WE know many of those pieces, and we OWN the Korean bearing market in Peru.
A mini-monopoly, close anyway and for now (as China edges into these markets)...
That is arbitrage which is a Knowledge Age vocation. How many times have I said programming is not the only (or even 1/100th of) the vocation(s) in the coming Knowledge Age. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2011/11/55-jobs-of-the-future/ |
|
|
|
it's not clear that today's environment of a small number of full trustless participants (full nodes and pools)
You've consistently stated incorrect technical conclusions upthread which I have corrected. I won't even bother to unravel your convoluted errors on this one... I suppose that is why this thread does not exist in "Development & Technical Discussion" because it would be moderated so heavily because most of what is written in this thread is technical nonsense. If your argument is not (unwittingly?) intended to obfuscate that you want a centralized Bitcoin that is controlled by vested interests, then just state it rather than attempting to hide behind your lack of appreciation of all the technical and economic issues, such as but not limited to out-of-band incentives (game theory) which invalidate the Nash equilibrium and the notion of "trustless" centralized full nodes and pools. If you are intending to couch behind the "it's not clear" meaning you have have no point, then please admit it rather than use your uncertainty as an argument for one side of the debate. |
|
|
|
Though back to your question, if you've given up on spinoffs as a salvation-- what do you think is going to make Bitcoin competative against the eventual altcoin that actually gets the formula right and makes significant, no compromise, technical advantages over Bitcoin--- and probably doesn't bother to cut you in on it? Keep in mind, most of the people we hope will some day use Bitcoin haven't even been born yet.
I doubt we will have to wait that long. I believe I am in possession of a significant component of that formula now. Fortunately because of pegged side chains even (if only via federated servers), this formula should be coming to all those who HODL BTC. Cypherdoc, you are a fool for fighting futility against[1] what is going to save your BTC a$$ BTCutt this year.Gregory, this block size debate is really just noise and it will be subsumed soon no matter the outcome. Therefor my suggestion is just let them bang their pots and pans together (they must be Italian, lol) and carry on with your important work please. Also there are bigger picture network effects that have a more high level relevance to decentralization ecosystems. I haven't fully digested the Blockstream whitepaper. Would you or anyone be so kind as to clarify how pegged side chains won't be prone to fractional reserve debasement: ... Assuming debasement of BTC can be cryptographically prevented (but I can't fathom how that can be possible in a decentralized context  ... however I haven't yet entirely digested the Blockstream whitepaper), then I don't see how you justify your claim that Bitcoin might end up supporting altcoins? (actually I see another way, and it appears to be a win-win paradigm for all involved) Are users going to be expected to trust peer review of the open source of each side chain to know whether the side chain debases its pegged monetary unit? [1] Or unwittingly conflating your irrelevant fight for block size increase when you ad hominem the devs of the pegged side chains tech you will de$BTCerately need to deal with a black swan.
for the thousandth time, 1MB was a temporary patch to counteract DoS on the network when it was small and vulnerable. today is quite different, which goes to your pt that things have evolved for Bitcoin to easily remove that artificial limit to allow for the inevitable growth that will come in the next spike. cramping it at 1MB, which was never meant to happen, is the height of hypocrisy. many, many ppl including in the technical community that i see here and on reddit feel that the limit should be raised. everyone who works in SV understands that rapidly gaining mkt share via the Uber and AirBnB model works and is crucial to outrunning regulation. your small block theory is the epitome of centralization forcing all users off the mainchain and into offchain solutions, some more centralized and regulated than others.
This argument even exists because either direction on the block side decision is flawed, that is if we only are stuck with the current PoW algorithm. But pegged side chains enable the ability to transfer BTC value to new consensus algorithms (and not just variants of PoS) that paradigm shift out of the mutual annihilation scenario. |
|
|
|
It would be cool if Pacquiao talked about Bitcoin for their citizens since he is the big voice in Philipines. Unfortunately im sure he'll never find out about it since he is far from the tech-geek circle which is basically where Bitcoin still lives, but we will get there slowly.
