I was watching andreas on bitcoin neutrality and" the other 6.5b" as he likes to frame it. Iran came to mind, if they knew the value of BTC specially under sanctions and massive massive inflation half the country would
convert. Anyone knows anything about the bitcoin community in Iran? Does it even exist large community there or any exchanges exist? Any Iranians working on it?
We get traffic from Iran on altchain.org. |
|
|
|
You are overestimating the privacy that the two features add to your coins.
Stealth addresses - they are only useful for those who'd like to receive funds from people they don't know. If they (like me) did know the people who send them the money, they could have just as well achieve the same level of "privacy" by giving a different payment address to each if the payers. So I don't know about you, but stealth addresses are not going to help me at all to improve my privacy.
And the conjoin - as I had said once: no matter what, always claim that your transaction was a coinjoin transaction, since they are completely indistinguishable from regular transactions, and so: we have all been using coinjoin already, without even knowing it... bear it in mind! Claiming that not all of the inputs and outputs were yours in a certain tx - this is the only thing that matters in the coinjon technology.
I think the real bitcoin privacy can only come from an off-chain mixers. Something like Bitcoin Fog does... But they charge 2% and we cannot be sure whether they actually destroy the logs. But this is definitely a proper way to address bitcoin privacy issues, while stealth addresses or conjoin transactions are not an actual privacy improvements - at least not according to my definition of bitcoin's privacy...
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. |
|
|
|
It's not decisions being forced by the Foundation and I'm tired of seeing it put across like that. It's a discussion and it's a really important one. Here is why:
Imagine Bin Laden is still around.
We find out his Bitcoin address. It contains 10,000 Bitcoins and we can see transactions entering it.
We then see outgoings, some of which are traced to weapons used to kill 1000s of Americans, think a major bomb or subway incident.
Only on page 1 and already see a flaw here - you are assuming Bin Laden was guilty of 9/11 etc yet many of us know that is a lie so this is actually another argument against any form of blacklisting. If you havent figured out yet that the spooks are all over this board and this space, youre not paying attention. If google is involved be afraid. |
|
|
|
Again, you understand nothing. It's about tracking what's happening in a blockchain, and altcoins do not prevent you at all from doing that, as their blockchains are all public and work in the exact same way. Moreover, they have much less tools available to circumvent that. There is nothing more to add.
Zerocoin here we come. The technology im working on has an enhanced privacy model. |
|
|
|
people are downloading all kind of shit-coin software and after some weeks they wonder and scream: "OHH NO, WE ARE MY BITCOINS?! i GOT HACKED  !" This is exactly why I don't touch alt coins. But, I think it would be interesting to see a country decide to make a national coin. For example, what if Ireland decided to creation a national cryptocurrency that is properly mined and has security and all of that. Germany has given a go-ahead to cryptocurrency. What if they decided to create a German currency with a slightly higher miner fee that paid for automatic multi-signature transactions. So, if a transfer is okay with both parties, no one gets involved, but if the transfer fails into mediation, a standard sub-section of the courts collects documents and breaks the tie. That way you don't have to go looking for an escrow agent and they could be a preferred currency for large transactions. Their coin would also probably be shunned by SR type vendors to they could trade as the "clean coin" instead of the "criminal coin". I can certainly see possibilities for Bitcoin-like digital currencies being fully supported and advocated by national governments, but I think the real value is in the creation of trans-national currencies and economic structures that are today impossible. I can't see a national "Westphalian" government advocating for a fully private and anonymous currency. Perhaps places like Switzerland. |
|
|
|
dwolla refused my aud dollars in 2011....I will forever remember this
wait until they install Bitcoin Blacklists and you'll start having the same fun experiences with Bitcoin too. |
|
|
|
neato idea, BUT this doesnt change much. The question is who has the MAJORITY hashing power, giving it to everyone doesn't prevent people from forming pools and profiting from nefarious activity of those pools. -bm I was thinking about the following:
When the bitcoin will become economically stronger in the (near) future, it could spawn the next generation of personal computers. The processor would be designed from scratch and the specification would be completely open-source for anyone to review. The part of the architecture would be also small ASIC miner(s) presented in such a PC.
The OS will be Linux-derived or created from scratch, and the basic bitcoin software will be build in, so every computer will be also the bitcoin node by default, p2pool, wallet and other software will be also pre-installed. Also, all services requiring privacy will be provided by decentralized blockchain, like for example Bitmessage for communication, etc.
To sum it up, it will be something also Richard Stallman would use (free in the FSF sense), and I believe bitcoin could make this economically viable. I wonder what do you think about this idea.
