can suppress any activity on bitcoin network via merged mining exactly how Luke-Jr did it with CoiledCoin. So the the only way we can fight it is not by suppressing multisig because it's irrelevant, but gain more support from the masses before govt does. This year they will be busy with elections, so we have to hurry up and propel bitcoin to the Moon I think Bitcoin magazine would do a great job here. |
|
|
|
for the address you only need the public keys and script - you can store those on the PC
for the redeeming transaction you need the signature, public key and script
you need the private key to make a signature
so:
PC creates <sig1> using key1
phone creates <sig2> using key2
phone sends <sig2> (not the key) to PC
the sig is valid only for this transaction, and it must belong to the public key in the address, this will end up being in the transaction anyway, so there are no "secrets" transmitted over the internet
PC puts everything together and creates a redeeming transaction
Ok that explains it, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
I have a small question.
If two private keys always need to be kept separate,
how one would generate a single address which would combine both of them without having both of them on a single device at one point?
|
|
|
|
I just watched the documentary Thrive and I think that Satoshi must be an alien!  Does the bitcoin network have any properties that could be related to the shape of a torus?  j/k That doc should make bitcoiners happy since it suggests people, to help wake up and free themselves, to start using alternatives currencies, among other things. Bitcoin was planned by aliens long before we even dreamed about things like that. Here is the video recorded before 2005 and posted on youtube in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LQp7Or1GNUJust pick up the key words from the first half and put 2+2 together. |
|
|
|
If the question what is the point for govt to support bitcoin - the answer is to take control over it via multisig.
If the question what is the point for current bitcoin community to support govt-hijacked bitcoin network is because you probably have some investments in bitcoins already and you will loose them if you quit that network.
But if a govt decides to start an alt block chain, would you support it if B : They would just start their own chain from scratch or with premined coins  . or would you? The trick is that Bitcoin is a brand, people will learn that it is decentralized international and all good, so when the govt says they support bitcoin people will buy into it. Only to learn later that govt took control over it. If govt announces alt-chain well the bitcoin community might start to argue that it is bad and corrupted and that our public chain is better. At least we would keep our ways intact and will be able to continue building the infrastructure. So the solution seems to be: 1) Get to the masses before govt does. Then people will know that there is open source client as well not just the govt one. 2) Make sure that format of P2SH addresses doesn't make a particular scheme easily recognizable If the format of (user key + govt key) is easily recognizable from format (user key + another user key) then the second format can be outlawed. |
|
|
|
What would be the incentive to support that blockchain and not ddos it?
[edit] I think you were kidding.
If the question what is the point for govt to support bitcoin - the answer is to take control over it via multisig. If the question what is the point for current bitcoin community to support govt-hijacked bitcoin network is because you probably have some investments in bitcoins already and you will loose them if you quit that network. |
|
|
|
...
Imagine the whole population of US compared to our little community here, no one would even remember us after that.
...
300 million miners across US would outhash the existing network with new rules turning current bitcoin community into a bunch of outlaws...
A : The problem is that we who know about Bitcoin have significant control over the news pipe. (can't cover this up) B : They would just start their own chain from scratch or with premined coins . A: I don't think that any of our current news pipes would compare to Mr president Obama telling his dear citizens that our economic situation is swiftly approaching a point of no return and we have just come up with a great idea how to fix it, a new currency - bitcoin! B: This way they won't be able to destroy bitcoin, in my scenario they will! |
|
|
|
This thread kind of confuses me. If the government has the power to make normal transactions illegal and force you to use multi sig, they have the power to make normal transactions illegal. Who cares if they force you to use multi sig at that point?  Well if you consider the scenario when instead of creating its own blockchain govt announces bitcoin to the masses. They then release their official client (which is originally compatible with bitcoin) and tell people that they can mine for bitcoins to help our economy grow. Imagine the whole population of US compared to our little community here, no one would even remember us after that. They do a few tricks however, they make sure that default addresses in their client are multisig with second key belonging to govt. They also build the mining capability into the client so that people would start mining right away. The only way to make it compatible with bitcoin network is if the latter supports multisig (which it is going to right about now). The final step after critical mass was reached they release update to their client (maybe automatically) that outlaws the original addresses. 300 million miners across US would outhash the existing network with new rules turning current bitcoin community into a bunch of outlaws... |
|
|
|
|
PaperCoins in bitcoin client?
