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 actually from computing these hashes...  |
|
|
|
|
All I can tell you about stealth addresses is: good luck using them with a cold wallet!
The only way to figure out which outputs belong to your wallet goes through decrypting every possible nonce with each private key that you have ever used for a "stealth address".
It is a huge overhead in the client and IMHO implementing this idea is just not worth all the effort - considering that it does not really improve privacy more than sending a regular unique address to each of your payers, using an actually encrypted channel. So personally I would rather suggest to focus on providing a proper encryption for sending a bitcoin addresses to other parties.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I have implemented SwapOrder (BytesSwap) in Javascript
Hex string 2 bits string
but I am not sure what makes the difference between SwapOrder and LittleEndian SwapOrder operates on a set of bytes - just reverses their order. LittleEndian takes a 32-bit integer and outputs 4 bytes in little-endian order. As for the rest of your questions - sorry, I don't have that much time Maybe someone else will help you. Though I can tell you that the Bitcoin header (the thing that you get to hash with sha256) is just 80 bytes in such a format: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Block_HeadersBuild the 80 bytes with the values you need, hash them, then hash the result - and that's it. |
|
|
|
PGP based WOT called botcoin-otc, has been in the bitcoin world since November 2010. Bitcoin-OTC is definitely much more trustworthy then any CA authority out there. There is no way that Google can develop anything better than that, unless we first get to redefine "better". Though, it is actually worth noticing that Mike doesn't even seem to have a PGP key, so I totally understand his resistance against using this system. @Mike, is it true that Google has banned using PGP among the employees, or is it just that they haven't organized a PGP training for you, so how would you even know how to operate this archaic tool? If the latter then maybe you can still put it into your personal development agenda for the next year - we all would have benefited from it |
|
|
|
And the miners will do everything they can to protect their interests, which is essentially the value of a single bitcoin. I would love to see this in practice. Maybe it's about time something happened to test this theory. I'm afraid you won't see it soon. I am not aware of any incoming blockchain protocol changes, and even if they would, last time it took like a year to upgrade the network to blocks version 2. But that was back in the times when the network hashing power was like million times lower and the miners had much more trust in the dev team. The situation today is totally different and no sane respected person is going to put his reputation on forcing a protocol change that has even a tiny chance to not be accepted by the miners. Just look what happened to our poor Mike - and he didn't even start to write any code yet for his red and black lists that were supposed to deliver some justice into bitcoins.. Apparently all the bitcoins sheep that Mike was just trying to protect don't give a shit about his justice, so he didn't even get his brilliant ideas to a pre-voting My money is you wouldn't like the results.  No worries - almost all my money is already in that bet |
|
|
|
You don't really need an expert - these is some pretty basic stuff. Looking for working Bitcoin block header hashing algorithm in Javascript Try google: https://www.google.com/search?q=sha256+javascript"Bitcoin block header hashing algorithm" is just SHA256 on the 80 bytes of data and then SHA256 again on the 32-bytes output from the first hashing. and exaplanation about LittleEndian and ByteSwap implementation in PHP $version = littleEndian(1);
$prevBlockHash = SwapOrder('00000000000008a3a41b85b8b29ad444def299fee21793cd8b9e567eab02cd81');
$rootHash = SwapOrder('2b12fcf1b09288fcaff797d71e950e71ae42b91e8bdb2304758dfcffc2b620e3');
$time = littleEndian(1305998791);
$bits =littleEndian( 440711666);
$nonce = littleEndian(2504433986);
vs. no LittleEndian implementation in Python >>> header_hex = ("01000000" +
"81cd02ab7e569e8bcd9317e2fe99f2de44d49ab2b8851ba4a308000000000000" +
"e320b6c2fffc8d750423db8b1eb942ae710e951ed797f7affc8892b0f1fc122b" +
"c7f5d74d" +
"f2b9441a" +
"42a14695")
>>> header_bin = header_hex.decode('hex') from http://shiplu.mokadd.im/95/convert-little-endian-to-big-endian-in-php-or-vice-versa/In PHP you might have to convert the endianness of a number. PHP does not provide any function for this even though it has function for almost everything. All the hashes in bitcoin protocol are stored as little endian. SwapOrder is just converting big to little endian and you don't use it in the python code, because you already specify it as converted to little endian. In other words: Big endian: 00000000000008a3a41b85b8b29ad444def299fee21793cd8b9e567eab02cd81