If every new computer had a built in ASIC of the latest design, the majority would probably be the masses. but there is nothing stopping them from teaming up to strategically disrupt for instance. In the original whitepaper the assumption was that good behavior payed off better than bad behavior. Im not really sure that this THEOREM is still intact. I'll grant you that the *probability* of anti-social behavior is probably less if it depends on the choice of average, low information users, but this doesn't strictly prevent it from happening. certainly smaller levels of hashing power could easily be used to disrupt the minor alt currencies. PoW was invented for spam prevention, not really to run a digital currency. |
|
|
|
neato idea, BUT this doesnt change much. The question is who has the MAJORITY hashing power, giving it to everyone doesn't prevent people from forming pools and profiting from nefarious activity of those pools. -bm I was thinking about the following:
When the bitcoin will become economically stronger in the (near) future, it could spawn the next generation of personal computers. The processor would be designed from scratch and the specification would be completely open-source for anyone to review. The part of the architecture would be also small ASIC miner(s) presented in such a PC.
The OS will be Linux-derived or created from scratch, and the basic bitcoin software will be build in, so every computer will be also the bitcoin node by default, p2pool, wallet and other software will be also pre-installed. Also, all services requiring privacy will be provided by decentralized blockchain, like for example Bitmessage for communication, etc.
To sum it up, it will be something also Richard Stallman would use (free in the FSF sense), and I believe bitcoin could make this economically viable. I wonder what do you think about this idea.
|
|
|
|
The same thing could happen with paper money or wire transfer, if you would actually transfer large quantities of BTC you would print up a contract with his public address, it would then be incredibly easy to determine if he received the BTC or not.
not exactly. Using USD as an example, it has 'legal tender' status which means that payments have a certain legal value. If goods or services are not rendered in full, then potentially the cash could be refunded. There's really no such thing as a 'cash transaction' as far as the law goes, it's all binding, just varies in levels of enforceability. BTC does not have this legal status. If someone sends you 1 million in BTC accidentally, then there is absolutely nothing that eg. American courts are willing to do about it. As far as they are concerned you're playing some stupid video game. -bm |
|
|
|
But the community is going to Hell in a handbasket, when I first came here it seemed the average IQ was around 160. I stood on the shoulders of these forums which provided me a springboard forward. This is changing rapidly, downhill.
Discuss.....
in my experience, if you say anything that upsets anyone's little scam business you get called a 'troll'. The scams are popping up like weeds, and all of them are pretending as if they're Satoshi Nakamoto. A small clique of people is maintaining their image of having some kind of monopoly on knowledge of the protocol, because they are the only ones capable of altering the dominant client. This client is a mess of C code and probably is purposefully created to be abstruse and difficult to manage. Most of the cool things about Bitcoin have been either removed or phased out. |
|
|
|
He said the Trust is making the case that bitcoin – often referred to as a digital currency – should be treated as a capital asset rather than, say, a currency or a commodity. That means bitcoin investments should be subject to capital gains taxes. Although some of the early enthusiasts for bitcoin might be put off by the arrival of a taxation regime, big institutions will welcome clarity on the taxation status for the new technology, Mr. Greebel said. "The Trust" is doing what? Are they making decisions about Bitcoin to some entity behind the Bitcoin users' backs? I hope I just misunderstood that. oh yes, Bitcoin users are going to LOVE this new aspect to Bitcoin. The Winklevoss twins said so! |
|
|
|
The only one I'm aware of is ripplescam.org, written by TradeFortress (well, see for yourself how he ended up himself...).
Google is not directly involved in Ripple, it's Google Ventures (which are independent from Google itself) who invested in RippleLabs. They also invested in the Bitcoin exchange project "Buttercoin" by the way, also e.g. Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin core developer and a great asset to Bitcoin works at Google. If you do mistrust them, that's your personal opinion, not a universal fact.
Nice try of trying to derail this thread further ("aside from this"... instead of "Sorry, I was wrong"), I'm outta here to not bump your promotion of your website even more.
