Anyone claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto can prove it simply by signing something with his/her private key. Anything less than that is inadequate.
Of Course. It would be amazing to see a "I certify that I (Name) am the original creator of Bitcoin" by the origin's block key. |
|
|
|
|
In light of the scale of this project I've updated my bounty to 2btc
|
|
|
|
Bounty! (for Open Transaction Project) Port zlibc to zlibc++ and earn Bitcoin! Rules. 1. Github project with good documentation. 2. Autotools compile on many platforms. 3. 'make check' with comprehensive unit tests and functional tests. License: (same as zlib): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_LicenseISO C++03 strict compliance code, no warnings compile with GCC and clang. Good luck! Randy and Fellow Traveler (and of course myself) are going to be on the review board for this project. Pledges: da2ce7: 2.0BTC randy: 0.2BTC any questions/comments please comment on this thread. Or on IRC: #opentransactions on freenode.net |
|
|
|
Will be super fun!  cannot wait! |
|
|
|
|
@moltenmich
Sent 2btc
d88007128db7a915c142dbc494b3c34c4f58cddcee12a04b6e0cb687fa0ee7c5
|
|
|
|
wow... well I think that we have, moltenmich, who is way ahead of everyone else love your logo! |
|
|
|
So who are the winners???  I need some addresses to post the BTC to!!! |
|
|
|
@moltenmich The blue-globe one is winning so-far:  If there is no new entry, we may close the competition early. PM me if you are still working on something. |
|
|
|
@moltenmich, great work so far Not to pre-judge, however I love this one:  |
|
|
|
that was just a rough draft. i don't have any vector creation software but i can do a professional logo in a very large size. will work on it sometime tonight
Unfortunately, even large raster images will not be accepted for the bounty. We need clean SVG files, (or Illustrator). |
|
|
|
Over in Open Transactions land, we are finding ourselves in need of a Logo. So in true Bitcoin fashion, we are having a competition! Rules: Must have two versions: Greyscale and Colour (must look good in both). Must be in a Vector Graphics format. (optional) a banner version. This competition will be open for at-least 2 weeks, or until we have found a great logo. The prize pool is 2btc atm. People are welcome to donate more to: 1D9eWaBqawJH4KUb5frWpwZtzkuSZEMnG3 Happy drawing. Judges: markm, FellowTraveler, da2ce7 Edit: All Submissions must be under a http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ licence. (of course, we will still try and credit the artist where possible) |
|
|
|
My point is that the same argument applies to Open-Transactions, or any other known distributed money system.
While Bitcoin was small, a low-importance transactions were fine, as the entire network size was small. However as the network increases in size, so must the 'importance' of the transactions. Otherwise it becomes disappointingly costly to maintain the network -> thus, creating great economic incentives to centralize the network. If, for example, fees are LINEARLY related to Network-Size, then the cost of maintaining the network will be LINEAR * LOG (number of unspent outputs). Or just LINERAR, if you have an unlimited amount of random access storage (eg. RAM). This is a sustainable proposition. (The fees will pay for the cost of running a node). The position argued, by some, is that the cost to make a transaction on the Bitcoin network should be CONSTANT. This means that the cost to run a node on the network (while maintaining the same quality of decentralization); will be increasing faster than the amount of fees, per node. -> Thus creating an economic situation, where either: Nodes are subsidized, or the ratio or full nodes vs. uses goes down. I, personalty, value a very decentralized and non subsidized processing network of Bitcoin full-nodes, more than the utility advantage of having low importance transactions. |
|
|
|
The cost of checking any one transaction is:
O (number of full nodes) * (cost of checking a transaction).
There is no protocol reason why more than 1 full node needs to be running. If there are N full nodes, it is because N-1 people decided it was a worthwhile investment of their time and resources to do so. Open-Transactions runs with a single validating node, the server. But audit information is (in theory) available so anyone can check that the server isn't lying. And if they were to do so for all transactions processed by the server, then it would incur the same overhead. Now typically in Open-Transactions one only verifies their own receipts, but the same could be said for SPV/SPV+ clients. This conceptual argument I take issue with: ... There is no protocol reason why more than 1 full node needs to be running...
