Bitcoin Forum
April 20, 2021, 05:53:56 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / To Tossers DDoSing litecoin: You are only going to make us LTCers richer. THX U! on: December 03, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
I am laughing my ass off at you.

You think you can undermine demand?

Seriously?

The amount of coins I will make in the next week because of you jackhats, LMAO.

Get off the internet if you don't know how blowback aka the Streisand effect works.

Last thread I'll post for a while.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Litecoin is more secure than Bitcoin, lower hashrate is nearly irrelevant on: August 27, 2012, 12:15:44 PM
Cryptocoin security is dependent on:
Strength of algorithm
Distribution of mining resources
Difficulty
Network strength

Strength of algorithm:
Scrypt is so much more expensive in terms of resources to purchase, lower hashrate creates an upper bound of attack strength.
It cost so much more money to increase attack strength in Litecoin that it becomes a very strong wall against attacks.
Hashrate is not the measurement of strength. Hashrate * Strength of algorithm is.
Compare a flood of millions of gallons water to thousands of larger boulders. The damage done by the boulders can be more even though the count is less.

Distribution of mining resources:
The distribution issue is not linear. It's parabolic (high imbalance at low and high ends of spectrum).
High jumps from one technology to the next has the same effect as low difficulty.
High jumps balkanize the mining power in the hands of people who do not spend.
If big miners don't buy carrots via bitcoin, then the bitcoins are useless to carrot farmers.

Difficulty:
The difficulty is lower in litecoin right now, but in reality litecoin is the same as bitcoin 5 years from now because of the algo strength.

Network strength:
It takes less work to get the same security in litecoin as it does in bitcoin.
Scrypt creates a tough ceiling for new tech to overcome.
Bigger bat is just as good as faster bat in physics.

All in all litecoin is a more secure network because no new technology can come in all of a sudden and surprise the network and undermine security even if only temporarily.
3  Other / Meta / Please delete this account on: July 30, 2012, 03:19:17 AM
I have become disgusted with:
1. Bigotry against altchains
2. Infectious centralist dogma
3. Delusions about the nature of the economy
4. I can no longer participate here without feeling like I'm fighting a wall
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / I'm done. Fuck centralist rhetorical idiots. Litecoin is my permanent home. on: July 29, 2012, 05:04:05 AM
Goodbye.

This is the stupidity that did it:
"Big accounts are investors that do not want to lose their wealth that they put into Bitcoin."

Kill me now.

1. Early adopters didn't need to invest shit to amass 10s of 1000s of Bitcoins.
2. Exchanging currencies is hedging not investing.
3. Investing increases participation at all levels, not just creating more worker drones for the first to hear of it.
4. The Internet does not have a linear time line preferring the first diver. Adapt to it or sink.

No more Bitcoin forums for me.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / One last thing on the 51% attack on: July 29, 2012, 02:50:44 AM
51% attack exists because ppl want a one size fits all solution. This is necessary for store of value purists and for the demurrage ppl as well.

Stop being paranoid about altchains and build a library of common functions.
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / 51% attack tamed, hogtied, tagged, and sent to the butcher on: July 29, 2012, 02:00:36 AM
BitcoinEXpress started this thread on solving the 51% issue: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96255.0
Ignore the fact that he's asserting some debatable points about his actions. That's been hashed to death.

I'll keep brainstorming in that thread but here's a completely decentralized solution to the 51% attack:

What is the nature of the 51% attack?
It is a single monolithic but decentralized network coming apart that is always ready to combust. That gives us the 50% + small edge parameter. A cursory study of chaos theory would tell you a truly decentralized system allows no monolithic attributes, ie. single difficulty, single hashrate target, etc. However, we don't need to modify those yet.

What we need to do is turn this monopolar model into a multipolar model. Any large attacker can make it bipolar. If we're going to have 2 poles then it's like two orbiting planets eventually crashing into each other. So either monopolar which is unstable or multipolar which is more flexible. Then 51% can become maybe 66.6%, 75%, 80%, 83.3%, 85.7%, 89.1%, 90%, etc.