not sure if that's an accusation or a threat? either way it seems pretty lame. and I'm not sure everyone views Mike Hearn as a stellar asset to Bitcoin. Seems his idea of 'blacklisting' addresses was unanimously rejected. Google is the center for all the internet spying, Snowden has shown whats going on- game is over. "Don't be evil." LOL. |
|
|
|
Regarding Ripple, It's also somewhat deceptive. They made a few tricky moves regarding their open source status. It's a commercial product and their business model was to sell and market XRPs(similar to Mastercoin). At one point I asked: If Ripple is open source, why can't I just issue a new set of XRPs? XRP2.0? Soon afterwards the project seemed to have faded out of existence. Ripple also has virtually NOTHING to do with the original ideas associated with this name. It's all part of the Googleplex mega-complex, which I will never(and probably can never) be a part of due to my outspoken opinions on the surveillance machine they are running under the guise of 'entrepreneurship' and 'startups'. Thanks to St. Snowden I can now say these things without being branded a mentally insane schizophrenic(which some people in these circles have already tried to do). You can just fire up rippled and will immediately have 100 billion XRP at your disposal. Just like running bitcoind with a non-Satoshi block chain/genesis block however, no other server will accept these. You are free to fork Ripple, the only requisite (similar to Bitcoin) is that you change the name and logo. unless something has changed, you are only free to fork the CLIENT. Secondly it is unclear what sorts of patent protections there are surrounding Ripple. It's not a community project, it's a commercial project. <-- the server is called rippled, it is open source since September last year. You can just ask RippleLabs about pending patents (I'm unaware of any - and releasing source code before potential patents are granted would also not have been a smart move by them...), the only thing that is protected as far as I know is the "Ripple" brand and logo. aside from this there were a number of other criticisms of Ripple floating around. I mean it's related to Google, whom it is quite clear cannot be trusted with anything, certainly not to create a p2p money technology. |
|
|
|
bluemanie, you should open up your own threads, instead of writing about your proposals in several other threads. Also it is obvious to me, that everyone who works on these P2P models has never worked much with orderbooks. because then you realize it does not make sense for the most important markets (stock market, bond market, fx market, commodities market). also, all these empty promises. first right the code, then tell people about what you've done. making wild claims isn't useful. same thing as bitshares & mastershares & OT & etherum. all talk, no code. because it just doesn't work.
I did. the mods moved them to 'newbie' section, even though NO ONE has ever suggested anything theoretically wrong with it(quite the opposite). I get hits every day to the whitepapers on the http://altchain.org web site. I do disagree re. what is the best approach. You can make code that performs some function, but this doesnt prove it is secure or economically viable. There is at least one software system that attempts to take your money claiming to be distributed exchange that is anything but. I want to avoid this perception as a scam, and there are many scams in this particular area. I will follow up with you in email. |
|
|
|
re. Color Coins, there is an not exactly an atmosphere of information accuracy on that list. There's a clear tendency to misname things, make claims then retract them etc. That's all I'll say officially because basically I don't have the resources to 'go to court' on this, I'm just working as an open source developer.
the ETA is very soon. I have most of the basic stuff finished, just need to complete the Kernel which is the code that decides which blocks go where given the transactions the node knows about. There is definitely more than one way to do this, and there are strategies for optimizing, perhaps even strategies for exploitation(not unlike Bitcoin). When this is done we will have a Distributed Exchange.
What do I mean by Distributed Exchange?
here we mean a way to exchange assets that has no specific center. It is comprised of N nodes, and if any given node is disabled(either by legal or technical means) the exchange is not shut down and users access to the ledger(their account) remains intact - similar but not identical to Bitcoin. Secondly the ORDER of the transactions(such as POST and ACCEPT exchanges) is determined by this congress of nodes. This sort of functionality is impossible with PoW systems.Thanks for looking it over, I will announce when it's at point for early adopters ie. technical people.
-bm
Can you explain this statement? Doesn't Bitcoin already preserve the order of spending by making sure that there is a chain of transactions? How does the congress of nodes enforce order in transactions? Also, exchanges need to be lightning quick. How do you do this on a peer 2 peer network where different peers see different transactions occurring? Is this open source? there's a fairly detailed discussion on it here: http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=95845&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=4Confidence Chains is much faster than bitcoin because there is no hashing. The exchanges should run very fast in most cases, but latency characteristics depend on a number of factors(how the nodes live in the network, number of assets and transactions on the chain etc.). yes, it will be open source. ADDED: it's written in Java. Crypto uses JCE so it's possible to swap in whatever crypto you want(bouncy/spongy castle). Also possible to set your own EC curve, or even swap out ECC altogether(in favor of some other kind of DSA). There seems to be much discussion about the security of NIST curves, and in order to avoid any liability regarding use of strong crypto, I leave that up to users. for now I'm conforming to bitcoin crypto standards. Also I use the base58 encoding for addresses. at one point exporting software in the USA with an EC curve that exceeded some parameter was actually illegal and considered arms export. |
|
|
|
I will grant that there may be some perceived advantages to this. But what this trust model ignores are the risks and long term costs of PoW systems. I've already explained the drawbacks many times, they are in the record. No one will be convinced of anything until they observe the effects themselves, so it's not very much worth spending time establishing these theoretical concepts over and over again. I was supportive of Color Coins in the beginning, and I still like the basic concept- but the people involved with the project currently I dont associate with. They've repeatedly made unreliable and false claims and there is no attempts to rectify this or even acknowledge it. Thus you really have no idea what you're listening to with these people. Note also that IBM is involved with the Color Coins model. I think they see the potential to sell more hardware, but that isn't based on their own official statements.
just keep in mind that last time I explained why Open Transactions doesn't live up to it's claims I was attacked by Chris Odom. I spend several months working with this character along with a number of other people. I have the records to prove this. AMOF, he *stole* the monetas.net domain from me. This board just isn't an environment where you can get facts easily.
