Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible. It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible.
Of course, the network (or what's left of it) would then be extremely vulnerable to tampering. If there's only one copy, well, you'd better hope the person with that copy either doesn't know how to mess with it or doesn't want to. You would also have to know that your's was the last copy. |
|
|
|
Hmm...
If this happened, couldn't I just pull my miners off of deepbit? It's not like I sent him my GPUS or anything. Once the "rogue code" was identified wouldn't it also be rejected by the community?
Yes. |
|
|
|
We need to get people using bitcoin in every day life!
Yes, but we need a viable smartphone client to do that. Don't you think that this is a bit premature? |
|
|
|
As long as 8 digits isn't a hard limit, there's no problem at all. It's just that I haven't seen the code and I don't know how deeply embedded the 8 digit limit is in the system.
Yeah. The 8 digit limit is only in the official client, not in the protocol. You could write your own client to transfer a tenth or a hundredth or a zillionth of a satoshi if you wanted to. The designers probably chose 8 digits because they assumed that the client would be getting updated between now and bitcoin getting big enough to need more precision. Probably a safe assumption. At present, allowing more than 8 decimal places would really just be a waste of effort and memory. Actually, the limit is part of the protocol, in effect. It's an artifact of choosing a 64 bit integer to store the transaction values. It can be overcome, however. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin only needs a very rudimentary low bandwidth internet to keep going. For the internet to stop working totally and permanently, the world would have to be so fucked that it would be the end of "civilized history" as you put it. In that kind of Madmax scenario, gold too would lose its usefulness for above reasons.
That's a colorful way to put it. And as I have already pointed out, once even one full node is on a satillite in orbit, even the Madmax scenario couldn't kill Bitcoin even if there were no living humans left to make use of it. Bitcoin is perfectly capable of surviving a temporary breakdown of the internet as a result of war or natural disaster. The blockchain is duplicated on millions of machines around the world. It is sufficient for just of few of them to survive in order to reboot the Bitcoin network.
Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible. It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible. A few people would lose their wallets of course but not those who backed them up diligently. For instance, a QR code of an encrypted version of your private key, printed on a piece of paper, even engraved on a sheet of metal, could easily survive an EMP.
For that matter, a copy of your wallet file on a CD-R or a flash drive kept in a steel safety deposit box should be plenty safe from an EMP. |
|
|
|
I would also be one of those non-mining users willing to mine at a loss for the good of the system, should it ever come under attack.
A plan isn't really necessary. A 'watchdog' process needs to be developed to notify users should something strange start to occur. For example, a watchdog process could warn the client owner of the possibility of a blockchain split in progress by watching for a relatively sudden drop in effective network hashing power. This could be done by watching the interval between accepted blocks, and if the time between any two blocks more than doubles this average, flag a warning. If the next one is over 180% of the noted prior average time, confidence in a problem increases. If a third is over 150% of average time, a network split has almost certainly occurred, and users should be aware of a possible double spending attempt.
Likewise, a watchdog process could be set up to look for signs that the blockchain is under attack, such as several consecutive blockchain reorganizations occurring in a relatively short time frame.
couldn't this be automated with a generated alert to the Forum? sure, but not all users pay any attention to the forum today, and most certainly will not in the future. |
|
|
|
i hate when people compare bitcoins to gold... gold has intrinsic value in manufacturing, chemistry, and even as a vital nutrient in the body supposedly.
bitcoin is something beyond gold, gold is an old archaic form of currency that has fallen out of favor.
This is not true in practice. Not only is gold still trading like a money, it's value has nearly nothing to do with it's industrial utility. Silver is vastly more useful in industry, is more rare in a refined state in the modern world, and is one-three-hundredth the market value per ounce. |
|
|
|
i meant. if you had the raw processing power to take 51%.. you could make it 50 different pools of 1.02% so it looked like 50 people held 51%... when in truth it was a single person pulling all the strings.
What would the reason be, for someone who wanted to hurt the network, to go to such lengths if they already had the required processing power? Delay a response from the bitcoin community. If the attacker only had 51% of the hashing power as compared to the running network, he wouldn't have it for long after the community became aware of it. A call to arms would go out for every honest user to generate using any means available, and many would do so even at a loss. This is the 'hidden reserve' capacity of the bitcoin network, and we really don't have any idea how much the community could bring to bear, and neither would any potential attacker. |
|
|
|
i meant. if you had the raw processing power to take 51%.. you could make it 50 different pools of 1.02% so it looked like 50 people held 51%... when in truth it was a single person pulling all the strings.
