..the current devs will be dead and buried long before such problems will arise..
Sorry devs, you heard it here first..  .. But seriously, I am of the exact opposite opinion, and that these changes should be implemented sooner rather than later. As bitcoin grows, I am sure these forks will be MUCH HARDER to implement, not easier.. |
|
|
|
|
Good point Amph, but the advent of quantum computers does not break SHA256.. although it 'may' mean having to switch to a 512 bit algo, and as you say, this would be VERY hard to fork. (Due to the fact that QCs make it easier to brute force)
Quantum computers will break ECDSA, and any algorithm based on factorisation.
So the 'signing' algo, not the 'mining' algo, will need to be changed..
|
|
|
|
Given the current hoo-haa going on with respect to the blocksize, I wanted to think about future HARD forks that Bitcoin will almost certainly encounter. 1) Quantum secure signing algorithm. At some point, I think most would agree , quantum computers will be a reality. We'll have to change bitcoin's signing algos accordingly. 2) Arbitrary precision maths. When bitcoins are worth 'serious' amounts, 8 decimal places won't be enough.. (.. Happy Days..  ) .. there are others, but I'm not sure they are essential to bitcoin's survival - anyone think of any essential ones ? If doubling the blocksize started a war, which it effectively has, I can't even imagine what trying to implement these features will do.. (Since there are many different ways they could be achieved..) Will it even be possible to HARD fork so large a change, as instead of 2 camps(Yes and No), there may be 5, 10, or more! and then things will get, very complicated. |
|
|
|
It's certainly not what I would describe as completely intuitive.. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explainedA little bit of copy and paste : '..When you receive bitcoins, they are always assigned to one of your accounts, and you can change which account is credited based on which bitcoin address receives the coins, just like you tell a bank teller which account to credit when you deposit cash in your bank. However, sending bitcoins is like withdrawing cash from the bank; the coins that are sent out and debited from an account are almost always not the same coins that were deposited into that account...' '..Each account is associated with zero or more receiving addresses, and every receiving address is associated with exactly one account. Coins sent to a receiving address in the wallet are credited to the associated account..' '..The sendfrom method sends coins and debits the specified account. It does **not** change Bitcoin's algorithm for selecting which coins in the wallet are sent-- you should think of the coins in the wallet as being mixed together when they are received..' And finally.. '..'sendtoaddress' always succeeds if there are sufficient funds in the server's wallet. For example, if your wallet account balances were 100 BTC in account 'foo' and 0 BTC in the default account, then the balances after sendtoaddress 1PC9aZC4hNX2rmmrt7uHTfYAS3hRbph4UN 10.00 would be 100 in account 'foo' and -10.00 in the default account (and the overall server balance would go from 100 to 90 BTC). On the other hand, using 'sendfrom' to send from the default account with a zero balance will fail with message "Account has insufficient funds"...' Even though an account balance can be negative the overall balance of a complete wallet, cannot be negative. There really isn't a concept of 'accounts' and 'addresses' at the heart of bitcoin. It's all about TXN outputs and scripts, that can be 'spent' (split into other outputs with scripts) by providing a valid script input. (Notice no mention of accounts and addresses etc..) This may be where the confusion arises. |
|
|
|
Hmm.. The Technical WIKI says you need to create a REFUNDABLE BTC deposit.. This is currently NOT possible with Bitcoin as you have TXN malleability issues.. ? They don't mention this in 'Threats and Mitigation' section. Also - they say you need to use a FIAT payment processor that does not support chargebacks.. That's up to the BANKS isn't it ? I don't know of any fiat processor that does this. And if you need to use Kraken or another exchange, they WILL require KYC ? And finally - in the example they use 100 steps to transfer $100 - $1 at a time.. the fees on that will be monstrous.. since the min fee will be a huge amount of the $1 transfers ? Transferring 1BTC in 100 steps will incur 100 * fees. This is not a small amount. I really hope they can get this to work, it's way cool, but currently, i don't see it..  |
|
|
|
|
From the Inter-Web..
The name Satoshi is of Japanese origin.
