I think you are talking about Peter Wiulle: Any unconfirmed transaction in flight exposes public keys, so if a QC exists, at least moving coins around safely becomes impossible. Further, a massive fraction of the currency supply can be taken. Lastly, you likely have exposed your own pubkey already. Given all those hypothetical attack models that pubkey hashing doesn't help with at all, I think it's fair to say that Bitcoin as it exists today is not quantum secure, period. It doesn't sound good. yep, although there's at least 1 solution I can think of: assuming you trust a miner (and it could be yourself if you have the hashing power, of course), you can give your transaction to a miner out of band, then the public key is never exposed until the tx moving your funds to a QC resistant keypair is already confirmed in a block. That would (hopefully!!!) be a one-off event, but hair-raising (and potentially expensive) all the same Yeah it was theymos and he got hated bigly with his approach. The way I see is that the stash should be re-introduced slowly as mining rewards, or at least that's how I should have coded it since day 1, since if you are the only guy mining in the world, there isn't even a network and you would get a disproportionate amount of coins as the single participant on the system. At the same time I also think he took the bigger risk, so it should be rewarded... tough call.
I think the only solution is to render the whole P2PK supply unspendable, and to do that with a the longest possible period of advanced warning to give the holders of those private keys sufficient time to move their money. See, we're having a civil conversation about this, yet we already disagree!!! tough call indeed. hashes could never be "reversed" and it is not exactly about efficiency it is about virtually unlimited solutions. think of it like this, if i say i have a big number that is the sum of 10 other numbers you will never be able to guess what those 10 values were because there simply is too many possibilities.
the difference between hashing and ECC is that ECC is pure math so there could some day be a solution to solve that reverse mathematical problem (ECDLP) in a faster way but hashing is a complete chaotic algorithm where we take an input "mutate" it, toss the bits around and come up with a neat result. so the only way to attack hashing algorithms has always been to find collision meaning if i said "a85845e696ee7aac1b012d611edcbd6fbf1884c5" is my SHA1 hash you will never be able to find out what message i hashed but you could find another message some day (you still can't do it today even for SHA1) that could give the same result.
okay, I am aware of the logic underlying all of this, although you are more familiar with the details. consider though: mathematicians/computer scientists/cryptographers working for powerful companies/organizations are not compelled to release every breakthrough they discover publicly. What if an efficient solution to what appears to be a brute forcing problem has in fact been discovered? Is that not the point of QC's anyway, to provide efficient solutions for which binary arithmetic Von Neumann machines cannot? Maybe some class of hashing algorithm could be developed to be resistant to such a thing, I simply do not know, but it seems to me that few others can really claim to _know_ either. People always say "that's impossible", until someone pitches up one day and provides the solution. The fact that we are on this forum having this discussion is the result of exactly that happening: cypherpunks tried to create a Bitcoin, and their imagination for designing it failed several times until satoshi. People literally _couldn't_ believe satoshi initially, Hal Finney hung out with satoshi for a while, contemplating the details of his design, in a way to convince himself that there was not something satoshi was missing. Only once people like Wuille, Maxwell and Todd (as well as Szabo, Dai, and Back on the sidelines) arrived on the scene to contribute to validating the concept did people really begin to get over the disbelief. *** the following is, to the best of publicly available knowledge, NOT POSSIBLE ***There would be no such luxury under a "SHA reversed by quantum computers" scenario, one minute a single Bitcoin blockchain would exist, the next there would be infinite Bitcoin blockchains, and every Bitcoin client would have their poor little CPUs overloaded trying to figure out which one was the most-worked valid chain  *** the above is to the best of publicly available knowledge, NOT POSSIBLE *** |
|
|
|
Not sure why would they do a piece on some pretty controversial people like Craig, I wouldn't have minded seeing a documentary on CW's fight against the government Wright is only involved in civil actions, of which he is the complainant. He's not "fighting the government", his whole angle on cryptocurrencies is that they aren't designed in a way that is easy for governments to control them (which was a deliberate design feature on Satoshi's part) |
|
|
|
I really wonder about this pretty much daily really? Not only we would have a problem changing hashing algos, eliptic curves and whathaveyou, but we would need to do something about funds which are no longer safe. supposedly there is no possible way of using quantum computing algorithms to find an efficient solution for reversing hash algorithm outputs. I think that because hashing involves destroying such a large quantity of the original data input, that's a reasonable assumption. I know almost nothing about cryptography though. That's the reason why Bitcoin "addresses" are not the ECDSA public key, but a RIPEMD160 hash of the public key. Until the BTC is spent, the public key is protected from actual publicity, but spending involves revealing the public key in order to validate the transaction. So, in the event of QC blockchain-ogeddon, funds stored at addresses that have never been spent from will not (theoretically) be vulnerable. However, at least 1 developer has suggested this assumption is not as safe as was assumed when this was devised, I do not remember the details however What do you do with satoshis stack? How does this resolve? There would be people claiming "do nothing with satoshis coins, they are his coins after all" while others will argue the coins are basically a big vulnerability for the ecosystem at that point. Do you have any clear vision of how things would turn out? These things need to be planned ahead and I don't see enough discussion tbh.
