could You or someone else please explain why Live Dealer is not "Provably Fair"?
Provably fair doesn't mean "hard to cheat" it means it is impossible for the site to cheat without being detected* through the use of strong cryptography. A video of a dealer doesn't prove the deck has the right number of cards, that the deck hasn't been stacked in favor of the house, that the dealer isn't trained to deal "seconds", etc. It certainly makes it HARDER to cheat compared to some site that is 100% opaque but it isn't provably fair. The difference is "fair" vs "PROVABLY fair". PROVEN EVENT #1: If a site generates a random 256 bit number and provides me the hash I know they can't change it after the fact. If they change their secret number it won't produce the same hash. PROVEN EVENT #2 If I generate my own 256 bit number and provide it to the site (after EVENT #1) and the site XOR the two values to use as the "combined secret" then I can prove that the site couldn't have rigged the random number in their favor (as they don't know until after selecting their random number what mine will be). PROVEN EVENT #3 If the game is based on the combined secret in #2 I can prove it was done fairly. After the game the site will reveal their secret number (which I can verify hashes to the hash provided in event #1). I can also verify that the "game secret" is the XOR of the house's secret number and my secret number. Assuming the house also provides details steps on how that number produces the output I can verify they have shown me the proper output (sequence of cards, winning number, win/loss, etc). When those three events occur and in the proper order, and are verified by the user it is not possible for the house to cheat. Try to think of a scenario where the house could cheat and not be detected. It is mathematically proven that if I lost then it was due to "fair chance". A video of a dealer doesn't provide that. It may make it harder to cheat but harder to cheat isn't the same standard as PROVABLY fair. You "could" (not a accusation more a thought exercise) manipulate the video feed, the shoe used to deal could be designed to read the cards and allow the dealer to deal the second card (i.e. player has 16 and hits in BJ, the next card is a 5 and the second card is a K). The quality of the video, the resolution, the angle, etc may make it HARDER to cheat but the house still CAN cheat. Likewise the use of a video dealer makes it impossible for YOU to prove the game is "fair" (losses/wins based on random chance). It basically comes down to trusting the site. Maybe a video live dealer will increase the trust players have but it still requires trust. The same thing would apply to other games. In roulette a video feed doesn't guarantee the wheel is fair (i.e. each number has an equal and random chance of being picked) and not rigged. * The point of this thread is that while an event can be provably fair it requires the player to verify. So a game can be in theory provably fair but if the player doesn't a) submit its own random player key, b) verify the hashes of house key, c) verify the output matches the combined game key then while it is provably the house could cheat. If the rate of verification is low and the rate that house cheats is low it is very possible the cheating would go undetected. If there was an automated software on the player's computer which verifies all game outcomes it ensures the provable is proven. If enough players used it then it would become impossible for the house to cheat for any significant period of time.
|
|
|
|
True bitcoiners follow the advice of Mr. Nakamoto and use a new address each time, so it's hard to assess real numbers. But let's assume that each day roughly 100'000 new users join us (110k is the extremum on http://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses). Today the world population has been increased by 200'000 persons (350k born, 150k died). Tomorrow 200k will become 201k, then 202k and so on. Each day number of NON-bitcoiners becomes higher. Looks like a Zeno's paradox, doesn't it?  If you select the log scale you will see the trend-line shows the number of Bitcoin users doubling every year. I am fairly certain the world population is growing at slower rate. Looks like there was a large peak in the spring. They'll be back. This. The OP whole argument is that the world population is growing faster. Only one problem ... it isn't. World population growth is on the order of ~1.2% per year and the growth rate has been declining for the past 70 years. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrateThe OP also seems to number of unique addresses used DAILY (not total # of unique addresses) is the best metric for Bitcoin users. Ok lets say for the sake of the argument it is. http://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-unique-addresses?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=Jan 09 ~100 unique addresses per day Aug 13 ~64,000 unique addresses per day That is an annual growth rate of ~630%. Over the same period of time the global population changed from: July 09 - 6.83B Aug 13 - 7.17B That is an annual growth rate of ~1.5% (lets say 2%) Last time I checked 630% annual growth is greater than 2% annual growth.