I can go visit him perhaps at his gym once the latest media frenzy over his Mayweather fight (and possible but unlikely rematch) dies down a bit. Given I am into boxing and I can speak his native dialect, maybe I might gain access to workout in his gym and get noticed enough to happenstance a meeting. Given my blindness in one eye and my athleticism at my advanced age (50) and my long history in Mindanao, this might be the recipe to gain access. Also I know how to joke with and appeal to the feelings of "family" or "best friend" of Filipino culture. Several years ago I could have easily done this and I even drove by his house, but wasn't into training boxing then. I actually noticed Pacquiao back in the 1990s on local television and noted to myself that he was going to be a world champion. At that time it would have been trivially easy to meet him and I had visited General Santos at that time. |
|
|
|
coins.ph and BuyBitcoin. Both appear to be well operated, economical, and offer normal exchange
what's the daily volume of these? IMO, Localbitcoins is the biggest Bitcoin exchange (in terms of volume) there. Both coins.ph and BuyBitcoin are relatively new, and most people are unheard about their services. I was told this week by Localbitcoins that the BTC trade volume is greater than China and on the order of Spain, but higher BTC per trade i.e. fewer trades. |
|
|
|
http://www.infoq.com/interviews/bracha-javascript-futuretalking with Gilad Bracha. He works at Google and he is currently working on Dart. He is best known as the co-author of the Java language specification. Gilad, your keynote today was called “Whither web programming”. Can you tell us a little bit about the title of your talk and summarize it?
Sure. The title was a bit of a pun which I am sure nobody got which is the way I like my puns to be. Basically, the point is where is the web going or where it should go in the future and also the idea that there is a risk if it does not address these issues that it might not be as dominant or as popular as it should be as a programming platform in particular because of competition from app stores and things like that which have certain advantages, in particular with respect to the ability to reliably install an application. So, the web has this great advantage of zero install, but it actually does not have a way to reliably ensure that that application is there for you offline or when the network is slow or unreliable, etc, which is an added feature as it were that is one of the weaknesses that I was talking about.
What direction is the web going in? What is the best-case scenario and what is the worst-case scenario?
I guess the best – let’s start with the best – the best case scenario is that a series of missing primitives that would allow a great variety of programming languages to be implemented efficiently on the web, get standardized and put into all the browsers in a relatively quick manner. I mean it is a standard process and it does take time. There already is this flowering of all kinds of programming paradigms on the web and I think that is a good thing. I think that mono-lingual platforms either become multi-lingual or they die. Look at the JVM, for example. If we do that, then the web will evolve into something where you really have this ideal combination of the advantages of the network and the advantages of an independent client. So, things will work for you online and offline, your apps will synchronize transparently for you, wherever you go, for multiple devices, your data will synchronize transparently with collaboration and so forth. All these things that the network can enable will work well on the web, in an open fashion, in a standardized fashion. That is what we'd really like to see happening.
The worst case scenario is that none of these things happen and instead you see developer energy focused more on mobile platforms and you get more of these walled garden kind of things like iOS frankly where your ability to innovate is limited but in some sense there are better primitives and they actually become more competitive with the web.
Can you summarize then your vision for the future of the web and the web applications?
Well, I think we want a world where applications can work online and offline as much as their functionality allows. Obviously, if you are accessing some giant database, you may need real access to the network. Or if you are communicating, obviously there is nothing that can be done. But there are many applications where it is plausible to store your data and the application locally and it will work for you offline and I think the platform should make it easy for you to do that. You should be able to synchronize when you are back online and synchronize your application and your data and again, it should happen in a very lightweight fashion, it should be handled as much as possible by the platform so that developers do not have to solve this rather hard problem over and over again. It should produce an experience that is as good or better than any native application does. Gilad Bracha and W. Cook, Mixin-based Inheritance, Proceedings of ECOOP '90.
|
|
|
|
|
OROBTC yes things that need to manufactured in high economies-of-scale are not Knowledge Age directed. But realize that both the profit margins and cost-of-production on such manufacture is declining inexorably and asymptotically towards 0. Knowledge Age activities are where all the economic activity increasingly resides. I made this point with some data and a chart in one of the two essays I wrote which are linked in the opening post of this thread.
|
|
|
|
If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.
