|
Is anybody working on a re-incarnation of Blind-bitcoins or anything similar?
I thought that had excellent potential for solving parts of the Off-Chain transaction problem.
|
|
|
|
|
By requiring a monetary system to function as an arm of law enforcement for govt. is placing ultimately impossible constraints on the system to function well as money, the market pricing mechanism, it's primary purpose. The govt. virtual monies, with its now massive attendant financial transaction surveillance apparatus, is a compromised inferior product that the market will eventually abandon when superior monetary products become available and ubiquitous.
I just cannot see how anyone can argue that compromising money with surveillance, law enforcement or other "socially-fashionable" desired properties makes any economic or monetary sense? It is setting the govt. monies up inevitably to fail, maybe that is the plan?
I'm glad Jon Matonis is around to shine his brilliant light in these dark, arcane corners ..... however grotesque the creatures one can sometimes find hiding in them.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the tools to use bitcoin are now reaching the point where people who can "get it" are getting it ... the small (tiny) subset of intersecting disciplines previously needed to appreciate the potential is becoming much broader as the technical barriers to entry are lowered to include a much larger audience ... and the secondary speculative group surrounding that grows accordingly.
|
|
|
|
The most popular way to deliver mail, being SMTP, isn't broken, works just fine, and what you're proposing doesn't solve any problem that SMTP is widely recognized to have. SMTP's default is plain text .... many would argue that is a broken model for a messaging layer on an untrusted network. Edit: it is like someone invented a postal delivery system without envelopes .... and said, "yah, this works fine" .. let's go with fail. |
|
|
|
|
Wow .... pioneering experiment.
|
|
|
|
|
Generally pretty good article for we are at in the adoption curve i thought.
The comments are quite illustrative also. Still a big range of opinions, from outright disgust (likely a manifestation of freaked-out denial) to pumped up exuberance.
" A deer in the headlights" reaction hasn't shown itself as far as I can make out ... but surely it must have gotten some people involved with money and finance wondering? ... like when the water-goes-out-before the-tsunami kind of curious wondering maybe is all this stage?
|
|
|
|
Concerning Namecoin, I would love to integrate it with Bitmessage; non-human-friendly names are a big complaint. But I would want it to be able to actually scale- which means getting a name would have to cost a non-trivial amount of money. And my next concern is that if 30 million people each generate an average of 4 named addresses, the Namecoin blockchain would be 4 GB of raw data- without counting the overhead. As for worry about Namecoin because of the blockchain implications, can't computers handle a 4 GB file? And don't we only need a few computers downloading and verifying that information for the system to work? As to the non-trivial name costs issue, namecoin enabled bitmessage namespaces will take on a value as soon as people want to use them. Secondary markets in BM-names might need to be established somewhere to allow for trading already allocated names. There are a few ways to do this, none of them implemented yet though. You could do it like electrum and have a group of semi-trusted namecoin_DNS servers that are queried for name-BM-address look-up information (in fact electrum in written in python also so maybe some code can be used directly from there and implemented in bitmessage). Other people have talked about a SPV (i.e. lite) version of namecoin client. In the end though, as it exists right now the namecoin blockchain is relatively small, and as was the same for bitcoin at that stage if you are going to be worrying about what to do if your system becomes immensely successful in the future then that is a nice worry to have, but should stay in the future. The problems can be addressed so probably don't need to be right now. The biggest job I would concentrate on would be upgrading the existing namecoin client with useful recent mods from bitcoin ... and keeping it up to date with the near future ones which address scalability specifically, not huge tasks. |
|
|
|
|
So the "Puppet" wants more taxes to fix up all the problems caused by too much debt (which isn't really a problem cause we all just owe it to ourselves anyway).
Gee, I guess I didn't see that one coming from the name-caller economeister extraordinaire. More govt. spending, more taxes, more indebtedness, more money printing, more bankster bailouts, you really are truly a Puppet of epic proportions ... it's simple really. "Communism isn't so bad, just trust us."
Utterly, completely shameless and corrupted in thought. Keep going though, I want to see how red your underwear really is, as you are hoisted royally on your own petard.
|
|
|
|
...
If/when we get to $60/BTC I will consider it a success.
...