I think @theymos actually did bring this up some time ago (and people mostly didn't see what the point was, and accused him of being jealous of satoshi or something or other) The fact is, early BTC from ~ 2009 did not have a hash to protect the public key, those mined coins have their public key directly exposed on the blockchain right now. A known quantum computing algorithm can be used to efficiently spend those coins, which includes satoshi's stash (it's a guess who it all belongs to, certainly satoshi must own some though). The only thing stopping this is that the hardware doesn't exist. Yet. which is why making satoshi's coins unspendable has merit, to anyone developing QC's, 1,000,000 BTC is effectively the bounty for keeping the details of progress in their work very quiet. If anyone is in the race to develop cutting edge QCs, the sort of people who ought not to have that much power are definitely in contention. Of course, there will always be loud screeches that "satoshi should be allowed to keep his/their BTC", but in this scenario, satohsi loses it either way if action is not taken well in advance. because the coins haven't moved, one could argue satoshi is either dead or confident it won't happen. |
|
|
|
That's why I said "in this instance"... OP has 1 BTC input that they don't want to break. So zero fee would be required to preserve the 1 BTC... which wouldn't get relayed. sorry, I thought it was you that didn't read properly, it was actually me  If you don't mind "sacrificing" a small amount of your original input (or you have a small amount extra), then "yes", you can totally send with min fee and then CPFP to get it pushed through (assuming that min relay isn't enough to get it confirmed)
but my real question was, will the outputs of the parent tx be tainted by the inputs in the child tx used to bump the fee? The more I think about it, there's no reason this should work any differently to a regular transaction, as the parent outs are just inputs to the child tx
a future possibility is the 'package relay' feature (not yet merged into Bitcoin, possibly for 0.20.0). That would let the OP send the original 1 BTC with zero fees, which should be accepted into mempools if simultaneously broadcast with a child tx with the fees to get them both confirmed. Expensive, but not quite the cost of 2 consecutive transactions, as the child needs only 1 input and 1 output + 1 input and 1 output in the parent. Anyone know if package relay could prevent the inputs used as fees in the child tx from tainting the outputs of the parent tx? |
|
|
|
The problem would be that no node would accept your original transaction with zero fee (zero fee required in this instance to avoid "breaking" the 1 BTC input).
not zero. Above the default relay fee, but too low to confirm in the next several blocks Option #2 is more expensive and arguably just as bad for privacy as you can track the coins being sent to the address anyway... but this way you can't for certain claim they were both "owned" by the same person.
I'm not thinking necessarily of outright privacy If you had an address that was sent spam dust payments, the dust may be enough to pay the fees of a future transaction (unlikely), or at least contribute something to the fees. If you can structure the transaction in a way that the spam/dust goes only as fees to the miner, then no extra information is revealed that was not already public, you didn't taint your outputs with the spam dust, and the stupid spammer just paid some of your fees |
|
|
|
a question on this has occurred to me if you do this, the inputs get essentially merged, and so are forever "tainted" with one another (not the right expression, but I hope you all see what I mean) But what if you used CPFP? (child pays for parent) Couldn't you - create the parent 1 BTC transaction with sufficiently low fees that it won't get confirmed any time soon
- create a child tx that spends the output of the parent, and an input to cover the (total) fees that is not sent to an output
would that not avoid tainting the 1 BTC output in the parent with the input used as fees in the child transaction? Or is this somehow possible without using CPFP at all? |
|
|
|
Overall, Wall Street wants this, because Bitcoin would be better squashed flat, except the realization that it cannot be realistically done has now been and gone. squashed flat in terms of price? I meant in the Wiley Coyote way, lol what's your take on the age old claims of manipulation in the gold market? commingling/rehypothecation to inflate the paper supply, leveraged shorting schemes to keep a lid on prices, etc. with gold pricing so highly centralized by the london bullion market and comex, it seems conceivable. tough topic. the trouble is, perhaps the last people we should listen to on this topic are the prominent voices protesting naked-shorting manipulation. If you've seen these people doing their thing over the years, I find the most interesting co-mingling to be when guests talking straight gold price manipulation get mixed together with guests telling me about lizard-people aliens guarding the Vatican. The credible tellers of stories about gold manipulation k-n-o-w, must know, that they're being interviewed alongside people that just suddenly slip in unrelated details that sound like they were taken from the plot of a Marvel comics movie. To wit, gold market tale-teller Catherine Austin-Spaceships ( ) once spent a half hour talking about trillions of dollars of missing money in US gov departments, then suddenly for no apparent reason, dropped this line: "...and did you know, there are spaceships fueling up using the rings of Saturn?"