- The software will be a standalone C++ application, increasing the speed, scalability and security for everyone.
- Messages in the system will be encrypted by default by the browser
The requirement that the server be a monolithic C++ application illustrates that you are an ideas man using the world's most popular Operating System. Nothing wrong with that, but I believe such a requirement will kill the project. Many OS's have a decent package manager that makes installing dependencies not that big a deal. Why do you want dependencies? -- Because saves you from reinventing the wheel; improving security and scalability for everyone. I know you were trying to use Bitcoin as a model, but it is not perfect. The database chosen did not scale well and was recently replaced. I would argue that the Bitcoin project is actually simpler than what you propose. Here is a list a third-party libraries and utilities you may want to consider: - HTTP server. I know the HTTP protocol is not that complex: but I don't know why you insist on rolling your own.
- Database such as Postgre SQL or MySQL. If you are rolling your own, you programmer better be good with data-structures or else it won't scale well.
- OpenPGP library such as GPG.
I am also not aware of any web-browsers with will run C++ code directly. Maybe you can translate it to JavaScript, but that may be slow. I actually liked the concept of Java Applets back in the day: programs designed to run in a browser sand-box; and ask for permission if they want extra access to the computer (such as reading and writing files). |
|
|
|
i'm a professional DMCA agent.
this means i file DMCA takedown requests (tens of thousands of them) for a living...
DMCA only applies to copyrighted materials. I think the OP is more concerned about Trademark infringement. I think the suggestion to complain to the registrar is a good one. Looks like it was done already: Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SUSPENDED-FOR.SPAM-AND-ABUSE.COM
NS2.SUSPENDED-FOR.SPAM-AND-ABUSE.COM
|
|
|
|
How are you going to avoid anything but OP moderation? Or am I reading that wrong? Certainly blatantly illegal things will have to be removed.
From the brief description, I get the impression that data security is going to work a little like http://mega.co.nzIllegal content can't be easily found/removed because the hosting service is not able to view the contents. MegaUpload tried to follow the DMCA (despite being based in New Zealand) and were shut-down for their trouble. The new mega site does not work with my slightly dated browsers though. It also requires client-side scripting that I love to hate. |
|
|
|
|
I am confused how your proposal will will resolve the funding problems for running a forum. You mention unwanted advertising and giving 6000 BTC to a forum moderator (an incident I am not aware of).
|
|
|
|
|
Adeel06, I logged in just to add you to my ignore list.
The first post explained what testing was required, and even why. I'll admit the title was a little misleading: you have to work for your "FREE MONEY".
|
|
|
|
Yes, and bootstrapping uses DNS, so if you can resolve OP's address to connect to his bitcoind, you can also bootstrap regularly.  Nice idea nevertheless but nothing extraordinary, there are several thousand nodes around the world like this one. I corrected my post. With Namecoin+TOR, it is possible to have a DNS server with no public IP address. |
|
|
|
|
I have been working planning on a similar bitcoin node.
Is there a lot of demand for this?
So far, I have a SOHO router sitting behind a business-class Internet connection (with a domain pointing to it, even). I hope to set up a namecoin node DNS server and allow it to be accessed as a TOR hidden service (using a .bit domain name for look-up).
|
|
|
|
I fail to see why "Likes" on somebody's random Facebook (group?) indicates the popularity of an item. Why does "dogs" have so many likes? Who gets to decide which dog lovers' group is the "official" one for estimating popularity? BitChick seems to be suggesting the shorter name wins, possibly because it was chosen "first". I would like to add to the You won't find me on Facebook sentiment. Technically, Facebook has a "Shadow profile" on me, including pictures of my face (not tagged to my knowledge). This is because I have friends and family who use Facebook. I suppose you can just write me off as anti-social too. |
|
|
|
- Their suppliers and employees want to be paid in FIAT. Since all of their suppliers want to be paid in FIAT.
- The market cap of Bitcoin is now high enough that one high-end product line won't move the price much.