Split the attack into two challenges or more perhaps like so:
Every block that's created must be submitted in portions but only the longest block with the consistently longest portions (at least 80%) in a row will be accepted.
This will lead to race conditions between multiple attackers. The blockchain is a managed self consistent race condition.
Instead of gaining control they may only be able to choke the network into a long context war.

The forking is solved because the possibility of gaining control is diminished with multiple attackers, but now we have the issue of drawn out battles.

So let's use our heads. What does a healthy chain look like?
No fever or cold sweats (way too high difficulty or way too low hashrate).
No sudden breakouts (blind merger as with the "attack").

Therefore the correct chain would be the one where the miners who were not knocked our during the tell tale DDoS are still producing at the same or similar rate.
In other words, assume the drop is a forced one and compare the hashrate against the participation rate. The fork with the least change in rates/participant and the longest most consistent (most partial blocks are longest) blocks is the correct one.

Think of the fair division of cake problem or a pile of loot with multiple thieves. What method allows the fairest distribution? Transplant the solution to that to the blockchain context.

More of this type of problem solving will be added here: http://antishock.tumblr.com

By the way, the blockchain is starting to sound like an operating system kernel and it would be wise to use ideas from that space to solve problems.

Hell, evolution and biological strategies for survival can also inform this issue.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Bite my coin trolls on: July 28, 2012, 06:40:53 PM
yes
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / CGMiner is nearly the guaranteed end of the 51% vulnerability on: July 27, 2012, 06:07:41 AM
Mine either algorithm as you like.
Monitor changes in hashrates.
Trigger defense mechanism either when too low or too high.
Jump chains to defend.

So much for the so called flaw.

We're almost there.

We can tolerate monocoin nutjobs causing havoc.

Or we can design useful chains with abstract features and exotic properties.
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Hey BCX: I've got a real challenge for you on: July 27, 2012, 03:16:18 AM
My design skills versus your design skills.
No bets.
No code.
Just the pure art of designing something as decentralized as possible.

You keep bringing up Scam Coin features. I find that sad.
Got any ideas of your own?
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Coin incubation/natural split on: July 26, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
We were wondering about your thoughts on this:

Suddenly raising the difficulty or causing a massive reorg sweep would cause the network to spit out a new blockchain.
Difficulty would be higher than the parent with a training period of one week.
To reduce the difficulty within that week, trading must begin.
Based on the level of trading, interactions, and initial network shape, the network will set fixed parameters for retarget time, maximum coins minted, halving time, and block reward.
If the chain is not retrained in the alloted time it dies.

Telltale signs of 51% attacks would naturally lead to more blockchains.

Questions?
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Mental Gents! How shall we define blockchain equivalence? on: July 26, 2012, 01:28:18 AM
An economy is made up of earnings, savings, investment, trade.

The vague as hell rhetoric around supply and demand doesn't cut it.

Some people don't switch products because of performance nor price. Deal with it, purists.
Some people choose a product because the kind of community it attracts, how many people have interchangeable parts, which product has a service center closer.
I really shouldn't have to explain this.

So with the drama that goes on in some places, people may decide to fork (like they do software) and start over and produce an identical chain with few differences but a different community. We will have to at some point negotiate among these blockchains. Exchanging by signing contracts isn't going to cut it. We will have to have a means of converting coins.

A few of us have some ideas but we're curious what you guys think.

One idea we came up with is: Mining conversion tokens

You mine bitcoins and in the process of creating a block you also include a multiplier token which is now part of the action. The token portion would be reversible and other multiplier tokens could be inserted in the conversion.

