1. A message digest produced by a cryptographically secure hash function cannot be run through the algorithm in such a way as it reproduces the data that used to generate it. Therefore, the data hashed by one or more of these functions for the sake of fulfilling an X-coin network's requirement for transactions' addressing their outputs to, ultimately, message digests will not be useful for storing information but, merely, the message digests derived therefrom by practically "irreversible" means. 2. Bitcoin Core for Writcoin™ is a Bitcoin Core derivative specificaly designed to transact digital GE coins over Writcoin™, a network. I see, I apologize for encouraging your trolling. |
|
|
|
|
1. You need to explain to me why I care about the scripts - are you saying that transactions can been erased, that the network will start rejecting ones it doesn't like, or what?
2. I feel like I know less then before, but I'm pretty sure that "Great Empire of Earth" is not something that should show up in technical documentation for Bitcoin, or any other ostensibly serious endeavor.
|
|
|
|
|
If you genuinely want Bitcoin to go up again based on solid fundamentals, then support the use of the blockchain for data storage and messaging. It is the best inherent use for Bitcoin that we have.
|
|
|
|
. . .
"[E]xclusive use of . . . pay-to-script-hash [P2SH] within all . . . transaction outputs" should do it.
Not being a core Bitcoin developer, I don't know what that actually means. Questions that arise from it though: 1. What is a Great Empire Coin, Writcoin, and what do they have to do with Bitcoin? 2. Is the gist of your contention that the core Dev team wants to in some way take control of what we can and cannot spend our Bitcoins on, and vigilantly control our Bitcoin spending based on some "father knows best" algorithm? It means what it sounds like: coins are addressed to hashes (double SHA-256 hashes?) of X-coin scripts instead of X-coin addresses. A miner could also regulate the number of outputs he or she permits a transaction to have. The latter point is of course true, and I fully expect that data transactions will pay their fair portion in miners fees to be seen as worthwhile from a miner's perspective. It is after all only fair. As to the former point though, I still don't really know what you are saying. Also, I really do want to know what a Great Empire Coin is. |
|
|
|
. . .
A miner of bitcoins, or any derivative thereof that has not been made to do otherwise, can willfully exclude the "null data" type of transaction from the blocks he or she mines and still have the blocks accepted.
I personally don't use null codes when encoding data into the blockchain. They may be the right way to go eventually with enough development support, but as you bring up for now it is actually best if one doesn't depend on any unusual transaction behaviors like null codes to encode data. OP_RETURN OP_[bytes of data] [data]
It doesn't matter how you do it, if it's unique enough, it can be filtered out. Note that the transaction below contains the entire Bill of Rights encoded into the blockchain using only the normal methods of transaction formation. How would you filter it out? http://bit-comm.appspot.com/packet/d71e39e493a1eaa4eb7c39e5a34ceb002649315321b3cc6e9ea25fcc765de1c3?expanded=true. . . This software features Bitcoin hard-fork requests such as the exclusive use of both pay-to-script-hash within all (non-data) transaction outputs and the exclusive use of fixed-width, 64-bit unsigned integers in storing block times. Writcoin™, the protocol wherefor this software is a client, utilizes a Proof-of-Work based on transaction tree Merkle roots and short (here, ten second) block times called Proof-of-Wait™, requires coinbase transactions to not have any inputs and to only have one, unspendable output, permits coinbase transactions to originate outside blocks, and permits deficit spending (that is to say, it permits transactions’ total output value to exceed its total input value). Great Empire Coin™ (GEC™) is the state money that is exchanged through Writcoin. G.E. coins are the state money of Great Empire of Earth, are divisible into cents and mills, and have denominations of mega-, terra-, and exacoins. . . . (Red colorization added.) "[E]xclusive use of . . . pay-to-script-hash [P2SH] within all . . . transaction outputs" should do it. Not being a core Bitcoin developer, I don't know what that actually means. Questions that arise from it though: 1. What is a Great Empire Coin, Writcoin, and what do they have to do with Bitcoin? 2. Is the gist of your contention that the core Dev team wants to in some way take control of what we can and cannot spend our Bitcoins on, and vigilantly control our Bitcoin spending based on some "father knows best" algorithm? |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost. When you store or backup some data how many copies do you need. The correct answer is one. The only reason we use redundancy in some form is because failure is a possibility. 0 surviving copies is worthless and 1 copy is maximum value. Since we can't know how, when, or why a copy will be destroyed the cheapest form of insurance is to maintain more copies. The problem is that each additional copy provides a smaller incremental gain however the cost of that additional copy increasingly linearly. The blockchain isn't partially redundant it is perfectly redundant for security reasons. If there are 100,000 nodes you don't gain incrementally much more by having 100,000 copies of your data than you do by having say 100 copies but the true cost is 1000x more. That is a bad tradeoff for bulk storage.
