|
Don't try too hard to abandon the randomness lay in all of us, if cryptography can teach us anything.
|
|
|
|
MTGOX丢失7000多美元 求助MT账户历史显示是2013年5月31日 3时 这个时间段被取出 本来账户是美元
楼主你好，我跟你同一时间被盗同样金额，而且最后余额也是0.15比特币。 我发邮件问过Mt gox，他们完全不管，而且对方在我的BTC转出发邮件通知了我，让我及时跟她们说明是否是我本人操作。结果我说了不是我，是被盗了，对方仍然不管，只让我报警。 美国这边警察也不懂这些东西，所以这事儿不了了之。 我大概是3点10分左右被转出的。 你如果可以的话加我QQ，387772811. 可以的话把你的转出交易贴出来，我有些怀疑需要证实。 |
|
|
|
blind signatures should protect from this. as an analogy, the banks wont be moving your money around directly but rather moving around a locked box full of money that you have given them that only you know the combination to. This way the money that you give to the bank will only be valuable to you and can never be used by the bank.
It's not the best analogy, a Chaumian token is more similar a a banknote. That's correct. The bitcoin-denominated tokens issued on OT servers are promises issued by the aforementioned voting pool to redeem for real bitcoins at par. OT deals with the issue of trust by spreading it out across multiple parties via a multisignature transaction on the blockchain. What makes me uneasy is there are technical, logistical, and cognitive limits on the total number of parties able to participate in the voting pool, and so the issue of trust ultimately still remains. Edit: Furthermore, once trust enters the equation, anonymity usually leaves, since most people aren't willing to trust their money to strangers. Thus, we likely haven't actually attained censorship resistance. The tradeoff will be worth it for certain scenarios--currently you already submit much of your personal data to exchange operators, with OT it's possible to provide a level of anonymity that even if government agents manage to obtain the transaction records, they can turn up hardly anything worthwhile. |
|
|
|
I don't know about javascript/Python but linux users are not kid at all.
I bet you don't even know what sudo is.
Windows/MAC users are real kids. They need GUI to do simple works.
and by the way .Net is a joke, even kids can make programs in it.
He made it clear that it is "Microsoft web servers"! I mean, you all remember there was such a misfit called IIS right? Had he said M$ database/directory server I would have given him some credits. |
|
|
|
I'd thought that the "gun control" conversations got heated and rude. Who'da thought there'd be way more rudeness about computer OS's, eh myrkul?
Well, maybe Tonko is Bill Gates. Would explain a few things. Bill Gates is too smart to say such things. |
|
|
|
I think you might be falling into the trap of thinking of a government as a monolithic entity, that has coherent goals and decision-making ability. That is, of course, false, and the actual case is that the government is just a group of people. A group that can be infiltrated. So, the obvious answer is the same as why CCTV (China's state communication organ) would show V for Vendetta: Someone within the power structure is friendly to libertarian ideas, and have placed themselves where they can do some good by authorizing seditious programming. I generally like reading your post, it's interesting that as an anarchist you know more than a lot of statists about how real-world politics work. As for China, it should also be pointed out that, is there is not a collective self-consciousness for a movie like "V for Vendetta" to provoke repercussions, to the extent that perhaps even the censors failed to get the movie's point. Last time I checked, in Amazon China "1984" was given away on a "buy one get one" basis. |
|
|
|
hopefully open transactions will solve all these problems much more elegantly.
If that's the end game, then I can't help but feel uneasy about having a dozen or so people collectively (via the proposed voting pool) having ultimate control over most of the bitcoins. Systems that rely on trust tend not to be very decentralized (for cognitive reasons?). blind signatures should protect from this. as an analogy, the banks wont be moving your money around directly but rather moving around a locked box full of money that you have given them that only you know the combination to. This way the money that you give to the bank will only be valuable to you and can never be used by the bank. It's not the best analogy, a Chaumian token is more similar a a banknote. |
|
|
|
Possible? Yes. Desirable? No. It's important that miners verify that they haven't been duped onto a side chain. It is, however, okay for them to throw away those historical transactions once they have been verified and just keep the UTXO set.
