Fair enough. I hope it won't take 1 year to do this  It's not a question of wanting it or not ... I think that most businesses that hold lots of BTC today are doing it, whether they're telling their customers or not.
The blockchain data is public, however, so if they touched the donations we'd notice. But we both digress... |
|
|
|
|
No, it'll work as-is. The alt-chain mints blocks independently of the main-chain (excepting merged-mined blocks where they are both minted at the same time).
|
|
|
|
Do you really want an organization that is supposed to be safeguarding your bounty loaning out the coins for interest? What if a deal they make goes bad? Anyway, I have no problem with you managing it, ripper234, if you can get my 2.5 BTC back. I'd do it myself, but I have a horse in this match |
|
|
|
|
The fee is not a huge issue--they do provide a service that costs money to maintain. Although 5% is a little excessive.
Still, a blockchain.info wallet managed by someone with good reputation accomplishes the same feat with similar risk.
|
|
|
|
Do we set up an btc address or something? How do we organize?
I don't think we need to organize. It's probably best that each person do the donation themselves directly to those that implement the necessary compression features. Otherwise there could be disagreement on how to distribute the pledges, for many reasons... This thread is just to give incentive to solve the blockchain bloat problem. It's up to each individual to follow through on their personal pledges. As a developer seriously considering implementing this, I would prefer someone unbiased (so not me, obviously) organize a blockchain.info donation wallet, or maybe booster.io (first I heard of it). That way I'd only have to collect from one person, and that person risks the ire of everyone who donated if he runs off with the money. I haven't yet thought about what the tipping point will be, but if the total gets high enough I will do this. |
|
|
|
Neither answer is false, but as I understand it, the way the OP wants to structure the tree, it would be possible to both prove or disprove the existence of funds with a simple query to someone else, and trust it with nothing more than the hash of the latest block. Trusting that latest hash would typically require downloading the block headers, but not the entire blocks themselves. What Maged says you can do, you can do, but what Maaku says you can also do, I believe you can also do.
Yes, I should have been more explicit. I interpreted the original question as “what is the minimum necessary action that needs to be taken by a client to verify the status of a TxOut”. Maged's solution is perfectly valid and would result in the correct answer, but would also be more work for the client than is strictly necessary. |
|
|
|
|
If that's your goal BCX, then why don't you use your resources to put up a bounty for proof-of-stake (or similar) instead? Why try to destroy something?
|
|
|
|
When a lite node is trying to check the balance of a particular address, it needs to have downloaded the (pruned) alt-chain and every block of the main chain that have been included in the blockchain since the last alt-chain block.
Pretty much. That being said, keep in mind that this would allow someone to become a full node without much trust while ONLY having to download that much. No, the lite client need only download the alt-chain headers since the last checkpoint, and then can request a path through the Merkle-tree to the unspent TxOut (or the surrounding outputs, if it has in fact been spent). |
|
|
|
|
I have three Radeon 5850's (2x Sapphire, 1x HIS) and one single-slot Radeon 5770 I bought second-hand for a mining rig I have not had time to put together. They are tested and working. The 5850's I'll sell for 15BTC and the 5770 I'll part with for 8BTC, shipping included for destinations within the U.S. (at-cost shipping for international destinations or non-standard addresses).
I'll post pictures later, when I get home.
|
|
|
|
I've been using MPFR for demurrage calculations in Freicoin. It's a software-floating point library that is deterministic and efficient (well, efficiency is relative for what it does). I don't know what your development environment is, but you can probably find a binding. |
|
|
|
I've been reading a few post about people thinking SHA-256 is going to last another 10 years? Not sure where you heard that. SHA-2 will last a thousand years if it is secure. It could be dethroned overnight if a new attack is found. Though unlikely, it could end up that SHA-3 is attacked before SHA-2. Ultimately there should be a set of procedures for switching the community from one hash algorithm to another, but there's really no reason to do it proactively. |
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's bad because it uses energy, I'm saying it's bad because it's not secure (he who controls the hardware and/or money controls the money) and...
That is hardly a weakness--it is exactly where the security of bitcoin comes from! But regardless, although this is an interesting and valuable discussion, it should be held in a separate thread; we have wandered significantly off-topic. Freicoin is and will always be a proposal within the framework of bitcoin-like systems. |
|
|
|
I'm posting here because some people may find it useful, and not everyone reads the development list. I've pushed pull-request #1597, which adds a makefile with commands to build out a VirtualBox VM capable of doing deterministic gitian builds from any machine that can run VirtualBox. Simply do a "cd contrib/vagrant && make". https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1597 |
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't be progress. You can't operate a lite-client with full-node security using an account ledger.
|
|
|
|
|
The design of auctions is a science in and of itself. If the various goals are clearly articulated, there's no reason some sort of auction protocol couldn't be designed to meet those concerns.
George and Gesell used taxation and central authority because that was the framework within which they worked. They were statists/nationalists, and a product of their times. But their basic concept of land ownership could certainly be applied to a decentralized system with a free market approach.
|
|
|
|
|
@Etlase2, @jtimon and I simply don't agree with your conclusions, and we'll have to leave it at that. Let's please leave discussion of your proposal to its own thread.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is about scalability so much as perceived fairness & solving the domain squatter problem.
|
|
|
|
|
A perhaps better alternative would be to have namecoin domains leased instead of owned, and come up for renewal somewhere on the order of 6 mo - 2 yr. They could be renewed by auction with the winner committing the highest (or second-highest) sum, or perhaps by some other means.
In terms of economic principals though, there's been a lot of work done in this area. Googling "land reform" should get you plenty of perspectives. Georgism or Silvio Gesell's "free land" proposals probably best address your concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
@Graet, could you make a wallet for the bounty?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