The advantage is that due to the incentive structure, if you want to mine Bitcoins you will have to store all data in the blockchain. This means that while any other web service or data storage company may go belly up and shut down servers when they stop getting an inflow of customers, for Bitcoin as long as mining is profitable your data will always be stored on a large number of nodes which have good economic self interest in preserving it. It is really the only service that can offer that sort of economic guarantee. The number of nodes (100, 100,000, etc) isn't what matters, but rather that Bitcoin nodes are actually getting paid to store data. A miner of bitcoins, or any derivative thereof that has not been made to do otherwise, can willfully exclude the "null data" type of transaction from the blocks he or she mines and still have the blocks accepted. I personally don't use null codes when encoding data into the blockchain. They may be the right way to go eventually with enough development support, but as you bring up for now it is actually best if one doesn't depend on any unusual transaction behaviors like null codes to encode data. OP_RETURN OP_[bytes of data] [data]
It doesn't matter how you do it, if it's unique enough, it can be filtered out. Note that the transaction below contains the entire Bill of Rights encoded into the blockchain using only the normal methods of transaction formation. How would you filter it out? http://bit-comm.appspot.com/packet/d71e39e493a1eaa4eb7c39e5a34ceb002649315321b3cc6e9ea25fcc765de1c3?expanded=true |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost. When you store or backup some data how many copies do you need. The correct answer is one. The only reason we use redundancy in some form is because failure is a possibility. 0 surviving copies is worthless and 1 copy is maximum value. Since we can't know how, when, or why a copy will be destroyed the cheapest form of insurance is to maintain more copies. The problem is that each additional copy provides a smaller incremental gain however the cost of that additional copy increasingly linearly. The blockchain isn't partially redundant it is perfectly redundant for security reasons. If there are 100,000 nodes you don't gain incrementally much more by having 100,000 copies of your data than you do by having say 100 copies but the true cost is 1000x more. That is a bad tradeoff for bulk storage.
The advantage is that due to the incentive structure, if you want to mine Bitcoins you will have to store all data in the blockchain. This means that while any other web service or data storage company may go belly up and shut down servers when they stop getting an inflow of customers, for Bitcoin as long as mining is profitable your data will always be stored on a large number of nodes which have good economic self interest in preserving it. It is really the only service that can offer that sort of economic guarantee. The number of nodes (100, 100,000, etc) isn't what matters, but rather that Bitcoin nodes are actually getting paid to store data. A miner of bitcoins, or any derivative thereof that has been made to do otherwise, can willfully exclude the "null data" type of transaction from the blocks he or she mines and still have the blocks accepted. I personally don't use null codes when encoding data into the blockchain. They may be the right way to go eventually with enough development support, but as you bring up for now it is actually best if one doesn't depend on any unusual transaction behaviors like null codes to encode data. |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost.
Also it doesn't allow for decentralized competition, innovation, and diversity of offerings. Thus it is antifragile a.k.a. the antithesis of resiliency with incremental failure, i.e. fragile. The utility of the block chain is for decentralized consensus. You don't need consensus about which files you want to store in the cloud. It actually allows for an incredible amount of competition. You can store your data on Bitcoin, but you can also store it on Litecoin, Doge, etc. etc... If Bitcoin wants to shut out data storage, Doge can always pick up the slack and become coin #1 among the file storage community. Coins will finally have a sound platform for excelling against each other in the economic arena. |
|
|
|
Blockchain as file storage is a fundamentally bad concept because it is incredibly expensive and the ledger provides a poor compromise between redundancy and cost. When you store or backup some data how many copies do you need. The correct answer is one. The only reason we use redundancy in some form is because failure is a possibility. 0 surviving copies is worthless and 1 copy is maximum value. Since we can't know how, when, or why a copy will be destroyed the cheapest form of insurance is to maintain more copies. The problem is that each additional copy provides a smaller incremental gain however the cost of that additional copy increasingly linearly. The blockchain isn't partially redundant it is perfectly redundant for security reasons. If there are 100,000 nodes you don't gain incrementally much more by having 100,000 copies of your data than you do by having say 100 copies but the true cost is 1000x more. That is a bad tradeoff for bulk storage.
The advantage is that due to the incentive structure, if you want to mine Bitcoins you will have to store all data in the blockchain. This means that while any other web service or data storage company may go belly up and shut down servers when they stop getting an inflow of customers, for Bitcoin as long as mining is profitable your data will always be stored on a large number of nodes which have good economic self interest in preserving it. It is really the only service that can offer that sort of economic guarantee. The number of nodes (100, 100,000, etc) isn't what matters, but rather that Bitcoin nodes are actually getting paid to store data. |
|
|
|
Well that was a nice bounce eh?