Yeah, I did not mention the UTXO set because I thought it's obivous. The reason I brought up this is, I believe a lot of us are willing to run a USB miner to secure the network, without generating any noticeable revenue, now that it's out and very power-efficient, the power cost of keeping one running is somehow negligible, but if we have to download and store the rapidly growing full chain, the cost may grow significantly. |
|
|
|
|
Is it possible for a miner to only download full blocks from the last checkpoint and still validate transactions?
|
|
|
|
In comparison to the 25BTC coinbase, all transactions are essentially 'free' - so saying it comes down to orphan risk; it's more complicated than that.
If it came down to minimizing orphan risk due to propagation delay, all miners would mine empty blocks. While we do still see that occasionally, miners also realize that for bitcoin to grow and prosper, and for their horde to increase in value, they need to do a good job actually including the majority of pending transactions in their blocks.
So I think it's more a result of miners "doing what they think they are expected to do" - and also to some extent miners running the software they are given to run. The result is that 0 fee transactions get delayed, because miners believe they're fulfilling their end of the bargain. There's a lot of game theory that keeps the system running as smoothly as it does.
The core team has done a lot of research into block size and propagation delay, and if I understand it correctly, the problem with larger blocks is it will ultimately lead to centralization as mining pools end up co-location and anyone outside the data center gets put at a disadvantage.
Yeah, what many people fail to realize is what is considered Bitcoin speculation is largely investors paying miners to run the payment network, so it's a very real investment, not a Ponzi scheme. Miners never did anything for free, whether the transaction is free or not. |
|
|
|
If we scale up to the limits of a beefy desktop PC with a RAID array and >1Mbps network connection, we wouldn't be pushing anyone out from actually using the network.
Except from the ones who don't know what RAID array and >1Mbps network connection is.  In fairness, one does not really need to know what such things are to use them. A much bigger concern in my mind is that one may need, say, 1Mbps of bandwidth which is free of disruption by commercial network carriers. These players have little ability to act autonomously of government security policies even if they had a desire to do so. I think it hopeful in the extreme to assume that any political leadership is going to stand idle by while the power inherent in controlling a currency system is eroded. If distributed crypto-currencies never reaches the stage where it is a eats into existing monetary solutions and supplants some of their function then yes, we are probably safe from such attacks. It is far from clear to me that such solutions will not achieve such a capability. In the future, we may need a lot of ASICMiner style USB miners which can run all day at high hashrate, yet doesn't cost you anything noticeable in electricity, yes it will not give me a steady income of mining revenue, but should be a worthwhile investment to secure the network if the power cost can be driven to low enough that you can just plug it into your laptop and stop caring. |
|
|
|
Bcrypt is not asymmetric.
Couldn't you make it asymmetric if you introduced another alogrithm into the mix in a smart manner? Are you suggesting something like Lamport's signature, which builds a digital signature algorithm from the SHA256? It's not clear where the Bcrypt's advatange is here, Bcrypt is computationally intensive, but that doesn't necessarily imply QC resistance. Well you could have a schedule and raise the computational power it takes to get the hash as time goes by, this will not only solve the quantum computer problem but all other advances in technology as well. SHA256 is the least problem you would have to worry about, without QC, see here https://i.imgur.com/fYFBsqp.jpgAnd if QC is invented, it cannot just circumvent the SHA256, instead it will weaken it to the SHA128 level using Grover's algorithm, closer but still nearly insurmountable. If you want to replace the hash function to counter the threat of QC, take care that if QC would not be widely deployed but concentrated in a few places, the slowdown introduced by bcrypt may affect the performance of other non-QC miners even more, and force them to quit mining, the scrypt however, which throttles the hashrate with the memory bottleneck, may prove to be useful. From what I understand the whole concern is with scrypt rather than SHA256, SHA256 would take way, way too long to break. Depending on the definition of "break", in some ways it's not breakable at all. |
|
|
|
This post may cause a flame war, so I apologize in advance if it happens. Now onto my post:
Is anybody else starting to feel the anonymity of the *coin clients will ultimately be the demise of them? We see scams popping up regularly from people who think things like child pornography, selling hard drugs to any age group, and various other acts that most sane people will view as disgusting. In the IRC channels (#litecoin at least) I can't tell you how many times I've seen questions involving evading taxes, at least as often as I see questions on how to get a mining rig setup. When I ask other engineers who are not currently involved in any crypto currency why they are not the usual answer is "I do not want to be grouped with the scum using them." (their words, not mine) or "Why hide if you have nothing to hide?" I understand privacy is everybody's right and not something any government should control but it seems the scammers have once again proven they will use any means necessary to make a buck. I used to advocate the use of bitcoin due to it's anonymity and lack of control by a overall authority however after the most recent case with Liberty Reserve I can no longer in my right conscious recommend it. So now I ask the more "in the know" / senior members of this community, what valid reasons are there for preserving the users identity?
