|
we're seeing a trend here.
apparently some groups involved in Bitcoin development don't see an issue with centralizing bitcoin. This may give us some outward features, but it destroys the basic value proposition of the Bitcoin technology.
If we're talking about block chain scripts that are Turing Complete then certainly we are talking about block chains that potentially require infinite execution time, and likely very long expensive computation times. If we abandon the constraints that currently exist in the block chain scripts then, in order to manage this problem, you must introduce a very complex dispatching environment that is capable of detecting runaway processes and the like. At the LEAST, it will be a total redesign of Bitcoin and processing the chain will be incredibly cumbersome.
thus, in order to achieve this idea, you need to have more centralization. Fact is we already have complex financial contract engines. This isn't a new idea. It would be a new idea if you could do it in a p2p way.
Non-turing complete was a FEATURE it wasn't a limitation that was heroically solved by some uber-genius.
-bm
|
|
|
|
well, in an ethereum contract you simply broadcast the data of your private agreements to the whole world. neat.
where is this explained? |
|
|
|
And Vitalik Buterin has gained his high reputation not by chance. He seems to be one of the brightest minds in the community. what has he actually implemented? the only thing this shows is that is that cryptocurrencies are currently going nowhere, when such drivel can get so much attention. so I ask: where is the source code that does all these magical things? smarts contracts, DAC, ... all of this is simply nonsense the way it is described. and this has little to do with Turing complete languages. Im with you on this. 'Turing Complete' seems to be some sort of totem to attract investors. What I'm not hearing is the obvious problem here- to compute a balance or verify a chain I need to compute several million little C programs with potentially infinite loops? perhaps several billion? It's a huge problem and the various rantings I'm hearing lately about magical 'turing complete' tx scripts don't even begin to address this basic problem. The current scripting language has limits on execution time and processing requirements. If you put limits on infinite loops, then its not turing complete. see: The Halting Problem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problemthere's no 'grey goo' nightmare scenarios here, the scare is that I can put a TX in the block chain(perhaps several thousand) that potentially use all the processor resources of a node. This seems to be yet another episode of the centralization story. -bm |
|
|
|
Remember reading it somewhere it's going to be open sourced on 01/03/2014, but can't find it anymore. To me it's going to take a leap of faith to download and run the anonymously created program without seeing its source code  the source code includes an MIT license file. -bm |
|
|
|
Keep in mind the cost parameters are quite different for a pure PoS block chain. There are little computation requirements, and thus negligible capital requirements. The notion of 'initial stakeholders' takes on quite a different meaning in this context. As long as the code is open source[1] then there is little barrier to entry, and disagreeable initial disbursements are not likely to be adopted(due to higher competition).
Long story short, at day one, the developers are the only ones who invested real-life efforts in this system, consequently they are the only ones interested in not destroying it. More details about my point of view - hereThe proof of stake as alternative of proof of work is discussed almost 3 years already. The benefits are many, most important for me is that children will stop spending money for otherwise unnecessary hardware, hoping that this will provide them prosperity till the end of their lives. You cannot expect that, kid. You cannot expect that the society will provide you with food, drinks, car, apartment, etc, and the only thing you will give in return is 4 video cards set up in a crate. Things don’t work this way. Actually they work but only for a few initial adopters. This is why drug dealers still live with their moms. Better concentrate on education and creating real value. I have to admit your writing made me laugh. I do agree, the trust model of Bitcoin is flawed and it's worth examining. I invented a chain model that uses predefined trust. http://altchain.org-bm |
|
|
|
How do you pay sales taxes?  -bm |
|
|
|
If bitcoin gets into every part and parcel of life like fiat money and you are able to get paid,pay your rent,buy, sell, raise loan and do anything with bitcoin then what is the point and role of BANKS!
With the rise of modern consumer banking [1] most of the public has lost touch with the real purpose of banks. Banks are supposed to act as creditor agencies and they still do, but we erected a lot of insurance structures to prevent loss to savings accounts. I assume youre American(just going by your outlooks) - most of these things were created after the Great Depression. You'll notice today that when you go to a consumer bank, eg. Wells Fargo, they concentrate on meaningless 'customer service', things you neither need nor want, rather than the *bottom line* ie 1) returns 2) access to capital. Modern banks offer virtually none of those two critical things. So in the future, I think there will be something of a return to 'wildcat banking', and riskier- but more profitable banking products. Partially because it's obvious our system is broken and partially because they can't stop people from gaining access to these new instruments. I wrote about how to create a P2P Savings Account and Credit Card here in this paper I wrote some time ago: http://www.altchain.org/?q=whitepapers/paper3.html[1] ie. FDIC and Glass-Steagall Act |
|
|
|
and of course the developers are the initial stake holders as it should be.
