Where is CPPSRB?
Not worth spending time on. I believe it was invented / became popular after the paper was completed, and I don't update it for every new broken method. IIRC, it's fairly similar to the *SMPPS. |
|
|
|
Within the context of Pub = Priv * G, what is Pub if Priv is zero? It looks to be undefined to me.
Elliptic curves form a group under point addition. As such they have an additive identity, which is the point at infinity. 0 * G is the identity of this group. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I'm just dropping in here triggered by reddit all confused about colored coins implementations.
Why is this thread called ArmoryX while the implementation talked about seems to be called ngccc?
Well, previously I was working on a different client, called ArmoryX. Since many people already follow this thread, I decided to continue posting updates in it. I guess I should rename it.... I understand. Yes, please change the title, it's hard enough for newbs to find the relevant stuff about colored coins. Where is the actual data saved which is associated with the coins? What data? I would like to seconds this question regarding color kernel and parameter "storage location"? Do I understand correctly that the color kernel is defined by the issuing transaction and that data is stored in the blockchain? This leads me to next question: is any data stored off blockchain at all? This leads me to yet further question: where/how is "association" of color with a contract "stored"? sorry for being so lazy and just out-right asking these newbie-questions also: thanks, killerstorm for writing this: https://github.com/bitcoinx/colored-coin-tools/wiki/colored_coins_intro, it really helpsThe data has two parts, the color definition which identifies the color and its meaning, and the transactions which indicate movement of colored coins. The transactions are completely normal Bitcoin transactions stored on the blockchain. The color definition is "out of band". The most important place it should be stored is probably the issuer's records, if the issuer itself doesn't know how to treat coins of his color that's a problem. It should also be visible in some public place such as a company website or a repository so other people know what the color represents too. Lastly, every end-user client interested in this color should download the color definition and store it, perhaps in the wallet file, so it can recognize coins of this color. The color definition connects the blockchain with a real-world entity so there is little benefit in having it inside the blockchain itself. |
|
|
|
So any new news? I knew you were talking about investing into ASIC's any news on that?
2 of the 3 BFL 500 GH/s rigs I ordered are now operational. Why do you ask? |
|
|
|
If this were true I would expect the spread between Gox and Stamp to be ~5%. Not 8% as it is now. Otherwise this represents a very easy arbitrage opportunity. Well, rumor also has it that even those who pay the 5% don't get their funds promptly... And again this is just a rumor, as this thread indicates little is publicly known about it, even if true the market may have not yet absorbed it. |
|
|
|
|
Rumor has it that it is possible to withdraw USD from Mtgox by paying a 5% fee.
Has this been confirmed by Mtgox?
Where can I find more information about it?
Is the money collected by Mtgox or their bank?
When did this option start?
How is it actually done? I could find no mention of it in the withdrawal interface.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, doing an initial translation is easier than ongoing maintenance, so maybe it's better to find someone who can be more committed.
On the other hand, a start will be motivating for the next person who carries it forward.  We'd appreciate your help, Meni. To answer your questions, the instructions here will show you how to generate the .string files (you should be able to do this on Linux as well): https://github.com/grabhive/hive-osx/wiki/I18n-guideLooks like it will require some tools I'm not familiar with so I'll sit this one out for now. |
|
|
|
How much text is there to translate?
I'm not a Mac fan by a long shot but if it's relatively easy I can do it.
Note that Hebrew is tricky since in addition to translating you also need to make sure the right-to-left is done properly.
Hi Meni! There isn't very much really, we were as sparse as possible quite on purpose with this app. If you feel like having a look, please grab this: https://github.com/grabhive/hive-osx/archive/master.zipAnd thanks a lot! I couldn't locate the texts, is there some language management system or is it hardcoded? Anyway, doing an initial translation is easier than ongoing maintenance, so maybe it's better to find someone who can be more committed. |
|
|
|
How much text is there to translate?