If you had that much processing power, odds are high that you have many other more profitable uses for it than attacking the blockchain. Like, for example, mining with the blockchain to capture 50% of the coins produced. |
|
|
|
|
I am not interested in publicly announcing my bitcoin net worth onto any public forum, anonymously or otherwise. I would seriously doubt that anyone else will either.
|
|
|
|
|
I would also be one of those non-mining users willing to mine at a loss for the good of the system, should it ever come under attack.
A plan isn't really necessary. A 'watchdog' process needs to be developed to notify users should something strange start to occur. For example, a watchdog process could warn the client owner of the possibility of a blockchain split in progress by watching for a relatively sudden drop in effective network hashing power. This could be done by watching the interval between accepted blocks, and if the time between any two blocks more than doubles this average, flag a warning. If the next one is over 180% of the noted prior average time, confidence in a problem increases. If a third is over 150% of average time, a network split has almost certainly occurred, and users should be aware of a possible double spending attempt.
Likewise, a watchdog process could be set up to look for signs that the blockchain is under attack, such as several consecutive blockchain reorganizations occurring in a relatively short time frame.
|
|
|
|
I just heard about Bitcoin this morning and have spent an hour or so trying to get my head around it.
Maybe it's my age? I'm certainly not stupid and I'm not here to brag but last time I had my IQ tested it was 155. I have a fairly rudimentary understanding of economics and have managed to keep a succession of computers functional for about thirty years - but I really don't understand certain principles which must, I imagine, be fairly fundamental to the function of the system.
You sound like me. I seem to be quite a bit older than the average forum member here, am a long time GNU/Linux user, a lifelong student of Economics, and it took me about two weeks to wrap my head around Bitcoin. For a few days, my brain refused to accept it as real, and I had to keep looking for the trick. But there is no trick, it's exactly what it claims to be. And it's elegant as anything I've ever seen wrought by the human mind.
I have a certain amount of historical understanding of how fiat money acquired its value, albeit based currently on faith. But I don't grasp where the value of Bitcoin originates. If it comes from thin air, then how can it be sustained? If it is somehow the transmutation of energy from my electricity supply, by what process does that occur and how is that value sustained.
Bitcoin derived it's initial value from the early users who, upon studying it, determined that it's virtues would lend it's use well towards being a medium of exchange.
I also allowed a couple of computers to be used in the Seti@home project, so I don't have an issue with the use of networked CPU use. But I don't really understand what 'work' the Bitcoin client is doing - it has been knocking on a ceiling of 100% CPU usage since it was launched.
You shouldn't bother with (generating/mining), your cpu is almost useless to this end. The client, while generating, is repeatedly hashing a collection of recent transactions, attempting to solve a "block" by being the first to find a hash for that group of transactions that is below a target number. The target number is chosen by the system every 2016 blocks in order to make the task difficult enough for the entire network to average one block every ten minutes or so. It needs to do this because the issuing of a block is also how new funds enter into the system in a controlled fashion, as the computer that solves the block gets to keep a reward for doing so. Which is currently 50 bitcoins.
But taking a leap of faith from that, neither do I fully see how/why there should be a 50 Bitcoin credit for every new block other than it being something like a Premium Bond (lottery) which may reward persistent client use.
It's an incentive for users to participate in the network, as the hashing (proof-of-work) system is also how the system defends itself from a malicious brute force cryptographic attack. It is not my intention to be antagonistic or to instigate any kind of combative debate, I simply wanted to convey that to those who designed the system, it may seem perfectly elementary and early adopters and those of a particular aptitude may also find it simplicity itself. I find my own work, some of which involved video editing and prepress graphic design very easy but impossible to convey - I'm not a natural teacher.