I don't know about others, but for me, the reason is exactly that the authorities are, and will ask me to give up my rights whenever they have a chance. My rights(privacy, anonymity, etc) are my rights because I don't need to justify to anyone why I need it, rather, whenever I choose to compromise it a bit I do need some justifications. |
|
|
|
We've had a customer win 2BTC after he placed the bet by withdrawing from BTC-E, some lucky chap has got 260$ randomly.
Anything is possible in the Bitcoin world, including the Nigerian-419 style out of blue sky winning, the difference is in the Bitcoin world you don't have to pay a processing fee through Western Union.  |
|
|
|
Bcrypt is not asymmetric.
Couldn't you make it asymmetric if you introduced another alogrithm into the mix in a smart manner? Are you suggesting something like Lamport's signature, which builds a digital signature algorithm from the SHA256? It's not clear where the Bcrypt's advatange is here, Bcrypt is computationally intensive, but that doesn't necessarily imply QC resistance. Well you could have a schedule and raise the computational power it takes to get the hash as time goes by, this will not only solve the quantum computer problem but all other advances in technology as well. SHA256 is the least problem you would have to worry about, without QC, see here https://i.imgur.com/fYFBsqp.jpgAnd if QC is invented, it cannot just circumvent the SHA256, instead it will weaken it to the SHA128 level using Grover's algorithm, closer but still nearly insurmountable. If you want to replace the hash function to counter the threat of QC, take care that if QC would not be widely deployed but concentrated in a few places, the slowdown introduced by bcrypt may affect the performance of other non-QC miners even more, and force them to quit mining, the scrypt however, which throttles the hashrate with the memory bottleneck, may prove to be useful. |
|
|
|
Well there is no consensus on a quota. Most pools simply recognize that including "some" no fee tx is worthwhile. It ensures that (other than low-priority tx w/ no fee which may not even be relayed) that all tx will "eventually" be included. However if you look closer at blocks they vary rather significantly on how many free tx are included.
The only consensus really is that at least for the current time "some" free tx should be included to keep the network moving.
Yeah, that's the implicit consensus I talked about. Another thought: maybe a flexible system for free transactions based on fees collected can be put in place? A miner can promise to include x more free transactions if the fees expected from paid transactions could pass a certain threshold. |
|
|
|
Of course you can put as many free tx in a block as you want. 1 more, 100 more, 1,000 more up to the 1MB limit. However the larger the block, the longer the propogation delay. The longer the delay the higher the orphan rate.
Once again miners certainly "can" include more free tx but doing so would result in less net revenue. How much less well only a large mining pool experimenting (in a very cautious way) by comparing rate of orphans to size of block would know for sure. Others could analyze from the blockchain but it is harder to get a clean comparison.
Still miners have no real incentive to try an push the orphan limit for free tx. 1) it just encourage less paid tx and 2) it increases the risk of orphaned blocks (which is worth 0 BTC) how much more is debatable* but it most certainly is more.
* meaning is it 500KB block vs 250KB block is a 0.1% increased orphan rate or 1%. Lets say it is 0.01% well if the block is larger for free transactions then you are always behind. (25+x)*y% < 25 where x=0 and y <100%. Now if x is >0 then there is an equilibrium point but where the increased size warrants the increased risk but if x =0 you are just risking more orphaned blocks (loss revenue and higher volatility) for literally nothing.