I'm not a Mac fan by a long shot but if it's relatively easy I can do it.
Note that Hebrew is tricky since in addition to translating you also need to make sure the right-to-left is done properly.
|
|
|
|
The probability to hash above n is 1/2^128, so it should be considered practically impossible to achieve.
Actually (2 256 - n) / 2 256 = 1 - n / 2 256, which is very close to zero. Looks like n ~ 2^256 - 2^128, so this comes up as 1/2^128 as Sergio said. |
|
|
|
|
Updated with Colored Coins presentation and some videos.
|
|
|
|
We'd like to use something like paper to print wallets for Justcoin, but need durability (> 10 years)
Use acid-free, archive-save paper conforrming to ISO standard ISO 9706 and an electrostatic printing process (for instance laser printing). Do NOT use a colour printer, use a B/W only printer. Do NOT use refurbished or value toner cartridges (you never know what crap they put in there). Keep in a darkened environment. For archiving purposes lasting up to several hundred years use archival quality paper conforrming to ISO standard 11108. What are your thoughts on laminating as a way to preserve a printed paper? |
|
|
|
I realize what I am describing is very similar to Colored Coins. Like I said before there are many other projects which are similar.
But what I am proposing isn't just an abstract idea. I'm saying we need to actually start making a security using an idea like I proposed or maybe just following the colored coins proposal.
There are enough great protocol ideas out there, we need to actually implement one and start with a very simple trading API and get some securities on board.
What I proposed was the simplest and quickest way to get to that point as far as I can tell. Sure, it might not be elegant, but it would work and right now that is what we need as we are losing centralized exchanges left and right. If BitFunder ends up getting shut down, havelock won't be too far behind and bitcoin securities will be a thing of the past.
I'm a software engineer working in the finance industry and I'm going to start working on this in my spare time although I worry that I don't have enough spare time to make progress quick enough in this project.
I'm starting to repeat myself but colored coins aren't an abstract idea either. There are working implementations and highly talented people developing it further as we speak. A lot of effort was also placed in the design, with solutions to problems you haven't even thought of yet if you're just starting out. You're welcome to join the development effort. coloredcoins.org is a good place to start, or https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoinx when you want to go into the details. It's still too soon to list any major asset on it, but if you want to do some more active field testing, you should ask Alex if the software is ready for that. |
|
|
|
Most of us will agree that having the Wikimedia foundation (known for operating Wikipedia) accept Bitcoin donations could be a very important milestone in Bitcoin's adoption. They are famous for having refused for a long time with obscure reasons, but I believe they are warming up to the idea, and that it's high time we take concrete action about it. Why is Wikipedia accepting bitcoin so important? This detail needs to be quantified and qualified. Is there not any other lower hanging fruit than Wikipedia? To me it just seems right that Wikipedia should accept Bitcoin. We love Wikipedia and we love Bitcoin and they will work well together. "I'm tired of wanting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin, I want Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin." Everyone knows Wikipedia and new people hearing about Bitcoin will have a much more accurate perception about it if they know that it accepts Bitcoin donations. It's a high-hanging fruit, sure, but it's well worth the effort. I don't know how to quantify any of this, though. In a recent discussion on Quora, Jimmy Wales has stated a few reasons to reject Bitcoin donations, and surprisingly they were all quite tangible. By this point it is already assumed that the donations will be immediately converted to USD via a provider such as BitPay, to help with accounting and make it easier to use the funds. The main objections were:
1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.
This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about.
2. Adding more donation options is known to create "choice paralysis" and decrease the total amount donated. They have a process of A/B testing for measuring the effect of adding new options; this testing will increase the cost of even considering to add this option.
To this Jimmy suggested that they could add information about Bitcoin donations in a separate page not linked to from the main donations page. I find this to be a very acceptable compromise; we'll be able to donate, and we'll be able to tell people Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin donations.
3. Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do.
I believe this can be alleviated with proper framing, and that making this available only from an orphan page will further reduce the perceived impact.