- If successful, they will run into Bicoin scaling issues.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what they can make illegal.
The word 'bitcoin' is just a made up word, so that won't work.
The rest is just mathematics - I don't know if there is a precedent on illegal mathematics.
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number |
|
|
|
What's wrong with a flash drive with the wallet.dat file on it?
You have to trust that the person who gave you the flash drive will not spend the coins. You also need an Internet connection to actually check how many coins are actually represented by that wallet.dat The real answer to the OP is that you really can't securely transfer Bitcoins without an Internet connection, however tenuous. It is one of the weaknesses of the system. You can use an intermittent connection like dial-up, but you would either have to run a "lite" client, or have the block-chain mailed to you periodically. |
|
|
|
Apparently some banks let you download signed pdf's since 2006.
When I was auditing the finances of a non-profit last year, the PDF statements from a Canadian bank were not properly signed. I decided to give the executive director the benefit of the doubt that he was not tampering with them; even though he probably had the technical know-how to do so. Bank-statements don't actually list specific account numbers of the recipient anyway. My bank statements say something like BR-to-BR when I buy a money order or send money to another person. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't notice it was down until I checked just after reading this thread.
|
|
|
|
If you read carefully, you will realize that they did not actually implement RFC-1149. RFC-1149 provisions a high latency, low bandwidth llink by printing black stuff on white stuff (paper). In that story out of South Africa, they made a one-way, high bandwidth, high latency link. If anything, that story shows that RFC-1149 has now been made obsolete by flash memory. I ran the numbers for setting up a service here in Canada to get around high wholesale bandwidth costs: it actually made a stupid amount of sense (being price-competitive). The sticking point was that the Pigeons are a gimmick: since you need to use a courier to transport the Pigeons to their starting point. In that story they also did not appear to include the time required to read and write the memory stick. Most don't write faster than 10MB/s: which would actually be the major bottle-neck. |
|
|
|
Doesn't the bank usually use SSL to encrypt authentication mechanisms like passwords? would that not be included in the dump? Edit: If the escrow has the encryption key, what prevents then from editing the logs? Are people expected to use the escrow's credentials to ask the bank directly? Edit: found the actual post explaining the scheme. Still don't like it. If my bank requires me to use an anti-virus, they probably require me to not share may password with random people on the Internet. |
|
|
|
The interesting thing about building on top of the bitcoin protocol is that it doesn't really matter if it is a good idea or not - there's really no way to prevent it from happening. Therefore, it will happen if someone is willing to pay the tiny price of having their experiment encoded in the bitcoin block chain.
Also, my paper is not about colored coins, although the same arguments apply.
Are you aware of this pull on github (#2577: Treat dust outputs as non-standard, un-hardcode TX_FEE constants)? I called your proposal a "colored coin" proposal because it is built upon moving satoshis around. At current fees in the default client, moving those satoshis around costs 5430 satoshis. That tiny price will quickly add up if you try building stuff on top of the standard protocol. Edit: to answer my own question: Please don't treat micro-transactions as non-standard. A small amount of bitcoins can represent large amount of value in higher protocol layers. Colored coins is just one example.
Could we perhaps just raise the suggested fee on transactions which contain "dust"?
|
|
|
|
You seem to misapprehend me. cvTokens are certainly possible to implement--however I do prefer not to spend too much time on the details of an implementation which will be inefficient. Also, your third statement is simply incorrect. You may be correct. I didn't want to mention my conspiracy theory until I had at least shred of evidence. (Essentially I was thinking these Decentralized exchange related threads were part of an Intelligence operation to burn developer time: each proposal sounding promising, yet being flawed in a specific pre-determined way. With the lack of technical detail I may have jumped to conclusions.) I believe this situation is why pseudo-code was invented. You don't have to explain the logical steps with a real scripting language. I already have the money, so I create a timelocked transaction which will become spendable in 6 months, with a sequence number of zero. It sends the full amount for the contract to my close friend who we shall denote 'C'. I sign this transaction and publish it to the network. Notice that if my friend dies or is unable to complete the contract, I will be able to publish a new transaction with sequence 1 or higher spending the funds to myself instead.