No, this system is elegant, but also very complicated. Trust me, it's not you. Or should I just blindly comply as if putting a SIM card in my iPhone - not questioning how it works? Just accepting?
no you should not. The system can be understood, it just takes a while for most to really grok it. Don't put a dime into bitcoin until you understand it. Keep searching the forum archives, read, and ask questions. Once you do grok it, you will be an advocate. Everyone is. |
|
|
|
Wealth is ALWAYS in those things. The little lumps of shiny metal are a medium of exchange. As is bitcoin. And bitcoin does it better, assuming the current level of technology remains functional. But I make no such assumption.
Bitcoin required the Internet to get started, but it does not require it's continued existance to function. If Bitcoin becomes as widely used as the British Pound, or even half as widely used worldwide, then Bitcoin would survive regardless of the Internet because there will be way too many people with a vested interest in it's ongoing success, and many of those people would endeavor to establish new forms of direct peer connections, radio nets, or re-establish existing network infrastructure as a priority. Although we are not there yet, once Bitcoin is mainstream I can't imagine anything less than a nuclear war actually ending Bitcoin. And even that wouldn't work once the first full blockchain node is in orbit. |
|
|
|
... there must be a system that requires no burning of petrol, cause it's bad for the environment. But here's the killer, if I want to redeem my coin for petrol, I spent almost as much petrol making the coin as it's worth. So I get 1 litre of petrol instead of 2. Brilliant.
Well, conch shells it has to be then. I'm off to register conchcoin.bit I'm going to invest in a saltwater aquarium right now. In fact, I'm going to set up a whole *farm* of saltwater aquariums. This is going to be even better than carrots. Use the aquariums for this instead. http://www.pugetsystems.com/submerged.phpHa! I thought about doing something along these lines with askrol oil, which is used as liquid insulation in large transformers. |
|
|
|
Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science.
Provablely false. I am an American, and I am not rich. I have a genetic disease that killed my grandmother at 36, whereas I can expect to live till at least 70. This would not be possible for me if middle class Americans did not benefit from private party medical research paid for by the sick wealthy.
Just because you have a disease that doesnt incapacitate you, does not prove it false. There are thousands of citizens who are incapable of helping themselves, supporting themselves, or even thinking at an adult level. How do you propose some one with severe downs syndrome and no family to speak of... survive without government support? Do you have an answer? Honestly? Do you? I was responding to your claim that Americans don't benefit, I was not claiming that anything was equitable. If your answer is just to let them die in the streets... then please, get the fuck out of my country you heartless bastard. If you do have an answer, maybe you should supply it to ron paul, since he hasn't even mentioned one.
Why should he be obligated to fix all the problems, when the systems that are in place can't do it either? Again, provablely false. The lower class Swiss could only possiblely have access to said medical care if his government would pay for it, and they wouldn't pay for it until after the private party research firm could do the research. It's true that socialized medicine doesn't actually advance on it's own, but it's not true that Americans do not have access to that same medical care. It's just that we are the only market left in the world that is still willing to bear the costs.
Just because the government pays for treating a medical disorder, doesnt mean that medical research comes to a stop. Sure it might slow down because they can't trample all over the citizens and take advantage of them... but If another country can pay for their citizen to undergo a treatment, so can our country. No, we can't. The social systems are free riders, butwithout any paying riders, there is no ride. And if its our country that discovers it, i believe our country should be bettered by it.
We are, every single time. The fact that other nations benefit without contribution does not change that fact. Until we have a true global society, thats always going to be the case. Since I can't go to some other country and recieve treatment.
Actually, you can. But that's another topic that is already off-topic. And who gets to decide this then? Do you really think that plastic surgery or botox won't be required for the "well being" of far too many?
And you really believe that if government controlled what the citizens could use the healthcare for... that they would allow botox?  It might take a decade or two, but yes. As soon as some socialite's self worth is brought up in a court somewhere. maybe you should take a look at current medicare and so forth.... since they sure as hell don't allow it now.
I say that botox is chargable to Medicid Part II. Prove me wrong. Viagra sure is. Also provably not true. There were social safety nets prior to the new deal, they just were not paid for with taxes. They were paid for by appealing to the 'success' guilt of wealthy and middle class Americans. Often it was called "church".