I guess the word "decentralized" means nothing to you. Keep in mind the cost parameters are quite different for a pure PoS block chain. There are little computation requirements, and thus negligible capital requirements. The notion of 'initial stakeholders' takes on quite a different meaning in this context. As long as the code is open source[1] then there is little barrier to entry, and disagreeable initial disbursements are not likely to be adopted(due to higher competition). [1] and observationally NXT is not open source. Have a look at Reddcoin though, that's a bit more in the realm of what your considering. |
|
|
|
it's all because General Tso's chicken. get it?  China has a somewhat bizarre financial system. Remember that China is officially a communist country, but they are also an 'capitalism powerhouse'. It doesn't make much sense and neither does their dual-currency financial system. There has been a long history of strange monetary controls in China, for instance there are limits to how much Renminbi you can take out of the country. It's somewhat safe to say they don't want individuals benefiting from capitalism, only officially state sponsored entities. China was one of the first countries to use extra-national digital currencies in any significant way(a kind of transferable cell phone credit was used as cash tender at one point before the govt cracked down on it). Hope this answers your question. |
|
|
|
Sorry mam, but the more I read you, the clearer it is to me that you are talking only bullshit. In fact, I do support all kind of blacklists. One example would be a list containing all the people who I do not take seriously. And you've just got subscribed to this one.  seems you NEVER address my points. |
|
|
|
didn't we already establish that Bitcoin is not p2p? OK - I get you: Bitcoin is not P2P and its value does not come from hashing, but rather from fooling people.. Any other original thoughts you have to share? not really sure what's happened since yesterday, but suddenly seems you're in favor of blacklists? did you get a PM invite to become a second-tier Bitcoin superfriend? Suddenly Blacklists are 'for our own protection'? the technology could go one of two ways: 1) they manage to introduce sufficient controls, then they keep the price afloat, people continue to use thinking it's 'cool' or whatever meanwhile they actually have less privacy than Dwolla, but believe otherwise. 2) they dont put in the controls due to community resistance, and subsequently the price of Bitcoin plummets and all the 'experts' on here pretend that they predicted this all along. |
|
|
|
Now you sound like my TV If you think that the value of bitcoin comes from fooling people and not from hashing, then... well, what can I say; everyone has a right to be wrong But for all I know bitcoins value does come from hashing, because nobody would have trusted a p2p currency that is not properly protected, and only the hashing protects this system, nothing else. didn't we already establish that Bitcoin is not p2p? |
|
|
|
you can't just create value from nothing by computing some hashes. well, the very existence of bitcoin has proven your statement to be totally faulty. apparently you can create value by computing some hashes. but it isn't "from nothing" - it is from computing hashes. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities.
They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them.
And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin.
this only works for so long as BTC is appreciating. Why? Please explain me why it would not work if BTC wasn't appreciating. It does not matter whether the BTC price goes up or down. In any case the miners will do anything to protect it, because they profit in bitcoins. Bitcoin was actually designed with this exact intent and the design is flawless. Well, at least I don't see how it can fail. you can't just create value from nothing by computing some hashes. Typically, when you bring this up, people contend that Bitcoin is 'peer to peer' but we've established that this isn't true. Bitcoin really delivers precisely NOTHING, but there are so many people invested in it, they keep the appearance of use and value intact. Earlier someone responded to my post that 'paypal is valuable', and he's right paypal is valuable, but a paypal that requires massive processor banks isn't valuable at all. This is not really the place where you're going to get a a reasoned argument so it's really not worth putting to much effort into it. There are loads of publications out there that explain why many of the ideas about Bitcoin simply aren't true. Most people here are just trying to get Venture Capital money or make a quick buck somehow. Practically no one uses Bitcoin for real commerce. |
|
|
|
Fair enough, but let's not over-extrapolate. There is significant strength in the network being disparate and decentralised but as we've seen from the topic of this thread, power tends to corrupt and those that are supposedly on the Foundation to advance Bitcoin are, according to the vast majority of commentators on this thread, doing quite the opposite.
If those who are elected by a narrow minority cannot reflect the concerns of the broader majority, perhaps it's time to consider the dissolution of the Bitcoin Foundation or the establishment of another more responsive body that pursues a more egalitarian decentralised agenda. I'm probably not the only independent miner who might vote for that, indeed, it's probably the extension of the 'hard fork' thinking - a voice counter to those courting entrenched financial orthodoxy. You are overestimating capabilities of the devs or any other kind of "elected" entities. They cannot touch the protocol without getting their changes accepted by the miners - at least by 51% of them. And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. this only works for so long as BTC is appreciating. |
|
|
|
The bottom line is,
if any one of you think that any system that is value in BILLIONS of USD is ever going to remain "uncontrolled" you are seriously delusional.