...and went straight back into talking about detailed legislation involving unaccountable US government audit trails  There's a whole bunch of mystics, clairvoyants and tarot card readers who involve themselves in the gold market stories, and it is a psychological trick to put you off or to distract you with nonsense. It's hard to find anyone with apparent credibility that hasn't associated themselves with someone who has none. So, I've heard plenty of stories, but the evidence is thin. Not that there's no evidence, just that there's a big incentive to kick up a massive, multi-layered smokescreen. I mean shit, these people are just lining up to tell you untold secrets about "real" money; when you really stop to think about it, the motivations of the person telling you should be closely scrutinized. Anyone with who knows anything important is probably either too wise, scared or greedy to start talking in public, maybe we'll find out something more concrete when it no longer matters. |
|
|
|
|
getting Armory running on a Mac is not the easiest task. there are a few people on Bitcointalk who know the details, of which there are more than a few
|
|
|
|
I don’t even understand how in 6 months Bitcoin will fly up to the mark of 20,000 dollars? I do not believe in such a strong price increase. I think that Bitcoin can overcome this price no sooner than in 1 year.
why!!!? it's basic supply and demand. when demand outstrips supply, the price adjusts to reflect how much Because of fees, people might be discouraged to run mining systems because of high cost of power and low return of fund. In that case, there will be less and less miners in the market, poor transactions will happen, what is your opinion about it?
my opinion is that people said that last time (both times) they were wrong. what's different this time? (I'll give you a clue, the answer rhymes with "buffing") |
|
|
|
I hope that the dev team is good enough at watching their back for points 2 and 6. It's not only Wall Street that can try such (evil) tricks.
they are more than expecting it, I should imagine. We have a reasonable suspicion that Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik (Max "Trojan Donkey" Keiser's favorite) were the first wave of corporate saboteurs, their hard-fork takeover attempts and Bitcoin clones were intended to usurp Bitcoin and failed miserably. One thing to consider is that not necessarily the new Bitcoin developers are the saboteur plants, those who want to turn Bitcoin into a nightmare system would be strategically lacking if they'd tried to use up all their ammunition in one attack. But which long term members of the Bitcoin dev team are trying to make it fail is not presently obvious, at least to me (or seemingly anyone else out there), possibly because they're waiting for a good opportunity. None of this matters that much, there's little difference between a Bitcoin programmer advocating a bad idea for good reasons or bad ones. If we as the users don't have the wisdom to choose good development plans, or choose against bad ones, then we'll get what we deserve. |
|
|
|
From what I understand, he's not voluntarily paying his taxes, but does so out of force and the fear of imprisonment. you could always start by reading his post, what people say gives a general impression of what their stance is he said I (and tax evaders like me) are the problem, and that we should all be good boy and girls If he's comfortable doing that, then that's up to him. I don't see much wrong with people doing so.
how many genocides paid for with your tax dollars would you like me to post? |
|
|
|
they're in such an awkward position over this Overall, Wall Street wants this, because Bitcoin would be better squashed flat, except the realization that it cannot be realistically done has now been and gone. so it could well be that the time taken over this has more to do with trying to figure out a way to manipulate the ETF yet simultaneously maintain it's credibility. that's not going to be easy with a digital bearer instrument like BTC. if I was Wall Street, I would: - hold the ETF as long as possible
- get some programmers into the Bitcoin developer team
- throw as much FUD as possible at BTC in as many ways as possible in the meantime
- accumulate BTC
- wait for some kind of systemic crisis (large or medium sized) to push an extra huge BTC pump
- try for another hard fork to completely switch the developer team, using your planted devs to lead it
watch out for parts 2 and 6 in particular |
|
|
|
@WindFury @Kakmakr same here I originally thought "sounds like interesting tech, but obviously can't go far, maybe the banks do something like it?" How naive that was |
|
|
|
Most of the people pay their taxes not because they think that it is the "right" thing to do. Also nobody thinks that it is their "duty" to pay the taxes on time. A lot of us pay the taxes because we know that the others are doing the same, and if we refuse to pay the taxes then the authorities will seize all of our assets and throw us in the prison to rot. easy problem to solve digital individual's checklist: - own digital assets that are protected by cryptography
- own internet assets (VPS) anonymously
- rent physical assets as much as possible
- have backup plans for theft of physical assets (laptops, PGP keys etc)
It is always risky to go against the status quo. If 20% or 30% of the population refuse to pay their taxes, or try to evade, then it gives us confidence. We know that they will not be able to go after this many people. But as long as the tax evaders constitute a minuscule proportion of the population, it gives the authorities the power to destroy them and to make an example out of them. Well... it is always the question of who will bell the cat first.