'Satoshi is generally used as a boy's name. It consists of 7 letters and 3 syllables and is pronounced Sa-to-shi.'
'In the U.S. in 2014 less than 5 boys given the name. Less than 5 girls were given the name.'
The meaning of Satoshi is "clear thinking, quick witted, wise".
|
|
|
|
This sounds like the miners are not setting the Price Floor.. ? It sounds like the Price is setting the Miner's 'Expenditure Ceiling' ? (If that's how you say it.. ) Like the 'inverse' of what I thought. |
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain...
Currently there are 144*25BTC mined each day, 3600 BTC.
The daily volume traded is far larger than that.
If a miner wants to sell his coins, he has to dump them at the current price even if he wants more - say because he spends more than that on his equipment.
There are many other users/non-miners also selling their coins. Drowning out the miner's coins in the 'ker-fuffle'..
How will the miners set the price floor, if other users are prepared to sell their coins for less ?
|
|
|
|
Yes - I know there have been far too many threads about whether - to double or not to double.. the Blocksize. DA-DA! This is not a thread about that. It's about this. You can check my profile to see I've been around this forum a couple of years (and an extra year as a long time lurker before I joined.. ) I always have BTCTalk open on one of my browser tabs, and if I'm honest, must check it, almost religiously, every 30 mins.. Yep, I got it bad. So I like to think I am up on current events. I'm a programmer, and have written a crypto exchange and so feel I can say I understand the tech', pretty well. .. Which is why this whole "Keeping it to 1MB blocks' has me so perplexed.. I 'thought' everybody 'thought' that the blocksize was obviously going to increase. I never even questioned it really, nor was I aware of any disagreement on the matter. And now that the time has come to do something about 'something', the Core team, the Ubers of Bitcoin, who have wholeheartedly earned my respect and, if I may, admiration, are saying : ' NO! - this isn't for you. Step away. It's sidechains for you in the future.. ' ..  More worrying, are they right !? Who knows more about this stuff than these guys ? Seriously, I'm going to tell them, '..errr.. Guys, I think you're wrong...' Gavin is. And good on him. But is he right !? And now, as I float around in confusion, I start to think : IF it is the case, that Bitcoin cannot be used by me and my fellow humans in the future, as only super large Uber txns will be allowed/affordable, and the rest of us must use ANY third party for ANYTHING.. Hasn't it failed ?  .. This has me feeling funny, about the 'Doubling'. |
|
|
|
I'm a little confused, what the hell is the thing actually supposed to do? Is it to encrypt data using computing power from other people?
You have millions of names, mobile phone numbers, geo-location, etc.. rows of data in a database. You want a BIG computer to crunch through it and tell you how many boys/girls do what when and where. You send a large computer data farm the encrypted data. They crunch it. With the power of a billion computers. Without ever knowing the details. They send you the results. Very nice. You could maybe do the same thing, in the future, with film rushes, as all the crunching to create the movies is now done in the cloud also. But the rushes would never be insecure. |
|
|
|
Dust txn. Fine (to block).
No fee txn. Fine (I don't think zero fee txns should be allowed at all actually).
'Spam' in all it's varied forms. Fine.. (Well, until some size fix solution is found. Then if you pay, and there's room, you should be allowed through.)
Wow! That was quite a change from A valid TXN is a VALID txn. Full stop. End of story. NO POLITICS.
But a normal valid txn that pays the standard fee. That should be allowed through.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion on mining policy, just as all the miners, users and even non-users. I don't think any pools or solo miners block normal valid transactions that pays a fee. Most allow no fee transactions as well, as long as there is room in the block and the priority is high enough. If I had the hashrate to make a difference, I would give a high priority to transactions which reduce the UTXO set significantly, e.g. by combining a lot of dust outputs to one or two more sensible sized coins. I would mine those transactions for free if the gain was high enough, since it saves resources, and therefore reduces cost, in the long run. Well, I was loose with my terminology.. Dust and No fee I don't consider valid. The point is that normal fee paying transactions were blocked. |
|
|
|
|
Dust txn. Fine (to block).
No fee txn. Fine (I don't think zero fee txns should be allowed at all actually).