This is really what MRL-0004 deals with (the section on Temporal Association attacks). A lot of this changes with the recommendations MRL4 made, which will come in a hard fork later this year (once we've established a forking strategy, per this forum post). I don't check this thread, so if you reply and don't hear back from me in a couple of days just send me a PM nudging me:) The MRL4 imperfect heuristic mitigations notwithstanding, the only absolute solution is to require that sets of outputs be mixed with and only with each other (and the number of inputs per ring must be constant). This also enables pruning the Cryptonote block chain. There I have just given away one of my prior design "secrets" (that I no longer need to keep secret because I stumbled onto a consensus network design which no longer needs pruning and is transaction technology agnostic). Perhaps others already suggested this? P.S. for those who have already spent their coins to a third party, your hard fork will come too late. Hope you can make necessary improvements sooner. The following should have been implied, but let me make it more explicit, which may also resolve the issue with exchanges and getting this fix into Monero asap (although I have not studied that issue, only heard about it second hand). The only sane way my above suggestion can be implemented is that outputs eligible for fixed size mixins must be marked as such by the transaction that created them, otherwise if the fixed size (and outputs) mixins were global then there is no way to merge the leftover change from several transactions into one transaction. I believe BoolBerry had a conceptually similar mechanism to mark outputs with some specific attribute for mixing. So the marked outputs must be mixed with and only with the "next N outputs of same denomination on the block chain" when they are spent. Thus when you want to mix your outputs with assurance against unmasking due to Combinatorial Cascade and Temporal Association, then you mark the output for fixed size mixing. In my opinion, this is an emergency fix because afaics the anonymity is broken as it is now, but I can't say that I've done any deep analysis on how likely the unmasking is on existing patterns in the Monero block chain. Hope this helps, displays my gratitude to those who rewarded me for my effort during the BCX incident, and most importantly hope Monero can implement it asap because I would like to make my best attempt to create a use case gift to XMR HODLers soon and this fix may be required. Perhaps someone else had already suggested this idea, I don't know. The pruning comes from the fact that if the mixes are fixed size then after N transactions of the same ring have been seen, those outputs (that are inputs to those N rings) can be pruned from the UXTO. |
|
|
|
|
I can't believe that I ran at roughly 5:35 minutes per mile pace for the latter 0.75 miles of a 1.25 mile run, with that latter portion going uphill roughly a 30 meter change in elevation. I've done basically no training over the past several weeks and I thought I felt fatigued and weak going into run. And I had slight pain in my stomach throughout the run, but I discovered some power lurking as I powered through the second half of the run on the steepest uphill portion as I turned the halfway point. Hmmm. Maybe the recent treatments are working.
My half-a-century birthday is this month.
|
|
|
|
I don't know what part of decentralized Knowledge Age you don't get. Mankind is not going to back to the stone age and barter. Sorry.
Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the [capital] or [money] is beloved by the [1‱] because it is [money], or [money] because it is beloved of the [1‱].
(Germaneness mine.) Instead, economically, “you bring their knife to your gunfight” ( username18333). I reiterate my statement. For knowledge capital to trade and invest optimally in the Knowledge Age, we need anonymous, decentralized, micropayments money. |
|
|
|
Perfect. They are forcing gambler's to go anonymous internet and anonymous internet money. |
|
|
|
My efforts now are not about raising awareness. They are about building technology for hiding things. And I have some major insights into innovation of cryptocurrency to make it truly decentralized, scalable, and anonymous (Bitcoin lacks all 3 attributes).