I don't think "number of unique addresses used DAILY" indicates that the OP thinks it does but lets assume 1 address used daily = 1 user. That would assume on average each user makes 1 blockchain tx everyday which is probably at least 1 or 2 magnitudes too high. I make a lot of blockchain tx and it averages to a a lot less than 1 per day. Still for the sake of the argument lets assume 1 unique address per day = 1 active Bitcoin user. 2009 - 100 Bitcoin users vs 6.83B global population. 1 in 68,300,000 persons is a Bitcoin user. 2013 - 64,000 Bitcoin users vs 7.17B global population. 1 in 112,000 persons is a Bitcoin user. Looks like growth to me. |
|
|
|
They actually probably don't know what package their chip is even going to use at this point, but just photoshoping an Intel chip is pretty amateur hour.
I would hope they know which package is going to be used or at least have it narrowed down to one of a few pin configurations. Regardless the package is certainly not going to be LGA-1155 so yeah that was just lazy. |
|
|
|
The thread title says 8 TH/s by end of 2013
I believe you mean 8 PH/s.
Yes. Thanks & fixed. |
|
|
|
Um, are you forgetting someone? [Labcoin] For the test run we opted for QFP packaging, 44 pin, no exposed heat pad, here is a small preview : They should have 3-4TH in a few weeks, and will be ordering a 50TH run of chips soon, which should be delivered late September, and online in Oct. Both added. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I think you may be underestimating KnC as they pan to mine on their own devices and we have no idea how much that will add.
True however we need to start somewhere. Who knows what the future hashrate will be BUT if we know 6 PH/s has been pre-ordered then we know it will at least rise by that much. IF we believe it is realistic that will be deployed by end of Dec then that lets of start to see growth of the network. |
|
|
|
was the relaunch delayed or is there a different URL?
Wondering the same.
The launch is currently in private beta. We have encountered some issues in the private beta which need to be resolved before we go public. I also had to take some time off unexpectedly for personal reasons which has slowed progress. I don't want to provide a date but a) it will be "soonish" b) there will be a new url c) you won't miss it |
|
|
|
To believe the the NSA has broken SHA-2 would be to believe that the NSA found something the entire rest of the world combined hasn't found for twenty years.
Why would the NSA or any other intelligence agency reveal that it had cracked/compromised an encryption technology? Wouldn't they keep it a secret as long as possible, to collect as much damaging information as possible, just as the allies did in WWII? They may not however SHA-2 has been in a use a long time and a vulnerability would leave financial and communication systems in a country vulnerable. It would be highly risky for say the UK intelligence community to discover a flaw and then not warn UK companies. If agents for one state can discover the flaw so can another. It would be like someone building a fortress out of TNT because they believe only they know it is explosive. To my knowledge no governmental agency (or non-governmental entity) has published any warning about the security of SHA-2 even without disclosing a specific flaw/weakness. It really isn't accurate to compare encryption in WWII (a niche application over a small period of time with no non-military usage) to SHA-2 (one of if not the most widely deployed algorithms in the world used over an extended period of time in pretty much every aspect of the global economy). Wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
The NSA created Bitcoin and used ECDSA in it because they already had it broken.
This risk is already mitigated for any bitcoin address that has not been used for spending (i.e. its public key is not yet known). Even if ECDSA is broken wide open, it doesn't really matter with respect to bitcoins that have been received at addresses that have never been used for spending, because the corresponding ECDSA public key is not known and cannot be determined without also breaking both RIPEMD160 and SHA256 simultaneously. How would you spend the coins though? Carefully.  Imagine a scenario where current addresses are compromised. The more likely scenario is some flaw is found which makes ECDSA "weakened". As long as your public key is unknown you are immune. Developers could come up with a new address type. We will call existing addresses type 1 and the new stronger ones type 2. Future clients would support both address types (backwards but not forwards compatibility). Yes this would be a hard fork scenario but given the backwards compatibility it wouldn't be very controversial. You would need to transfer (spend) your coins from a type 1 address to a type 2 address and that tx could potentially be at risk. A lot depends on how "broken" type 1 addresses are. If on average it takes a high end hashing farm weeks to break a single private key well your funds would be "safe" long before the key could be compromised. However lets assume a highly unlikely scenario where type 1 addresses can be broken quickly and cheaply once the public key is known. Even then we are talking about a race condition so unless the attacker also had a significant fraction of the network they wouldn't be able to double spend successfully. However lets assume that is also true. Pretty much a worst case scenario. If your public key is already know you are SOL. If it isn't you would need to make a "covert" transaction to a stronger address. One option would be to mine it yourself, another option would be to send the "upgrade" tx securely directly to a mining pool you trust. This could even be offered as a value added service by a pool (say 1% fee). If you didn't mine it yourself you would need to trust the pool but you wouldn't need to trust the entire network. |
|
|
|
Help me understand this. Assume no mining is done. I could still broadcast a transaction from Mars, right? It would take several minutes to get to Earth, and terrestrial miners would then include it whatever block they are working on. Once the block is made and broadcast, I would receive it with a delay, and would be able to check the validity, broadcast it locally, etc. Where is the problem?