Awesome idea! Hope it gets the attention it deserves!
|
|
|
|
Plausible in the sense that you would accept having a "joint" account with the govt. People don't do that now so it seems unlikely they'd be very willing later.
Plenty of people, in a sense, have this, at least in the U.S. It's called a bank. Government thinks you're a criminal? Boom, your account is frozen. They think you owe them something? Boom, they take the money out directly. The fact that they don't do it that often doesn't mean it never happens. And most people still wouldn't DREAM of not having a bank account, or worse, banking with some *unregulated* bank that doesn't do what the government tells it to. I've even heard the sentiment expressed in this forum that letting government take a little bit of control of bitcoin in some form or fashion is a good thing because it lends bitcoin legitimacy! To my mind, the idea of there being a push toward government-controlled (read: "regulated") multisig accounts isn't just plausible, it's a question of "when", not "if." Excellent thread! I agree that having govt-controlled multisig accounts is just about time. When somebody asks why would people want to give up control to govt, they miss one point. The point is that most of the people will probably hear about this stuff from govt in a first place. It's like "have you heard our govt came up with this new currency bitcoin to save us from financial collapse?" So for them it will be the only way to do business and get their salaries. They wouldn't even know that once bitcoin was free. The question is whether they will be able to technically outlaw non-govt controlled transactions. Since P2SH addresses are clearly distinguishable from normal ones, they might just declare original ones illegal, forcing current businesses to convert |
|
|
|
Fascinating thread. I'm not a bitcoin developer but I'm a sw developer with some years experience and I found very, very useful this article by genjix: http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/By not knowing completely the bitcoin protocol, when I began reading the objections of Luke to Gavin I was unconsciously taking Gavin side because I have a lot of trust in him. But after studying genhix work (who takes no sides, I think) I'm now leaning towards BIP17: it seems a better choice from a general software good development practice. +1 I liked the article too, thanks genjix! Though I've been flipping sides on BIP16 / BIP17 for awhile and still undecided. |
|
|
|
but old enough coins are safe anyway - you can replace a block from the middle or something
the only non safe ones are from the time somebody got 51% and later
Yes lock-in points is a type of damage control. If it happens that an attacker started to build its own chain a few (dozens of) blocks before recent lock-in he would need to re-start, so it is less convenient for him to do it. |
|
|
|
if anyone can control 51% he will control the bitcoin network
no need to be stealthy about it, they can just not include any transactions in their blocks and reject blocks mined by others
but this wont be profitable
what they can do is set the transaction fee to whatever they want , since only they can add new transactions to the chain
Edit: what lock in points? the longest chain wins.
I think certain block hashes get hardcoded into the client with every new release. This way if the longer blockchain doesn't satisfy these conditions it will get rejected. is till means an attacker can do watever he wants between releases and it would be kinda strange if this was true, any sources for this? to clifford: if somebody gets 51% he can do (almost) whatever he wants from that point and on. edit: but it would be quite hard to get to 51% without being noticed - he will have to take over deepbit and another pool, or create a larger one himself - which will either take a lot of time or a lot of money (probably more than the net worth of bitcoin) Yes between releases coins are not protected, only old enough coins are safe. I know for a fact it was done for one of the alt-chains in the beginning, so I think they inherited this behaviour from bitcoin. |
|
|
|
ok-thanks, fairly new so haven't caught up with history its just that the price now is not what I would call a "profitable " level. regards reg.
You can see historic charts for bitcoin prices at the bottom of this link: http://bitcoinx.com/charts/There have been a lot of ups and downs for the last year, they are updated live. |
|
|
|
if anyone can control 51% he will control the bitcoin network
no need to be stealthy about it, they can just not include any transactions in their blocks and reject blocks mined by others
but this wont be profitable
what they can do is set the transaction fee to whatever they want , since only they can add new transactions to the chain
Edit: what lock in points? the longest chain wins.
I think certain block hashes get hardcoded into the client with every new release. This way if the longer blockchain doesn't satisfy these conditions it will get rejected. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