We will continue to slide down with about 3-6% per day for the upcoming days, possibly with a hard crash to close the weekend ($100-$175).
If you actually believe that, post it directly in the blockchain as proof of your prediction for all eternity, otherwise you are just trying to cause trouble: http://bit-comm.appspot.com/forum/Predictions |
|
|
|
|
Your current Backup plan is likely dependent on either a counter party to maintain their servers even during a time of severe crisis, or on you keeping your data stored on a piece of physical technology that is liable to break, get corrupted, lost, or stolen.
Storing on the blockchain isn't cheap enough for you to use it to store your several GBs of fun pictures and family videos, but for that core 1mb or so of truly important information that you simply cannot afford to lose, it can be the most enduring and most secure option.
|
|
|
|
Most of you know that I am an unashamed Bitcoin bull and have been so for a while now, but I think we are on the verge of some exciting times. This Bitstamp issue might actually be a huge blessing in disguise. It comes on the cusp of some major advertising for Bitcoin with the widely viewed Bitcoin Bowl and a good presence at CES this week just to name a couple things. Roger Ver is bringing some press on the main page of Yahoo today (and on Business Insider) indirectly for not being allowed in the US, but it is press nonetheless. And these are just a few small things on the top of my head. With the price undervalued right now (which I believe firmly that it is) It won't take much for the price to rebound. That said, I feel strongly it is "when" and not "if" Bitstamp resumes operations, the price will jump and it will surprise all these newbies on the sidelines. When they see the price move as quickly as some of us know the Bitcoin price can move, they will decide to throw some money in because they don't want to miss out. That is how these bubbles begin. It will just build from there. People throw in a little money, they see how much they earn in a week and they throw in more and so it goes. How high will the price reach this time? Well that is debatable of course, but easily back to the ATH we achieved before. So I feel like I am watching a storm in the distance and waiting for it to approach.  Hopefully it is a tsunami and not just a few rain drops. If you actually believe in your forecast, write it into the blockchain to be preserved forever, or you are just blowing smoke: http://bit-comm.appspot.com/forum/Predictions |
|
|
|
|
I've recorded for all time in the blockchain my prediction that Bitstamp is done for, and we can expect few refunds to depositors, if any.
|
|
|
|
Most of the posts made here are mirrored by this site, so there is no point deleting or editing predictions here. https://bitcointa.lk/Predictions recorded using your method would probably last longer than those recorded here though. They will last for all of time, or at least as long as Bitcoin itself survives. |
|
|
|
There are a lot of predictions on this forum, but I don't see much in the way of enduring faith. If you actually believe your words, prove it by writing them into the blockchain. That way they will be stored in Bitcoin forever, for all to see for all time. There will be no running away from your predictions then, and no doubting your accuracy when you get them right. The link below is for the Predictions forum. You need to log in with a Google account (again going back to you standing by your word). It allows you to turn your message into a Bitcoin Transaction, which can be decoded again by anyone who uses the Bit-Comm protocol, which can be found in the About section. The technology is open to all, and your words will be recorded for as long as Bitcoin continues to exist. http://bit-comm.appspot.com/forum/Predictions |
|
|
|
|
Message me if you are interested, and I will send you the current version of the Bit-Comm Protocol, used for putting messages into transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
The single largest issue facing Bitcoin is it's constant inflation, and it's lack of actual Use Value. Before gold was a currency, it was a superb material for making jewelry. The funny thing is that Bitcoin actually does have a really good Use Value, which is to spend it storing data onto the blockchain. The technology is available, and if the world learned how to use it Bitcoin's reach, and value, would skyrocket immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin isn't going to go up again without an actual Use Value. We know how to use Bitcoins to permanently upload files to the blockchain, and if we let the world know how to do this it would start driving up the value of Bitcoin immediately. Why aren't we doing it then?
|
|
|
|
|
Ever since merchants have started accepting Bitcoins, the value of a Bitcoin has only gone down in a hyperinflationary fashion, and for the very good reason that the merchants themselves have nothing to do with their BTC other then sell it back for fiat.
The fact is that up until now there has been no actual real world Use Value for Bitcoin. You can pay taxes with dollars, you can make jewelry with gold, and you can feed your family with options in the corn market, but there is nothing you can use a Bitcoin for to give it a foundational value. So far.
The truth however is that Bitcoin has one giant Use Value lurking in the background, but one that the developers don't like - One can use Bitcoin to inject information into the blockchain, and that information will last for all of time (or at least so long as the blockchain exists). In a word, it would mean you can use Bitcoin to save your files to the blockchain, in an uncensorable and inerasable form.
Blockchain as file storage - it will cause Bitcoin to go back up in value, and it will give us a solid reason to give for why Bitcoin has value in the first place.
Is it time?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