Little endian: 81cd02ab7e569e8bcd9317e2fe99f2de44d49ab2b8851ba4a308000000000000 |
|
|
|
What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? But why do you think that they are held by weak hands? Are you saying that bitcoin miners are stupid? I am saying that most miners have more to lose by pulling out than by continuing to run their mining rigs. The hobbyists can pull out and take a small loss on their GPU's or whatever. The big guys, no way. Yeah. But why would they want to pull out? All they need to do is keep mining with the old software, if they don't like some changes in a new version - as long as they keep the majority, they loose completely nothing by not changing a protocol. Moreover: the only reason for them to vote for changing the protocol is to see an actual incentive in it. If you don't have an incentive, there is no way they would accept any change in the protocol. |
|
|
|
I still think it is important that threads and conversations like this occur as I'd speculate that the vast majority of miners are in the dark with respect to what the Foundation are doing, especially with regards this topic. Of course it is important to inform each other. It is like with every democracy; if you don't know the actual motives behind the changes that you are about to vote for, you might just hurt yourself by voting for them. But so far, this community has showed that they can speak up and listen, when there is a need for it. So yeah, I'm quite convinced that this project is going to work, as long as there is no backdoor in the secp256k1 - that's like the only thing which could still kill bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What use are 17000000000000000 hashes per second if they are held by weak hands? But why do you think that they are held by weak hands? Are you saying that bitcoin miners are stupid? |
|
|
|
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. So the only thing the people from the foundation can do is to stop their development from happening. Which BTW they have been pretty efficient in, for the past couple of years - but since it didn't seem to disturb the price anyhow, rather caused it to skyrocket, apparently bitcoin protocol is already mature enough and its value doesn't really mind the ongoing no further protocol changes state. |
|
|
|
*snip*
Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around.
*snip*
Take your hand off it, Bitcoin isn't going to destroy any governments, dream on soldier. Of course not. Because no governments will be stupid enough to go on war with Bitcoin. You don't fight things which you cannot beat - governments know it very well. If they didn't know it, they would not have been in power now. |
|
|
|
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. I'm just stating the facts be they PC or not. and while I am not a fan of Paypal, it is anything but worthless. As long as Bitcoin = Money, then Bitcoin = Power and there will be inevitable battles for control. Start all the new coins you want. If it attains a value of Billions USD, it will meet the same fate of control by the powerful. ~BCX~ There already have been the battles for control - there are, and certainly there will be more of them in a future. But so what? They are pretty bloodless, even quite funny, and all we need is to keep wining them. And we will because we are holding the proper weapon to win this war; 17000000000000000 hashes per second, and growing... Our weapon is pretty much decentralized, spread all over the world - it cannot be destroyed and so there is no way that any corporation, no matter how powerful, can beat it now. At least I don't see it happening in a foreseeable future. Plus I think you are totally missing the fact that if "Bitcoin = Money = Power", then sooner Bitcoin will destroy the governments than the other way around. |
|
|
|
Right. And that's development and technical discussion - really? Because it sounds just like I was on some extremely boring presentation and all I wanted was to get out of there. How is it even possible that a professional developers says that not writing a new code is good? He must be at least two levels higher - only out there they don't give shit what the code does |
|
|
|
|
Why are you looking for such an expert?
|
|
|
|
|
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 mentioned Bitcoin Fog which 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 isn't run by NSA itself, can you? So I am looking for something better, but I see nothing better on the horizon... All these "stealth addresses" or "coinjoin" - for me it's just some PR bullshit that does not improve my privacy at all. Does it improve yours, BTW? I doubt it. And no offence for the people who came out with these ideas (I believe they wanted well), but that is not a real solution for a bitcoin privacy, so people should not get so delighted about it. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
tl;dr
Why not PGP for this? Because Google claims that "the PGP model has been around for decades and is a practical failure" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