that would be people like me feel free to do the same, we're taking alot of the risk atm in order that you can do so too |
|
|
|
Here in our country, there are only 2 seasons of Sunny and Rainy seasons. Before when it was a Sunny season the only thing will come up to my head is no rain for a couple of months and the heat of the sun will cost the water supply to go below average. But now, Guess what? when Sunny seasons come, the water supply will go to almost nothing we ended up digging well so that we can have access to some water resources. also when its raining the rain is always above average. flooding all the time, this was not the case before though. That's why I think global warming is real it is happening right now.
Global warming is real; climate change is REAL. As a Southeast Asian, I observed and experience that typhoons are getting stronger and their occurrences are increasing through the years.
so only (small) changes in CO 2 alters rainfall or typhoon intensity? I put this to you two: - rainfall patterns have changed before, when CO2 was not really changing
- typhoon intensity has changed before, again, when CO2 was not really changing
not only that, but climate scientists are unanimous that CO 2 is not changing at an uncontrolled rate. A change of 0.01% over 200 years is not runaway exponential growth. |
|
|
|
If you dont like govs - fuck off I want to, they won't allow it. Only choice is to go to another planet, and no doubt they'd follow everyone there and start ordering everyone about again u voted quit voting long ago u are part of no I am not, I refuse to take part in something I never asked to be a part of, especially if it is thinly disguised bullying u can change (little) that's not how this garbage system is marketed to the voters, but it's true: you can change something so small through the electoral system that it makes almost no difference, and gives the political class plenty of advanced warning about how to make counter-reactions that will erase any political gains the electorate can make bitcoin is just tech - it doesnt Change much - don't get it ?
tech is a tool. tools can be powerful. powerful tools always, every time they were created and spread, changed the world. |
|
|
|
Oligarchs and billionaires have talented CAs out there to help them, and they normally pay much lower taxes rates when compared to the middle class (making use of all the loopholes and tax breaks). What they are doing is entirely legal, even if it is not very ethical.
ethics and morality are subjective I would entirely approve of the ethical stance of a US or EU citizen refusing to pay taxes, on the basis that they would be repaying the money borrowed to conduct: - WWII
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- Cambodian War
- Afghan War I
- Iraq War I
- Yugoslav War
- Afghan War II
- Iraq War II
- 2011 Libyan Annihilation (can't really call that a war)
- Syrian War
- Yemen War
and several I probably forgot So many people weren't even alive to vote against any of this, and yet they must pay the massive bill for these turf-war genocides. If you think it's ethical to just pay though, @bryant coleman, I would suggest it is you that is the unethical one. |
|
|
|
just quickly pointing out the thread moderation policy: because bitaps replied to a known troll account, their recent reply was wholly removed. |
|
|
|
Downloading from a torrent although quicker
it's not quicker, since about 4-5 years ago. There's literally no point in using bittorrent to download the blockchain since version 0.10 (which was released in 2015) |
|
|
|
It needs rules and consensus about. Anarchy doesn't want rules at all
It needs an existing economy and rule based (minimal is ok) capitalism to allow maximum open competition between miners.
And P2P trade function, where traceable txs are done and need a legal basic framework to be embedded into ok, let's call it "peer-to-peer trade"  or "peer-to-peer governance" it's pretty obvious that rules or consensus can be achieved person-to-person, so you're wrong Anarchy is not good for any global monetary settlement system like Bitcoin
Bitcoin already is a peer-to-peer system, with rules and without rulers. If you don't want to call that anarchy, that's fine, but you're a joke if you think it could possibly be used (or have users) if there were no rules. Bitcoin has rules. You don't like them. You don't have to use Bitcoin, no-one's asking you to do so (or asking you to stay here on Bitcointalk.org) in short: if you don't like it, fuck off (I predict you continue to come back whinging about something forever, nice life you have there ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