Assuming you have no problems paying for the intersteller bandwidth and waiting an extended amount of time there is no problem. But as you can imagine it would be kinda dumb to record the payment for every cup off coffe on Mars, on the Earth blockchain. Instead it is highly likely Mars would develop an alt-coin. Transactions between blockchains would be rare but could be accomplished. Most people probably never would do it directly rather they would rely on a broker agent who has both access and funds on both chains. Say you are no Mars and wanted to buy some land on earth. All your currency is in Mars coins and the land cost 100 BTC. You would find a broker who would give you an exchange rate, say 18 MRC for 1 BTC which includes their fee/markup. You would pay the broker 18,000 MRC, they would pay the land owner 100 BTC. The broker could prove the transaction was completed by giving you the tx id from the "EarthCoin = BTC" blockchain. While it would be possible to use a single blockchain across vast distances it really would make no sense. Given the improved utility it is highly likely other currencies would be created to better serve the needs of the users. We may even see the same thing on earth with a lot of mundane tx going off blockchain. This could be in the form of private ledgers or in the form of alt-chains which serve specific niches or even geographies. |
|
|
|
Crazy conspiracy theory:
The NSA created Bitcoin and used ECDSA in it because they already had it broken. When Bitcoin reaches a certain market cap they will reveal this exploit, making everyone's coins irrevocably worthless and irreparably harming the public's perception of cryptocurrency.
Potentially reasonable action:
Maybe it's time to implement some post-quantum crypto in Bitcoin? It would be a propaganda victory at worst. Can the academic complex really be relied on as a canary in the coalmine for crypto breaks? What if the NSA is stealing the best young mathematicians and forcing them into NDAs? Things don't always stay the same. The only problem is that I think most post-quantum algorithms are patented.
Quantum crypto, although "perfect", relies on hardware rather than software. Consequently, it's impractical to use it in Bitcoin. You are confusing quantum encryption (or quantum key sharing) with post-quantum cryptography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptographyPQC are algorithms which are resistant to attack using quantum algorithms. The major problem with these is they tend to have very large key and signature sizes. Conservatively it would mean a 10x to 100x increase in bandwidth, and storage for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The NSA created Bitcoin and used ECDSA in it because they already had it broken.
This risk is already mitigated for any bitcoin address that has not been used for spending (i.e. its public key is not yet known). Even if ECDSA is broken wide open, it doesn't really matter with respect to bitcoins that have been received at addresses that have never been used for spending, because the corresponding ECDSA public key is not known and cannot be determined without also breaking both RIPEMD160 and SHA256 simultaneously. The use of two hashing algorithms created at different times by different entities provides a significant defense in depth. The irony is that many alt-coins claim utility because they are an insurance policy if Bitcoin is comproimsed however since they also use ECDSA, RIPEMD-160 and SHA-256 any compromise of Bitcoin (not matter how unlikely) would render those altcoins just as compromised. |
|
|
|
"Dual_EC_DRBG or Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator[1] is a controversial pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) designed and published by the National Security Agency. It is based on the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP) and is one of the four PRNGs standardized in the NIST Special Publication 800-90. Shortly after the NIST publication, it was suggested that the RNG could be a kleptographic NSA backdoor." (...) "In 2013, the New York Times published that "'classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency.'" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBGI unfortunately have little technical/under the hood-ish know-how of bitcoin, but is this Dual Elliptic Curve stuff not exactly what bitcoin relies on in some way or another?.. Simple answer is no it isn't used by Bitcoin at all. However it does provide a very good counter example of how difficulty it is to hide backdoors in public algorithms. The algorithm noted is rather rare, I don't know of a single widespread usage of it and even still a cryptographer found and reported a vulnerability less than a year later. SHA-2 has been around 20 years and is conservatively millions times more widespread and subject to much more peer review and cryptoanalysis and nobody has found even a theoretical flaw yet. |
|
|
|
|
SHA-2 is an open algorithm and it uses as its constants the sequential prime cube roots as a form of "nothing up my sleeve numbers". For someone to find a weakness or backdoor in SHA would be the equivalent of the nobel prize in cryptography. Everyone who is anyone in the cryptography community has looked at SHA-2. Not just everyone with a higher degree in mathematics, computer science, or cryptography in the last 20 years but foreign intelligence agencies and major financial institutions. Nobody has found a flaw, not even an theoretical one (a faster than brute force solution which requires so much energy/time as to be have no real world value).