It seems out of your list that item 3 is the real reason for their concern: "Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do." Item 1: Apparently, we need to quantify how much "trouble" it is to accept money. I am serious. This not just an issue at Wikipedia but will be an issue for any charity/organization. Quantifying the "worth", well, what is the worth of Wikipedia? That is a "value judgement" about Wikipedia and is best left to each individual, but I can say, Wikipedia's worth is probably much greater than the amount of donations they receive. Don't get me wrong, I think a community pledge has its merits. The trouble is very organization-dependent. Sending an email to Bitpay asking to be hooked up with a direct deposit donation address is easy. But the various legal, accounting and ethical qualms depend very much on the scale and structure of the organization. We can use the number of people familiar with an organization as a metric for judging the worth of getting it on board; I think the worth will be superlinear in that metric. Item 2: "Choice paralysis"... a study should be conducted to quantify this claim; possibly a similar study has already been conducted and has been published somewhere. But on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia does not worry too much about this as they already except payments through moneybookers.com (Skrill). In other words, this argument is a smoke screen. As a community, we should incur the cost of this study (i.e., testing), not Wikipedia. And this study should be unbiased and published appropriately.
By Jimmy's word, which I believe, they have made such studies, and they do A/B testing for each new method they add. I don't know if they're willing to share the results of these studies. I agree this seems odd given that they accept some esoteric donation methods, but they say these has been tested to increase total proceeds. I agree completely that we should offer to sponsor research on including Bitcoin donations, but the current pledged amount isn't sufficient for that. Importantly, having a separate, orphan Bitcoin donation page will cause them less trouble in this aspect, and is satisfactory. Item 3: Being switzerland is just good policy... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it. And you may never really know the real reason why. It may be that buying Linden dollars on Second Life with real money makes some people's stomachs churn. An ambitious goal will be to explain Bitcoin to them to the point that they're willing to make such a value judgement. A more conservative goal is to convince them that accepting Bitcoin donations would not be such a statement. It may be more valuable to target lower hanging fruit and use the resources on conducting studies to prove our point.
For reasons stated above I believe Wikipedia is a good target. Other goals can also be pursued of course, but I don't think the lessons learned from this are very transferable. As for Wikipedia, I proposed a different approach here... which is basically to use the fundamentals of Wikipedia (i.e., to document history) against itself approach. We can not put Wikipedia in the history of bitcoin right now, but we can put them in as the quintessential charity that does not accept bitcoin. I don't see how going meta can help, and it can also be perceived as WP:POINT. Our method should not be to antagonize the decision makers at Wikimedia. |
|
|
|
What's the possible issue if we install two different software wallet (ie. Bitcoin Qt and Multibit) on the same time in the same machine though?  I don't know of any particular issue with this scenario. |
|
|
|
It's also crowdfunded, which means Mastercoin will probably be developed faster and better. For that reason I don't think it can be considered technically inferior.
The "crowdfunding" method of Mastercoin is questionable, to say the least. Colored coins are supported by both companies such as eToro and volunteers. Maybe you mean conceptually inferior? But none of the colored coin implementations are going to be superior to Mastercoin when Mastercoin has so much momentum.
I mean that the current design of how Mastercoin is supposed to work is inferior. I can't speculate about what Master coin may or may not evolve into in the future. I just think the code written for Mastercoin and the organization around developing it is far superior to colored coin which seems to be stalled in its progress by comparison.
Mastercoin currently has almost no code at all. Code may or may not be developed in the future using collected funds. The code that already exists for colored coins is ahead and is still actively developed. Colored coin doesn't even have a site. See what I mean?
Of course they do, weren't you listening? The old site was bitcoinx.org, now it's superseded by http://coloredcoins.org/ (which, by the way, is now live! Still being worked on though). Edit: I followed up on recent developments on Mastercoin and it seems it's a bit further along than I thought. My points still stand though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