Right because for thousands of years, all those poor serfs were taken care of by the church, the lords, and the merchants... before the new deal there were millions of starving people with poor health... who had no recourse. Grow up and take a look at history, there were no sunshines and roses for the people in poverty, there was no mother Teresa taking care of them in the 1920s. Then don't advocate for systems that contribute to poverty. I'm sure that you don't believe this is what you are doing, but the most significant contributor to poverty in the 1920's was government intervention into the marketplace.
Social security contributes to poverty? thats new. Not really. It's called a "slippery slope", and was predicted before the New Deal even passed, and is true. Have you ever even looked at how much you pay in to FICA? Self employed its a max of 15.30% of your income.... if you are working for some one else, its half that. If you are going poor because of 7.15% then you should probably not buy that big screen TV... And thats assuming these people in poverty HAVE A JOB TO PAY IN TO FICA. Most have only under the counter work, or no work at all... and the few who have a part time job? That 7.15% isnt the problem...
How much of that do you expect to get back? I expect less than I have contributed, adjusted for inflation. That's a loss, by definition. Forced poverty for anyone who could have saved that same money better than the government, which is just about everyone. Then you should support Ron Paul in everything that he does.
right, just because he does half what i want right, but the other half would wreck the country i should vote for him... get real. Until he has a solution to this problem, i wont be voting for him. Whateer, dude. this country was wrecked in 1971. IT just takes that long for the momentem of an entire culture to wind down far enough to tell. It happens to every empire. |
|
|
|
Can't you donate cash to a campaign. If you fill out the same paperwork whats the difference. Though I do see your point.
For all practical purposes, you cannot donate cash to a campaign. Bitcoin makes the autonomy thing even worse for campaign finance tracking, because even if there were a bitcoin donate button that provided you a newly generated bitcoin address after you identified yourself, those addresses never die. So if an opponent wanted to set you up for a campaign lawsuit, all he would have to do is find one of these addresses and send too much money to it. The campaign couldn't keep it, and they can't really return it either. Creates a huge legal mess, so It's just easier (for now) to ignore Bitcoin for campaign finances. It'll come someday. But not yet. Bitcoin's anonymous properties should not be overestimated. Take the second post in this thread of davout for example, his donation address is 1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT , now http://blockexplorer.com/address/1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT shows which address donated to him which amount. If he would have to account for every donation, maybe with an accompanying database linking to each of his receiving addresses, he could easily return an unknown/unmatched received amount (which amount is not recorded as an identified pledge in his database) to the sender's address. Bitcoin is pseudonymous if you choose it to be. The whole link/chain of addresses sending/receiving however will never be pseudonymous and some links will not be pseudonymous, revealing identity now and again. You entirely missed my point. It doesn't even matter if Bitcoin is anonymous or not, only that it's perceived to be. The campaign can't take the risk that they could be challenged on grounds of campaign finance laws. |
|
|
|
You're missing the point creighto.
No, I'm not. I understand your position, perhaps better than you do. It's just not a possibility. It's a waste of effort and resources to impose any kind of "fairness" upon any marketplace. We couldn't keep the advances in medical science within the US if we wanted to. Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science.
Provablely false. I am an American, and I am not rich. I have a genetic disease that killed my grandmother at 36, whereas I can expect to live till at least 70. This would not be possible for me if middle class Americans did not benefit from private party medical research paid for by the sick wealthy. Whether this is the way of the world or not, doesn't really matter. That is how it is, and I would rather americans benefit from our own damn research and money spent. Our insurance, our insane prices of drugs, our incentives and tax breaks... those pay for lowerclass joe schmoe in Switzerland to have that new technology decades before its available to lower-middleclass americans... if they could ever aford it.
Again, provablely false. The lower class Swiss could only possiblely have access to said medical care if his government would pay for it, and they wouldn't pay for it until after the private party research firm could do the research. It's true that socialized medicine doesn't actually advance on it's own, but it's not true that Americans do not have access to that same medical care. It's just that we are the only market left in the world that is still willing to bear the costs.
as for basic health care, that is any healthcare required for the wellbeing of a person. This excludes plastic surgery unless heavily disfigured in an accident and so forth.
And who gets to decide this then? Do you really think that plastic surgery or botox won't be required for the "well being" of far too many? as for caveden. Yes, yes it is about taking the wheelchair out from under someone. if Ron Paul has no plans to implement anything to replace social security and medicare, then when/if he gutted it, those people who depend upon it to survive, will be screwed. Sure the few assholes who try to take advantage of the system will be forced to go out and work for a living, thats all well and good, but the few who /cant/ go out and get a job.. will likely die from starvation, lack of care, or live in poverty from the scraps of donation.