To believe the the NSA has broken SHA-2 would be to believe that the NSA found something the entire rest of the world combined hasn't found for twenty years. Also NIST still considers SHA-2 secure and prohibits the use of any other hashing algorithm (to include SHA-3 so far) in classified networks. So that would mean the NSA is keeping a flaw/exploit from NIST compromising US national security.
Anything is possible but occam's razor and all that.
|
|
|
|
This would be pretty easy to test. Just get a bunch of friends to start exchanging encrypted messages about bombing an embassy or govt office. If these douche-bags can break it, they'd be on you like white on rice.
SHA is not an encryption protocol. You can't encrypt messages with SHA. |
|
|
|
|
Funny that people have no idea what a 51% attack is.
IF a 51% attack occurs you will see no increase in hashing power.
If a 51% attack occurs the attacker will generate 100% of block.
If a 51% attack occurs there will be a long (at least 6 block) reorganization.
If a 51% attack occurs the new chain will replace transactions of an existing chain.
51% = boogeyman for clueless Bitcoiners.
Bad crop harvest = must be the 51% attack.
Bitter winter lasting longer than normal = must be the 51% attack.
Downpour on the eve of a battle = must be the 51% attack.
The king has no sons and five daughters = must be the 51% attack.
|
|
|
|
Thirdly, there is no other place that takes XRP for anything except for ripple.
XRP are not supposed to be used as money, although they are used some times. It is a special token to pay for using a wallet. In ripple, you pay with whatever money you have to anybody who has a ripple wallet, and he receives whatever money he wants. Yeah you don't really believe that do you. Everything else is an IOU and has counterparty risk. If/when there are a billion of XRP in millions of users hands, why would you want to be paid in the less secure, less liquid IOUs when it is almost a guarantee the person paying you has XRPs? Another way to look at it is OpenCoin ONLY source of revenue is selling XRPs? Which is more profitable a viable alternative currency or a negligible value token used as stamps? Bait and switch. Ripple is just taking a page from Microsoft's playbook. Embrance, extend, extinguish. |
|
|
|
|
So where does the money for all this come from (lawyers, offices, corporate formation, patents, etc)?
Please answer the direct question: Will you be asking for money from investors on this forum? If so then saying you are not asking for money is a lie.
|
|
|
|
Perfect compression is a mathematical impossibility.
Well, I never claimed it was perfect 100% compression. I did say 99.8% .... Even if you claimed 1% compression in all instances it is perfect compression. Perfect compression doesn't mean 100% reduction but then again even someone with basic knowledge on the subject would know that. Folks, I'm not here asking for money, I'm asking for a team of people, and a contract that preserves all of our rights and our agreed upon monetary valuations as a member of that team (and I get credit for the discovery), and I'll tell you all my idea who is on the team, and if you agree it's doable, we go ahead, and if not, then yes, I disappear at your behest, and no money ever changed hands. This isn't diabolical, man. It's a real offer and I really mean to achieve this. And whoever helps me gets in on the action, that's it. So you will not ask now or ever in the future for a single cent from any "investor" on this forum? |
|
|
|
Like I said I happen to be somewhat of an "expert" on data compression and transmision having worked for 25 years in the disk drive, set top box and video industries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4, etc.) so if you would like me to take a look at your idea I will. I can tell you if the theory looks sound or maybe point our something you may have overlooked. Are you trying to compress audio, video, text, binary files or all of these? The OP claims perfect compression of all data in all instances. When you have perfect compression why limit yourself to one niche? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