Next, C creates a transaction which spends my timelocked transaction to their ex-spouse, who we shall call 'X'. C signs the transaction and gives it directly to X.
Finally, X creates a transaction spending that transaction to a bank B, signs it, and gives it to B along with the signed transaction from C. Note that X does not need C's permission or cooperation to do this.
Now, if I do nothing, in 6 months the bank will publish their transactions and collect the amount of money I paid my friend. However, if I update my original transaction, the bank's transactions will be invalid, and they will receive nothing. Depending on my choice, an unknown specific party will receive this money.
Now of course, simply by making the original timelocked transaction final, I could have guaranteed that this unknown specific party would receive my funds. However I included the usage of sequence numbers to show how something happens at a specific time because of my inaction.
I must confess, I have not yet read the code. I am not sure exactly how bitcoind would handle such conflicting transactions before maturity. (After maturity, they should be rejected). The steps you outline essentially allow Bitcoin to be reversible for a set period of time (measured in blocks, not days or months). Oh wow.
I'm still absorbing this thread, but I have to post some encouragement. After my speaking on "Bitcoin in the Future" on a panel at the San Jose bitcoin conference, somebody came up to me and pointed me to this thread.
I wrote a whitepaper about something very similar. Have you read it? (see my signature).
It sounds like you are one of the few people in the world who see the enormous potential of using escrow and speculators to stabilize a token, which can then track the value of any currency or commodity desired.
I don't think coloured coins are a good idea. I have no problem with alternate, niche block chains. If they fill a valid niche, they will not die out. That, and failed experiments don't have to be stored forever in the Bitcoin block-chain (as would be the case with your coloured coin proposal). |
|
|
|
Why did you abandon your original DS Share thread? Why are you trying to peg the value of shares to specific currencies? For that, CV Tokens would work much better, assuming they are possible to implement. (Croesus says he was just anthropomorphising the network to avoid confusing the economic side of things.) Your DS shares have value in themselves if they allow you to "short" the value of bitcoin. BTW, I don't think any decentralized coloured coin proposals will work: they essentially try to get people to value bit-dust. To answer your question why nobody can explain to you in simple terms why your ideas won't work: You don't appear to clearly explain your ideas. In an effort to make sure I was understanding your DS share concept correctly, I walked through a contrived example. When the results were not what you expected, you claimed I was mis-understanding the concept and opened an new thread that appeared to tack on CV-Tokens (poorly). What concerns me is that this latest proposal appears more complex than the last. I hope the extra rules follow logically from a sound design, rather than being bugfixes that may introduced new unexpected behavior. |
|
|
|
I'm someone still convinced by the CV tokens thing. What made you change your mind? I would like to know about it.
The way I understand Bitcoin, value is transferred around by crytographically signing a transaction to prove that you have the private key. This requirement should prevent the CV Token network from "collapsing back into bitcoin" when the backers fail to act. For CV tokens to work, they must do one of two things: - Store private keys in the network. This is bad because a bad actor can simply use those private keys to send coins to themself.
- Somehow transfer value in and out of the bitcoin network without using private keys. This is bad because it breaks (at least my) fundamental assumptions about how the protocol works.
I admit, I am not as familiar with the gory details of the Bitcoin protocol as I would like. It is possible that there is something that I am missing. So far Croesus has refused to give concrete details, citing complexity. I think that 7th criterion is entirely reasonable. I do not think my approach violates this criterion, but would be interested in your opinion.
I have not had time to review version 2.0 of your proposal. I don't think it violates that criterion. What concerns me about your proposal is the lack of fungibility. If different DS coins are worth varying amounts because each transaction has its own exchange rate: price discovery is going to be difficult when converting to another crypto-currency like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