'Spam' in all it's varied forms. Fine.. (Well, until some size fix solution is found. Then if you pay, and there's room, you should be allowed through.)
But a normal valid txn that pays the standard fee. That should be allowed through.
Miners should LOVE to mine txns that pay fees. As Luke himself said, these are numbers, not people. There should be NO POLITICS involved. Otherwise, it's a very slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
I prefer fungibility, which is the basic concept of Bitcoin, the peer to peer digital currency, not blacklisting.
However, Eligius' blacklisting had no positive effect on the stress test and helped no one.
In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem.
Not sure where you get your facts from, but as I had mentioned previously in this thread, there was no "blacklist" in play with regard to filtering this particular spam attack. The transactions are pretty easily detectable because the attackers really don't seem to know what they're doing. The only things prolonging the attack are the attackers and other pools/miners *not* filtering the scammer's spam. The other pools/miners would rather fill their blocks with the attacker's transactions for an extra 0.1 BTC in fees vs protect bitcoin as a whole... or it's laziness. Either way, any ill effects of this attack could easily have been countered 100% with the participation of just a few of the larger pools. 100% ... no that's false and you know it is. Doing Luke's bidding? Not gonna happen by anyone but you. The simple fact is that they were valid transactions with fees. If following Luke's orders, your pool decides it wants to block valid transactions, that's up to him. However, as I stated: In fact what Eligius did, helped prolong the problem. I have to completely agree with Kano here.. A valid TXN is a VALID txn. Full stop. End of story. NO POLITICS. If someone starts to show that it is possible to 'edit' which transactions go through the system, then I think it sets a very bad precedent. I don't see why the miners weren't really happy to be slurping up all those extra fees !? That's what they live for.. isn't it.. ? FREE BUFFET!! EAT AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!! (Ok - so we made you work for it a little harder today, but we don't want you getting fat and lazy..) |
|
|
|
EDIT: Just got 3 blocks in 3 minutes, lol. Blockchain is way faster than usual this hour and the test the OP describes wouldnt be able to keep up.
8 blocks in 30 minutes.
Actually seems the blocks have quite low numbers of transactions. 363069 is completely empty, other than coinbase. That's not going to help. |
|
|
|
|
(excuse obsequiousness but needs must)
#GMAX
'When you realise you're in the presence of greatness..'
|
|
|
|
|
Windows / Mac / or Linux ?
|
|
|
|
|
This situation reminds me of that submarine movie, with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.
Denzel says a nice speech about actions requiring both the captain and himself to agree, he does not agree, and furthermore.. blah blah etc etc..
Then they argue over launching some nuclear weapons. And Gene punches Denzel in the face. Hard.
Consensus. It's a tough one.
Makes Bitcoin's consensus-mechanism-achievements seem all the more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone still really care about Ethereum? They've taken too long and have too little to show for all the investment they've had. By the time they get off the ground they will already be completely redundant and other coins will have surpassed what they set out to do. Any coins that opt to support AT will effectively have the same features that Ethereum would have had (assuming they ever finish it). Not only is AT ready and working right now, but it also allows all the coins supporting it to trade directly from one blockchain to another without a third party exchange. Ethereum is basically stillborn. I'm not sure anyone should doubt Vitalik's crypto abilities.. he's certainly an 'Uber'.. His kung fu is strong. |
|
|
|
Sorry to hear that..  May I ask how many characters your bitcointalk password was ? I'll use X. So the attack 'could' have been : 1) Hack bitcointalk and download the hash of all the passwords. 2) Check password hashes against known hashes in rainbow tables and then brute force all combinations up to X letters still missing. 3) If you find a valid password/hash combo try it in brainwallet and see if the address exists. Try many combinations of the password, including stringing multiple copies together. Maybe billions. 4) Empty any funds found. .. Very harsh my friend. I use a brainwallet too, but the password is VERY loonnggg.. (over 200 characters symbols/number/characters etc..). not repeated strings. never used in part or in full anywhere else. ever... ..GRUDDDAMMM HACCKKKERRSSS@!!!@£$! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