Forsooth, you bring their knife to your gunfight. (But the genius machinates thus.  ) I don't know what part of decentralized Knowledge Age you don't get. Mankind is not going to back to the stone age and barter. Sorry. |
|
|
|
There is no time to waste getting uncorrupted elements of the alt media to expose Bitcoin for what it is. I hope you share the smoking guns you've found with as many liberty minded people as you possibly can. Wide exposure ensures your safety and the safety of your project. Best of luck. No solution for mankind will come from exposing Bitcoin nor any other PR efforts. The masses are going into the NWO and they will drag everything that can't be hidden down with them. My efforts now are not about raising awareness. They are about building technology for hiding things. And I have some major insights into innovation of cryptocurrency to make it truly decentralized, scalable, and anonymous (Bitcoin lacks all 3 attributes). If you want to survive the Dark Age coming, you will need to be proficient in these technologies for hiding your wealth and sources of income. The independent minded people you see in Colorado will jump to comply with NWO directives for as long as they can keep their lifestyles 90% intact. Let me show you my equation for the slow burn: 0.90 ^ n Where n = the duration of the slow burn and ^ is the exponentiation operator. Humans comply to keep 90%. Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
But to reach 100k tps will still be tough regardless of implementation.
My design has no theoretical limit on TPS. It will be published this year and I hope within a couple of months. There always is bottleneck as long as there is physics My consensus network PoW design places no theoretical limit on the TPS. Physics will still place a limit else where (i.e. aggregate bandwidth of the entire internet), but that limit won't be at the layer of the consensus network. In short, I don't see any practical limit yet, but I caution there has been no peer review. And I've been pretty much overloaded while making this discovery, so it is possible I've overlooked a flaw. I don't think so. The one flaw I'm contemplating is how to set the minimum transaction fees to avoid a Sybil attack while retaining decentralization of that adjustment. But Bitcoin has the analogous dilemma in that if block size is unlimited then attacks are possible (unless also set a minimum transaction fee) and these constants are not set with a decentralized process. So at least my design seems to have the potential of a great leap forward, even if the Holy Grail of decentralization will never quite be entirely devoid of politics. |
|
|
|
One of the reasons I think it's important to be cautious here is so that we can have CT (or a superior successor technology) in the Bitcoin network and not just in a sidechain.
And when the 50% attack has been rendered impossible by some new design, then it no longer becomes necessary to retrofit the Core Bitcoin network. That will radically alter the impact of what you are about to unleash. |
|
|
|
Changing the supply limit fundamentally destroys bitcoin, but increasing the blocksize limit is absolutely needed to make it successful.
Oh the strawmen strive for a world with only two opposing choices. |
|
|
|
If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.
This is really what MRL-0004 deals with (the section on Temporal Association attacks). A lot of this changes with the recommendations MRL4 made, which will come in a hard fork later this year (once we've established a forking strategy, per this forum post). I don't check this thread, so if you reply and don't hear back from me in a couple of days just send me a PM nudging me:) The MRL4 imperfect heuristic mitigations notwithstanding, the only absolute solution is to require that sets of outputs be mixed with and only with each other (and the number of inputs per ring must be constant). This also enables pruning the Cryptonote block chain. There I have just given away one of my prior design "secrets" (that I no longer need to keep secret because I stumbled onto a consensus network design which no longer needs pruning and is transaction technology agnostic). Perhaps others already suggested this? P.S. for those who have already spent their coins to a third party, your hard fork will come too late. Hope you can make necessary improvements sooner. |
|
|
|
I can't wait for the multitude of sidechain forks that all compete with each other. Sidechains themselves require incentives to operate securely, such as fees and the continued security of the Bitcoin network, so I'd guess we'll start to see a lot of the same issues in sidechain space as we do in altchain space. I really don't think there's any difference between the two. You can also issue your own assets already on Bitcoin (e.g. coinprism, counterparty), so the notion of token issuance for use in general scamming will surely appear on sidechains as well. You can't out-technology human speculation in finance.