The very security model of Bitcoin requires there be multitude of full nodes, unless, if there was only one full-node, then non-bitcoin transactions could be possibly slipped in (unaware to SPV nodes). For the current standard of decentralization to hold, we need a constant ratio of full nodes vs users. Having only a few full nodes is a very much a higher-trust security model than what the Bitcoin Network currently provides. People who advocate a high tpc, must necessarily, advocate a more centralized full-node processing network. (Because of the QUADRATIC cost of maintaining the decentralization). |
|
|
|
Update to version v0.89.a  Update to Version 0.89.f  |
|
|
|
These are just variables. Variables can be changed.
But the CORE Bitcoin protocol allows ANY number of transactions per second. The only REAL limitation is the speed of the internet connection and TFLOPS of processing power.
So why the hell people keep shouting "Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions" ? This is just a big piece of Über-Bullshit.
While there are some elements of Bitcoin that may be used for microtransactions; I do not believe that it is rational to suggest that Bitcoin-itself is designed for microtransactions. It comes down to maths. The cost to check the inputs of a transaction is: O log(total number of unspent outputs). The cost of checking any one transaction is: O (number of full nodes) * (cost of checking a transaction). The cost of growing the network with a constant number of transactions per user is: O (number of users) * (cost of the network checking the transaction)For a constant ratio between users and, full nodes (so we can maintain the decentralization of the network). It can be shown that: The cost of verifying the Bitcoin Network of any given network size (number of users), for a constant number of transactions and full verifying nodes per user is: QUADRATIC. or Cost of Verifying the Transactions of the Bitcoin network = O (network size in users)^2 * log(number of unspent outputs)Where we assume: Constant number of transactions per user, and a constant ratio of users and full verifying nodes. This is why I will re-iterate, that Bitcoin was NOT designed for large-scale microtransactions. EDIT: fixed, from CUBIC to QUADRATIC. (thanks amiller). |
|
|
|
If 99% of the transactions I want to do are priced away from the blockchain by high fees, then I certainly will be switching off my node rather than leaving it running to support fat-cat banksters who are monopolizing the blockchain.
I suggest that if it was 700tps running a full node would be prohibitively expensive, and commonly, only fat-cat banksters would run them. |
|
|
|
If those merge mined chains, and the off-chain transaction systems such as the ones you develop, really are valuable on their own merits then users will happily adopt them no matter how many transactions per second the Bitcoin network is capable of processing.
I think that you miss the point, if you are having small transactions, they SHOULD NOT be audited by everyone in the world (or at least those who use Bitcoin). The time-importance of small transactions is much lower than of high-powered-money transactions. For-example, I could make a merge-mined chain that works like Bitcoin, where the value of any coins older 6 weeks is halved. (and forgotten once they get smaller than the smaller unit). New miners would sell these coins, and people could trade over medium time periods. (purchasing and selling this temporary currency for bitcoin). However this is just one option that I made up then. There is a multitude of possible merge-mined coins that could be developed. However the key point, is that the whole world should not care about my transaction of going to the corner store and buying a coke. Only transactions that are significant for everyone should be audited by everyone. 7tps seems like a good rate. Open Transactions is valuable on its own merits, right? It's not that the only way you'll ever get a significant user base is if Bitcoin is artificially limited to a cripplingly low transaction rate, is it?
Open Transactions works completely differently to Bitcoin, they are in-fact extremely complementary. They solve different problems. Bitcoin solves the 'low-trust, everyone audits, value transfer.' Open Transaction solves the problem 'anything that is related to something in the world should be able to be traded'. |
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin becomes popular, then people will not mind paying eqv. $100 in fees for buying a house. When a house is 0.01 BTC.
7tpc is enough. Let Bitcoin be the high-powered-money. Not play money that you use at the corner store.
We can create any number of merge-mined chains for any number of other transactions. These chains can be optimized for the particular purpose that they fulfill. They can even be dominated in BTC (with clever escrow-bitcoin-look-up).
I for one would love to only have 7tpc. This would mean that it would be easy for everyone to audit the high powered money. (we would know what the bankers are doing with our cash). In-fact in 10 years, my mobile phone may be able to audit the entire chain. (with some dedicated cypto hardware).
On another note, merge-mined chains that fulfill other purposes will make the main Bitcoin chain more secure. So it is a win-win.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