How did you get to $60 as a success case? Personally, I don't think the price is stable medium/long term anywhere between $10 and $500. Guess that makes me one of the "all-or-nothing" theorists around here. I suppose the only case that could put bitcoin in the middle of that range, in my opinion, is if there are a number of cryptocurrencies all with their own unique benefits, but also some amount of utility overlap. Could happen, but I think it more likely bitcoin with either incorporate anything new/better itself, or be completely superseded. I think these are interesting considerations but since bitcoin has fixed supply then can't be contemplated in isolation to the total Money supply bitcoin represents. E.g. bitcoin total supply is around $300 million now, so any billionaire thinking of jumping in has to keep that in mind but a little guy with 1-10 million can probably move in without making too many waves or getting shafted ... at $60 bitcoin ... ~ 6-700 million total bitcoin MB then i think is when we have to watch out for govt. moves. They let e-Gold go until it hit aroun $800million to $1 billion in total assets, for bitcoin that would be at around $90-$100 per bitcoin valuations. Further out there, if bitcoin were to become Paypal competitor we are looking at $20-$30 billion total assets, so around $3,000 per bitcoin valuations. |
|
|
|
[...]
Phelix: doublec and I were discussing this (over bitmessage as it happens) ... we could store bitmessage address in its own namespace in namecoin blockchain ... e.g. "bm/" namespace $ namecoind name_new bm/phelix $ namecoind name_update bm/phelix 'bm:oonwienfwna1244nfon aIKNneid' or similar. Then we need a small piece of code, or an extension to bitmessage that looks up names from contact list inside bitmessage and pulls out the relevant BM-address from the namecoin blockchain. I think the really cool part about this is you could have the code automatically generate new BM-addresses as often as you like and update the namecoin record at the same time. In this way, you can have your BM-address changing regularly for security, as suggested by BM author, but keep the name, i.e. bitmessage email address secured by namecoin blockchain in human readable form. If you need higher security and change addresses often you will incur more nmc fees and vice versa less security, less fees; you will pay for the security you get, in nmc fees. Namecoin and bitmessage will work well together since they both solve different elements of resource allocation. Hmm I was thinking about directly using the namecoin keys a name is attached to (== bitcoin key) as encryption keys... (edit: note that this is a piece of cake with Atheros' libs) Maybe. Although it doesn't gain you much and makes things more complicated, e.g. extracting the priv. key from wallet ... and then particularly changing encryption keys regularly. Also I'm not intimate with how bitmessage works but I know Artheros is using separate keys for signing and encryption. Namecoin/bitcoin private keys should probably be kept for signing and not used for encryption as much as I've read about best practices ... icbw. |
|
|
|
In the past 3 months, the innovation coming to Bitcoin and bitcoin-related services has accelerated.
I have to disagree, with this statement, I still think the innovation is pretty stale in the community. I think most people just want a easy site to code and to great rich quick. I have only seen a handfull of sites/businesses that have really impressed and look like they were thinking out of the box. I think we have a lot of creative hurdles to get over and I think the people that see that can capitalize on it. Otherwise the article was a great read, I really liked how you compared VOIP and Bitcoin in the sense that a business would use both to save money and adopted. I think that gives a good analogy to how Bitcoin works for businesses that can harness it's power. -1 for misguided whinging. If you are so brilliant to be able to stand in judgement of all those others working away out there (it seems to be a hobby of yours on this forum btw) ... whytf haven't you got your own show on the road?! Edit : forgot to say nice job to Tony for the article ... good to see a mech. eng. from GIT out there 'making coin'  |
|
|
|
Why not make it so one can use a Bitcoin address / keypair for messaging?
Bitcoin and Bitmessage keys will be interchangeable. Today I coded the key generation sections; Bitmessage will even save keys in Wallet Import Format. However Bitmessage will use two keys- one for encryption and one for signing. Thus Bitcoin addresses (which are only a hash of a signing key) wouldn't be sufficient for Bitmessage. It seems to me that Bitmessage addresses could be turned into Bitcoin addresses but not the other way around. This is gonna be cool. Now you could store those Bitmessage/Bitcoin keys in a namecoin 'alias' namespace http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Aliases and have the Bitmessenger client just send to a human-readable name from the namecoin blockchain ... voila ... end-to-end secure, autonomous look-up, authenticated, human-readable messaging system. That is a good idea isn't it! Unfortunately, I asked a 'hero member' (I forget who) on IRC about this possibility and why no one was doing it with Bitcoin addresses yet and he said that Namecoin is "more or less dead now. pretty much abandoned by its creators... it's been sort of spammed to death because they massively lowered the cost to get names, so there is effectively no anti-dos in it anymore." Though that may be gone, the very notion that it could have and would have worked means that I personally believe that someone someday will come up with a way to link human-meaningful names to non-human-meaningful data (like Bitcoin and Bitmessage addresses). Then we will have solved Zooko's triangle!please note that namecoin has solved this problem like two years ago I am only now realizing the implications of your project. It's like you took two steps at once. I posted about the first step here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145098Phelix: doublec and I were discussing this (over bitmessage as it happens) ... we could store bitmessage address in its own namespace in namecoin blockchain ... e.g. "bm/" namespace $ namecoind name_new bm/phelix $ namecoind name_update bm/phelix 'bm:oonwienfwna1244nfon aIKNneid' or similar. Then we need a small piece of code, or an extension to bitmessage that looks up names from contact list inside bitmessage and pulls out the relevant BM-address from the namecoin blockchain. I think the really cool part about this is you could have the code automatically generate new BM-addresses as often as you like and update the namecoin record at the same time. In this way, you can have your BM-address changing regularly for security, as suggested by BM author, but keep the name, i.e. bitmessage email address secured by namecoin blockchain in human readable form. If you need higher security and change addresses often you will incur more nmc fees and vice versa less security, less fees; you will pay for the security you get, in nmc fees. Namecoin and bitmessage will work well together since they both solve different elements of resource allocation. |
|
|
|
|
Open Transactions can do recurring payments, and invoicing.
