People who accidentally double spend which would be fairly easy when multiple devices using the same wallets are common, as well as unconfirmed transactions that never get approved because they have no tx fee and the user eventually creates a new spend (oh I'll include it now that I get the money!).

But I agree that some kind of alert system should be in place especially for in-person transactions.

BULL SHIT

Spend the time and effort to make a legitimate business and the people will come. Just because someone can replicate a fkin exchange doesn't mean everybody's doing it. Take your ponzi elsewhere.

I don't believe the meshnet behind the freedom box is supposed to replace the internet, but rather a way to get around censorship and provide free internet access to those who can't afford it and so on. But if Big Internet decided to attack something like bitcoin, it would certainly work as a "darknet" around such censorship.

proof that two wrongs do make a right

inform and promote p2pool

so he forgot a zero, his comparison was still accurate

I'm pretty sure 75x and 100x (1%) are pretty close numbers when he was just guestimating based on his own hardware.

D&T for christ's sake man, you are the biggest bitcoin apologizer in the universe.

"Here let me start with some ridiculous best-case scenarios that let me apologize for bitcoin because that's what I do!"

You claim the attack is obvious, but miners aren't even aware (or weren't for the longest time, perhaps pool ops operate slightly more above board now) when their own pool solves a block, what the makes you think that they would know that the pool op is stealing txes with a quantum computer? That's right, nothing but apologism. This also makes for no account of the likely tens of thousands of public keys that are sitting right there in the block chain waiting to be stolen anyway. Coinbase transactions are in the pubkey format if I'm not mistaken. All of those coins that Satoshi "lost" according to apologists could be easily taken.

Will there be counter-measures? Sure. Will some coins get stolen? Most likely. Is it the end of the world? Probably not. But being as dishonest as possible is not the best way to discuss the issue. Additionally, while post-QC algorithms exist, the most data-friendly one, NTRU, requires 3kbit pubkeys and 6kbit signatures for the equivalent 128-bit security that bitcoin currently employs.

perhaps you should do some googling before spouting claims: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301141

"It turns out that for this problem a smaller quantum computer can solve problems further beyond current computing than for integer factorisation. A 160 bit elliptic curve cryptographic key could be broken on a quantum computer using around 1000 qubits while factoring the security-wise equivalent 1024 bit RSA modulus would require about 2000 qubits."

it's easier than integer factorization

Perhaps it's time that mining not be the focus of the currency for a currency to be considered "the people's coin." If you want to make it so that ASICs cannot take over, make sure it is never profitable to create or use ASICs. hint: see sig

banks don't leave public keys lying around that give access to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars

RIPEMD160 is not a one-time lamport signature, it is just a hash of a public key. For all we know, Satoshi may have done this to save space in the block chain, though that's somewhat doubtful considering all of the non-considerations that went into how much data is used. And as come from beyond pointed out, ECDSA is not secure at all against quantum computing, and in fact would be broken almost instantly with a quantum computer possessing enough qubits. AKA your money gets stolen.

That is not a threat that bitcoin has anything to do with though, that is a threat all by itself.

If, for example, the US government can no longer entice people to its military machine via worthless US dollars, people will not enter its military machine and the US will get very angry. The only way for bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to really succeed is to eventually start removing significant value from existing fiat currencies to itself. It will cause inflation above and beyond standard inflation and people will stop wanting the currency. It is a clear and present threat to the establishment.

perhaps because only a couple people mined throughout all of 2009

Security is entirely provided by share holders and does not require massive amounts of energy or hardware.

D&T is pretty heavily ingrained in the bitcoin sycophant army. Again I'll refer you to my sig for my proposal for Decrits. Miners don't control the currency because by them creating new currency, much more currency is given away freely to the network, so they are working against their own best interest unless it is profitable to mine. Interested coders are certainly welcome.

Fantastic read that sounds like the all too familiar preachers around here desperately trying to rationalize the bitcoin economy.

I would also like to point out that maybe, just maybe, if we can advance as a race beyond this ridiculous need to take advantage of each other, perhaps we would invest in things that require lots and lots of labor to improve humanity but require little in the way of actual natural resources. Like investing in new forms of energy, space exploration, pharmaceuticals (away from big pharma), and more.

This is a bit over my head, but if accurate sounds like a fantastic thing to eventually discourage this type of behavior.

Cunicula, there is no point in acting aggressive and making unsubstantiated statements. I am not going to get in a flame war with you because you think you've solved proof of stake in cryptocurrencies or something. If you want to actually argue something, argue it instead of beating around the bush and leaving me with nothing to actually respond to. I would be absolutely happy to, and it is the reason for posting these ideas.

edit: Since you edited your post give me a moment to respond without looking silly.



This is an appeal fallacy, though to which I am not sure. Appeal to common belief? I suppose.

Anyways, as far as transactional security goes, each share is essentially as powerful as any other. As far as voting power goes, as I mentioned in the voting section, the 75% majority is only for "pre-approved" voting options such as adding specific types of functionality to the network (new signature algorithms, new hashing algorithms for storing scripts, etc.), or changing non-essential functionality from a pre-determined list of options (like, if the value of the coins go down and a 2 coin award causes too much spam from the minting network, it could be increased to 4 coins--but this may end up being automatic anyway).

The 90% majority is required to actually change the code. Now, while changing the code is significant, it also requires that clients accept the change. It requires that the CloudNet accepts the change as well. Since what would be considered a standard bitcoin network peer will actually get paid for their services under this model (and the data storage and bandwidth requirements compared to bitcoin will be significantly less), I expect there to be a lot of network peers. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, and if a change is not universally regarded as a good thing, the network can peaceably split. Or perhaps we should just rely on a dozen or so pools to decide what's best for us? Or people endowed with power from the earliest adoption phases to be benevolent in their decision-making in the case of proof-of-stake?


No, because there are provisions against what you call incumbents from accruing any type of real power over the network. "The probationary period exists so that long-standing shareholders are rewarded for continuing service to the network."


If they are equally prone, then the provisions do not facilitate anything more than greater profitability for the "incumbents" as is designed.