Bitcoin = Money
Money = Power
If not the Bitcoin Foundation, then another.
There will always be a desire and battle to control it.
~BCX~
If its contolled, ie centralized, then its not p2p and functionally identical to Paypal, ie. Worthless. So your inevitability argument doesnt really support a case for bitcoin's use. |
|
|
|
Lol. Ya I agree, I am working on real code. Should be out soon. We also cant overlook that our underlying concepts must be sound as well. Seems many of the projects pretending to be the 2nd bitcoin skipped that part. Re. Osama bin laden, look up the writer John Perkins. Its a good place to start re whats happening internationally. Also Edward Snowden appears to be driven to expose the surveillance machine. Theres lots of layers to it, Israel is a big part of it, much of the surveillance technology is developed there. Also im a big fan of the original Cypherpunks. It's all true what you saying and I couldn't agree more.
But your approach does not provide us with any solutions - does it?
And our job (as bitcoin developers) is to make solutions, not to cry about how hard the environment is...
Of course it is hard - and that is exactly why making solutions to these problems give us so much fun.
I mean: I can only speak for myself, but I'm not really such a unique person - as a human beings we usually all want the same things.
And Osama Bin Laden is for me just a character from a fairy tail, made for stupid people like Mike Haren, so they'd have some point to anchor to... since they are obviously to lame to anchor directly into my ass, which is certainly the point of the resistance that they ought to fight, in order to win this 'people vs. corporations' war.
|
|
|
|
Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use.
Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in. That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Not looking to be a hero, but keep in mind the real software is the ideas behind it. Code is just an expression of those ideas. My general goal is to provide flexible tools for private equity creation. Digital currencies fall under this. Confidence chains is a generalized solution to this problem. Im even hestinant to say anything because the moment I do the peanut gallery badtardizies whatever terminology I use. Ive been in the digital currency world long enough to know what kind of forces your dealing with and they shouldnt be underestimated. Im aware of your work btw, I think alternative bitcoin clients are certainly important. Part of what the big firms are doing is monopolizing knowledge of the open source software. No - don't get me wrong. I'm saying: what do you have to offer that would provide a better anonymity for my coins that the example Bitcoin Fog that charges 2% of my money? I haven't seen anything better so far, but even as for this service I cannot be sure that it isnt run by NSA. All these "stealth addresses" or "coinjoin" - for me it's just some PR bullshit that does not improve my privacy at all. And no offence for the people who came out with these ideas - I believe they wanted well, but that's not a real solution for a bitcoin privacy. Its part of the plan I think. If you THINK no one can see you, then you are more likely to act candidly, and thats precisely what they want. Keep generating technologies that make people believe they have privacy and they never demand the real thing. There is a good case for ECC itself being such a technology. The field is riddled with assumptions and "experts" with layman popular understanding ala Bruce Schneier. Of course if you do attain privacy, you just might be a terrorist or a pedophile. We were warned that this was coming, but not many people did anything about it. Edward Snowden for President. |
|
|
|
Im not even sure mixing even offers that much privacy. In most parts of the civilized world they track all your internet traffic, so given that they can track the ip origin of any tx, thus revealing the real world identity(at least to a degree). By using data mining you can cluster the data with more complete sets, like from web wallets to hone in on virtually any activity on the block chain. St. Snowden revealed recently that they are tracking you pc activity even when its not connected to the internet. Mixing certainly makes it more dificult but not impossible to indentify bitcoin use.
Well, I surely appreciate your skepticism and awareness of the environment that bitcoin needs to live in. That is exactly the approach that people who pretend to develop a privacy for Bitcoin need. But you must admit that mixing services like "Bitcoin Fog" are exactly like coinjoin - except that they are definitely so much better than coinjoin. Though, if you can propose an even better idea, a one which addresses the issues that you have just complained about - man, then you will be our hero! But first show us how it works - because only then we have something to talk about... The other way around (just talk - show nothing) is only a waste of our time. Not looking to be a hero, but keep in mind the real software is the ideas behind it. Code is just an expression of those ideas. My general goal is to provide flexible tools for private equity creation. Digital currencies fall under this. Confidence chains is a generalized solution to this problem. Im even hestinant to say anything because the moment I do the peanut gallery badtardizies whatever terminology I use. Ive been in the digital currency world long enough to know what kind of forces your dealing with and they shouldnt be underestimated. Im aware of your work btw, I think alternative bitcoin clients are certainly important. Part of what the big firms are doing is monopolizing knowledge of the open source software. |
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to help a few dozen companies and fly by night scams profit from a poorly understood potentially flawed payment network?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