Also provably not true. There were social safety nets prior to the new deal, they just were not paid for with taxes. They were paid for by appealing to the 'success' guilt of wealthy and middle class Americans. Often it was called "church". I never want to see 1920s poverty. If you really think gutting social security and not replacing it with anything better.. is a good idea, you should be ashamed of yourself for what you want to put so many americans through.
Then don't advocate for systems that contribute to poverty. I'm sure that you don't believe this is what you are doing, but the most significant contributor to poverty in the 1920's was government intervention into the marketplace. and again, as for the rest of the government, we don't need most of it, defense can be cut way back, most of the damn departments can be cut way back.. secret projects, anti-freespeech idiots like the ICE shit, the lobbies to promote buisnesses at the cost of americans... that can all go to hell. But i would pay far greater taxes for the well being of american citizens... if i knew my taxes weren't being used to curtail my rights.
Then you should support Ron Paul in everything that he does. |
|
|
|
What stops a large organization or government from simply starting an alternative "BitCoin" and market the shit out of it, making BitCoin a thing of the past. And why don't they, because BitCoins are still relatively harmless (think tax evation, state tax, terrorism (just for marketing purposes), etc). I think once there is a crack, BitCoins will never recover. So because we've been born into an unbalanced sharing of wealth, this somehow makes it OK?  WTF!! If it ain't about greed, then share your BitCoin wealth amongst ordinary people and get them involved in the market place. This should be an enabling technology, not an investment opportunity nor a pyramid scheme. What stops a large entity from competing with Bitcoin? Nothing. But remember that Bitcoin is not governed by anyone. That creates a level of trust unreachable by any centralized organization. I'm not saying that unbalanced distribution of wealth is ok. It has simply been pointed out that Bitcoin's wealth distribution is nothing new. I kindly ask again - is there a better practical alternative of introducing new currency without this injustice inherently build into it? Yes there is, you peg it against gold. There is an established 'early adopter' problem with a gold standard as well. Or, you start BitTulip (BitCoin 2.0), and you make it much harder and slower to produce currency from the onset (barely worth it), and most important of all, you introduce INFLATION into the system to promote spending, not hoarding, and you never cap the total amount of BitCoins that can be produced. If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.
Now I know that you are not the real Peter Schiff, because he would have never written the above paragraph. |
|
|
|
So because we've been born into an unbalanced sharing of wealth, this somehow makes it OK? WTF!! If it ain't about greed, then share your BitCoin wealth amongst ordinary people and get them involved in the market place. This should be an enabling technology, not an investment opportunity nor a pyramid scheme. Are you aware of the Bitcoin faucet? |
|
|
|
http://www.dash7.org/OpenTag%20Webinar3.pdfSlide #47 illustrates the ideal connection structure for Dash7 devices, which is exactly what a p2p mesh network topology such as Bitcoin works well within. An android client that is Dash7 aware can 'mesh' out any transactions that it creates, accepts or otherwise sees via an ad-hoc Dash7 wireless network on the fly. It could do the same for block headers, or even entire blocks, but considering the likely future size of full blocks and the 500-at-a-time that clients request while bootstrapping, it would be more efficient for a Dash7 aware Bitcoin client to turn on the wifi radio in ad-hoc mode to directly connect to another such client in meatspace. Dash7 mode 2 includes inherent relative location data, so even clients that do not have access to absolute location data (i.e. GPS) do know how close to each other they are, and therefore if they are in range of wifi or not. Using Dash7 mode 2, a Bitcoin client trying to send or accept an in-person Bitcoin transaction can either transmit the transaction as a broadcast immediately, wait for a semi-random period of time to do the same, broadcast the hash of the transaction and wait till another client requests it, or any combination of the above in order to get that transaction out into the network. If that Bitcoin client does not have ready access to the Internet (and therefore the Bitcoin p2p network), spreading the transaction out to any other Dash7 aware Bitcoin clients increases the odds that one of those clients will have, or will soon have, access to the Internet in order to get that transaction onto the p2p network.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