Given that, statements made about Open Transactions are largely untrue. It is not decentralized. It is a client-server system that uses crypto in a fairly straightforward way. It also has an unintegrated Chaumian E-cash component that was added by way of Ben Lauries Lucre library. This component does not work with the other parts of Open Transactions. Mind you, OT has NO REAL WORLD USERS. I don't take this project or Chris seriously. Also Chaumian cash, while theoretically sound I don't feel is very relevant today. The problem with it is that it's not decentralized, thus can be shut down. OT exhumed Chaumian cash, made the suggestion that they changed or improved it in some way(he didnt), and presented it as a novel new idea. I also sometimes wonder if David Chaum was involved with the creation of Bitcoin, but we can't know for sure.
Regarding Ripple, It's also somewhat deceptive. They made a few tricky moves regarding their open source status. It's a commercial product and their business model was to sell and market XRPs(similar to Mastercoin). At one point I asked: If Ripple is open source, why can't I just issue a new set of XRPs? XRP2.0? Soon afterwards the project seemed to have faded out of existence. Ripple also has virtually NOTHING to do with the original ideas associated with this name. It's all part of the Googleplex mega-complex, which I will never(and probably can never) be a part of due to my outspoken opinions on the surveillance machine they are running under the guise of 'entrepreneurship' and 'startups'. Thanks to St. Snowden I can now say these things without being branded a mentally insane schizophrenic(which some people in these circles have already tried to do).
Confidence Chains does a lot of things. Turns out that to support a decentralized ledger you need to build a few things that let you do lots of other fun stuff. It supports many financial functions, have look at the link in my sig. If you have an questions you can post them to the forum. I'll answer them personally. thx, -bm
Thanks a lot for the long explanation. Can you refer to me what 'false claims' were made by the Colored Coin folks? Also thanks for the 2nd opinion on OT. I was about to invest some time on it, but I am going to take a leap of faithhere and believe what you say. I reviewed your confidence chain stuff and the decentralized exchange. Looks sound, but I still have a few open questions. However, what is your ETA on this? Is this open source? I've been waiting on the Buttercoin stuff for 6 months with nothing to show. re. Color Coins, there is an not exactly an atmosphere of information accuracy on that list. There's a clear tendency to misname things, make claims then retract them etc. That's all I'll say officially because basically I don't have the resources to 'go to court' on this, I'm just working as an open source developer. the ETA is very soon. I have most of the basic stuff finished, just need to complete the Kernel which is the code that decides which blocks go where given the transactions the node knows about. There is definitely more than one way to do this, and there are strategies for optimizing, perhaps even strategies for exploitation(not unlike Bitcoin). When this is done we will have a Distributed Exchange. What do I mean by Distributed Exchange?here we mean a way to exchange assets that has no specific center. It is comprised of N nodes, and if any given node is disabled(either by legal or technical means) the exchange is not shut down and users access to the ledger(their account) remains intact - similar but not identical to Bitcoin. Secondly the ORDER of the transactions(such as POST and ACCEPT exchanges) is determined by this congress of nodes. This sort of functionality is impossible with PoW systems. Thanks for looking it over, I will announce when it's at point for early adopters ie. technical people. -bm |
|
|
|
Regarding Ripple, It's also somewhat deceptive. They made a few tricky moves regarding their open source status. It's a commercial product and their business model was to sell and market XRPs(similar to Mastercoin). At one point I asked: If Ripple is open source, why can't I just issue a new set of XRPs? XRP2.0? Soon afterwards the project seemed to have faded out of existence. Ripple also has virtually NOTHING to do with the original ideas associated with this name. It's all part of the Googleplex mega-complex, which I will never(and probably can never) be a part of due to my outspoken opinions on the surveillance machine they are running under the guise of 'entrepreneurship' and 'startups'. Thanks to St. Snowden I can now say these things without being branded a mentally insane schizophrenic(which some people in these circles have already tried to do). You can just fire up rippled and will immediately have 100 billion XRP at your disposal. Just like running bitcoind with a non-Satoshi block chain/genesis block however, no other server will accept these. You are free to fork Ripple, the only requisite (similar to Bitcoin) is that you change the name and logo. unless something has changed, you are only free to fork the CLIENT. Secondly it is unclear what sorts of patent protections there are surrounding Ripple. It's not a community project, it's a commercial project. |
|
|
|
=
+1
That is why I stopped feeding him. Oh dammit, I just did.
Jan, all you've contributed to this conversation is fairly uninformed, poorly articulated boosterism. Pronouncing people who disagree with you as 'trolls' is just a sign of immaturity. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is supposed replace your credit cards. Get with the program.
supposed to, but doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
the problem with Litecoin is that it won't prevent the monopolization of mining, just raise the barrier to capitalization.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