It would simply require the wallet service to implement an OT layer between bitcoin and the web front end.
|
|
|
|
I think we need to open a bitcoin fund that will open short positions on Western Union Co (NYSE: WU),paypal and other credit card companies not to profit just to make a point...
Heh ... maybe not poke the hornet's nest too much just yet. It will be delicious enough just watching them refuse to adopt, even as we eat their lunch in front of them. Edit: I guess we could always run a book on betsofbitcoin to see which major bank adopts/offers bitcoin services first. |
|
|
|
Hah, I think he was just trying to get a chuckle out of the masses.. most people still don't understand why that's funny/not possible.
They can, if they know where you live. Even if you have a brainwallet, they can resort to torture. ... this is where someone says something about "prying bitcoins out of my cold, dead brain" |
|
|
|
If everybody knows "The Innovator's Dilemma", why do they act like it's not true?
lol, this is so true. It's like people cannot help themselves. |
|
|
|
http://www.claytonchristensen.com/books/the-innovators-dilemma/Many of you may have read this book, with it's central thesis being in a nutshell When big companies fail, it’s often not because they do something wrong but because they do everything right. Successful businesses, Christensen explained, are trained to focus on what he calls sustaining innovations—innovations at the profitable, high end of the market, making things incrementally bigger, more powerful, and more efficient. The problem is that this leaves companies vulnerable to the disruptive innovations that emerge in the murky, low-margin bottom of the market. And this is where the true revolutions occur, creating new markets and wreaking havoc within industries. I wonder how applicable it is to the case of Bitcoin and the banking/payments industry. The banks are hugely profitable right now, and appear to be doing everything right to look after their wealthiest customers and profit handsomely from the high-end margin share of the market, e.g. govt. bonds. But are they ignoring the "disruptive innovations" that are occurring in the murky low-end of the market that will ultimately cause them to fail? It seems it might be we have a textbook case example for the The Innovator's Dilemma happening right before our eyes. How long can the banks ignore Bitcoin before it will be too late for them to avoid failure by obsolescence, months, years, decades? Which banks will be most likely to provide bitcoin services for their "low-end" market share first, small regionals, mega-banks, S&Ls? Or will they all be too rule-bound by regulations and red-tape (much of which they crafted themselves to stifle competition) to even attempt incorporating bitcoin technology innovations into their systems?
|
|
|
|
It's still important to note that none of these big sites accept BTC directly.
that's just an implementation detail of those sites though. should Bitcoin become popular enough so that they can spend them themselves for hardware etc, they will less and less need those payment providers. Yep. In the longer term big sites might have a sys admin and a payments (bitcoin) IT personnel and do away with a banking/accounts flunky or two ... accepting bitcoin directly. |
|
|
|
Yet you are surrounded by ample evidence in the current era to the contrary. The debt-based monetary system has led to the obviously unsustainable position that all economic output, global GDP is now being consumed up by interest payments on outstanding debt,. Thats nonsense. Interest rates and thus payments are lower than ever ..... then you are an idiot. Bitcoin is far in advance of any monetary product on the market today In some practical aspects yes, but the principle of a currency based on a rare commodity is no different than what we have had for millennia. Okay, name-calling tells me that is the end of the debate ... and you just run out of arguments I gather. So PUPPET who is pulling your strings I wonder? Are you against monetary freedom also like the other facists trolls that are showing up here lately? .... bitcoin is no different than what has been around for millenia, uh-huh, oh yeah, right, gotcha. Monetary Freedom, welcome it into your socialist enclave today! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