Thanks, but what if there is a network consensus on increasing the free tx quota? You know, pools can also reduce the quota or effectively reject all free txs and reduce their orphaning rate as well, yet nobody does it, so there is already some implicit consensus in place. And Eligius used to(still maybe) realy transactions for free, and it doesn't seem like they run into any real problem. What leads me to ask this question is the kind of "my 300 BTCs transaction has been in limbo for a week" post which pops up once in a while, not sure if it justifies the cost to come up with any solution to mitigate it, or if increasing the quota will have any benefit. But right now it really does seem that the maximum tps of the network is decided by some other factors than the fee so at least blocksize should not be a worry, thinking naively. |
|
|
|
You know the transaction fee is nothing compared to the mining reward, right? 0.5 BTC is about the maximum you will get for a block atm. You are ignoring the increased orphan risk. An orphaned block is worth exactly 0 BTC. If hypothetical Joe miner can collect say 25.5 BTC with 0.5% orphan risk why would he then scoop out thousands (and yes sometimes there are litterally thousands) of no fee tx so he can still collect only 25.5 BTC but now with a 1.0% orphan risk. More work for less net revenue? I agree, but I did not want "freebies for everyone", rather I am trying to know if it's feasible to increase the free transaction quota to somewhere like twice as big as it is now, and whether the benefit of such a move would justify the additional burden on miners.(It may very well be not but I want to see some analysis) Coz you know, right now we are nowhere near hitting the new blocksize limit, it's not like the paid transactions will get delayed in any way. And obviously a mining pool should not risk to do it alone, if it's to become a reality, there should at least be some network-wide consensus, so everyone takes the same risk and it evens out. |
|
|
|
Now, your original post was strictly about me personally ,and had nothing to do with what I said, I did not say the transaction fee is not cheap, just that why should they bother to charge it when they can include it for free, and it's you who did not respond with anything of substance or to the point.
Actually, it has everything to do with what you said. You were the one who brought up my tone. You were the one who tried to defend your actions with questionable logic. For the record, I did make a reply to the point. It was in the post you quoted from the beginning. My remark about your tone was merely an add-on to my reply. bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu_quoqueHuh? I never had a problem with your tone, but who will not be confused when someone seemed to respond to you was actually responding to his own imagined person? Consider how utterly irrelevant your post was to my question. Their reward got cut in half. You really anyone would be ok with their revenue halved?
You know the transaction fee is nothing compared to the mining reward, right? 0.5 BTC is about the maximum you will get for a block atm. And at no time was their revenue halved, other than a short period when the fiat price of bitcoin was around $60-the price was only more than $30 for a very short while before Nov.2012 when the reward was halved. Not to say that most of the miners never got the chance to set transaction policy. Their revenue in terms of bitcoins halved. If you were doing something for free, and you did a really good job at it, why on earth would you do it for free? Even satoshi's paper stated that transaction fee would replace the block subsidy as the main source of revenue. According to your logic, miners should never need to rely on transaction fees, seeing how higher market prices can swoop in and save them. Actually, the miners are more generous than you think. They do accept free transactions. My past few transactions all have zero fees attached, but they were confirmed without issue. Often within 5 blocks. I even managed to send an "illegal" transaction with the NFTF patch and it got confirmed the next morning. Clearly, miners aren't as greedy as you think they are. It's just too much people competing for valuable block space. Yeah, keep on making assumptions about others without addressing the real issue. Miners never did the job for free(like the government never provided you with free medical care, your taxes paid for them, in this case the Bitcoin buyers), not to say miners have adopted pretty much the same fee policy even when the block reward was not halved. And when did I say miners do not accept free transactions? The question I asked is why miners would sacrifice the possibility of potentially significantly more convenience(yes, the block space is nowhere near the limit yet!) for a tiny bit more of revenue, but seeing how you completely fail at ever forming a proper argument, it's no surprise you are not capable of answering such questions. |
|
|
|
Bcrypt is not asymmetric.
Couldn't you make it asymmetric if you introduced another alogrithm into the mix in a smart manner? Are you suggesting something like Lamport's signature, which builds a digital signature algorithm from the SHA256? It's not clear where the Bcrypt's advatange is here, Bcrypt is computationally intensive, but that doesn't necessarily imply QC resistance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