There is no speculation incentive because all investments are denominated in BTC. Thus this will force consolidation. Unless there are revenue models and/or dividends for side chains. Ah... just like all alt coins are merge mined with Bitcoin to support the entire network hash rate? After Elements adds explicit tokenization it'll be easy for anyone to make a sidechain fork and issue "Sidechain Funbux" on their fork, pre-sale them, etc. But what you've described above is not different than what we already have. I thought you were implying pegged side chains would increase speculation and especially in a way that might dilute Bitcoin more than presently. Bilateral two-way peg also means that Bitcoin might inadvertently end up supporting a number of pre-existing alt. coins anyway; especially since we can now explicitly tokenize them in a 1:1 peg on the elements sidechain and transfer them there.
I am unclear on how pegged side chains prevent a BTC pegged side chain from creating more BTC fungible monetary units than were transferred into the side chain from another BTC chain? Assuming debasement of BTC can be cryptographically prevented (but I can't fathom how that can be possible in a decentralized context ... however I haven't yet entirely digested the Blockstream whitepaper), then I don't see how you justify your claim that Bitcoin might end up supporting altcoins? (actually I see another way, and it appears to be a win-win paradigm for all involved) |
|
|
|
Evil is evil  Communism idealism, dreams are dangerous when you act without thought. Money is nothing but a marker, it allows us to count more precisely thats all really. Pure barter or voluntary sharing as this is framed is a step backwards very simply because its less precise and harder to describe or plan for in a business cycle. Sounds like just somebody who should be respecting or at least examining with a level head ideas in wealth of nations or similar, comparative advantage is a massive thing especially now with global trading. Pure barter across such gaps does not work, or even a plain montary fixed ratio does not work as well as the free flow of money and varied contracts every day. It disables some trade, discourages speculative ventures that might take place; in a small town setting, agrarian cooperative shared resource planning and ideas such as that could be a positive. In short, sharing scales to Communism because it isn't economic. (really if we all shared everything, nothing would get invested and if we don't account accurately, investment can't scale ... well at least this was true in the high fixed capital Industrial Age ... the Knowledge Age should enable the Gift economy ... my point is the system we have now was economically unavoidable because we didn't have the technology to move the real capital to the ends of the network but now we do...). |
|
|
|
Because I am not up-to-speed on communicating with the Monero devs (on Github or other back channels), and because my efficiency is my utmost priority and given posting in this forum is the most efficient way for me to communicate my thoughts to all that follow me, I will post this somewhat out-of-band comment here in hopes of getting a response from smooth (or if need be tacotime or fluffypony).
I do not have time to read various Monero research papers and otherwise dig to see if the following concern is already addressed.
I am concerned about a hole in the anonymity of Cryptonote ring signatures. I had sort of described this issue to smooth (who apparently relayed it to all) when I was contemplating ways that BCX might unmask the anonymity of users. I do not recall if I made this specific weakness explicit as follows.
If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.
Combinatorial trees can be searched as well, thus even if only some of the other inputs were outputs created after the said input was created, this could cascade into unmasking the anonymity or at least reducing the anonymity set. And note the anonymity set also vulnerable to further reduction by out-of-band attacks such as IP de-obfuscation, rubber hoses, stolen private keys, hacked users, etc.
There are some tweaks that need to be made to insure the above is unlikely. Hopefully Monero is enforcing some restrictions already on which outputs can be used in ring inputs? If not, they need to get on it pronto.
P.S. for those who thought I wasn't sincerely attempting to help Monero during the BCX incident, I hope the above satisfies you. I think before I had an agreement with the Monero devs (via smooth) not to write publicly all the details of the above weakness in order to give them time to address it. I think they've had sufficient time and I want to make sure this is addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