If you were to convert between bitcoin and an exact clone of bitcoin you would give a 1:1 token and they would do the same.
If you were to convert between Bitcoin and 5 tinycoins that are worth 1/5th:
1. Each tinycoin and bitcoin would be in a package with a multiplier.
2. 5 1:1 tokens from the tinycoin chain would be combined into 1 5:1 token.
3. 1 1:1 token from the bitcoin chain would be extracted and compared with the 5:1 token from the tinycoin chain.
4. #3 causes the 1 1:1 token to split into 5 1:5 tokens.
5. This would cause the bitcoin block to split into 5 copies with the 1:5 token in each copy.
6. #3 causes the 5 tinycoins to become one tinycoin.
7. This causes the 1 5:1 token to become embedded in the tinycoin.

There would not be a trace within the coin block that the conversion took place. We could have a conversion record separately so that people can't just insert whatever multiplier they want. It could have been 5 tinycoins for 1 sausage coin. Any store that accepts 5 tinycoins for 1 bitcoin would accept the tinycoin with the multiplier. Similarly any store that sold candy for 1 tinycoin would not return change for a bitcoin with a 1:5 multiplier.

Any questions?

This would allow direct chain to chain trades without everyone having to have wallets in chains they don't usually work with.
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / In honor of BitcoinEXpress PMSing - $1 dollar for 1 LTC! on: July 25, 2012, 02:43:27 AM
Send $1 with a VouchX code (u could sell .12 btc) on vircurex and I will send you 1 ltc to your address.
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Shorter version: THREATENINGS AND THUNDERNESS! on: July 24, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
Okay so ppl don't like responses to dramafags. (thread removed)
Fine. Let's be blunt then. I knew war was beginning when I sold chewing gum for 31.4 ltcs way back.
This will fundamentally change bitcoin and litecoin.

For the better.

The biggest dramafags are going to lose the most.

Have fun.

14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / A Unified Coinspace on: July 17, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
An economy is made of earnings, savings, investment, and trade. We don't have the time to wait for the unconscious market process to bring these forth. We have to build the kernels for these aspects and then protect them until they mature. What we're proposing is an interface where the backend is any coin you want and the front end is an economic internal combustion engine. The backend coin defines the limits of the coin interface system and never allows the dynamics of the system to generate more coins than the naked coin would. Every altcoin has modified the rules for one or more of the major aspects of coins, the generation target, retarget time, difficulty, total coins, block reward. As long as no more coins are generated than the naked coin would, all these aspects may be modified.

The total number of coins is fixed to the backend coin, the coinbase.
The generation depends on the actual offered hashing resources.
The retarget time depends on the the average of the projected time until all the targets are achieved.
The block reward depends on the generation confidence (block hits in a duration).

A complete economic model includes earnings, savings, investment, and trade.
Each of these is a relation between 4 terms
reference term = anchoring term * (increasing term / decreasing term)

For earnings we could have:
reference term = next generation target / current generation target
anchoring term = feedback loop size / average feedback loop size
increasing term = trade rate / trade target
decreasing term = income rate / average income rate
As more people trade the system generates more blocks.
As more income is earned the system doesn't need to generate as much.

For investment:
reference term = next difficulty / current difficulty
anchoring term = feedback loop velocity / average feedback loop velocity
increasing term = generation rate / generation target
decreasing term = association rate / average association rate
As more people generate blocks the system raises the difficulty.
As more people interact in one to many relationships the difficulty is reduced.

For savings:
reference term = next trade target / current trade target
anchoring term = feedback loop number / average feedback loop number
increasing term = block reward / block reward target
decreasing term = storage period / average storage period
As more coins are stored the trading is induced to increase.
As more trading occurs in the same space trading is reduced.

For trade:
reference term = next block reward target / current block reward target
anchoring term = feedback loop resonance / average feedback loop resonance
increasing term = retarget time / retarget time target
decreasing term = hash rate / average hash rate
As local economies accelerate neighboring economies the block reward goes up.
As the hash power increases the block reward goes down.

No demurrage.
No new blockchains needed.
Features can be added to any coin without creating a new fork.

Even if scam coin were legit, now it's obsolete.
15  Economy / Economics / The moronic purification cult is a direct result of hoarding on: March 30, 2012, 12:33:27 PM
Coinmelting, tainting, 30% of the network not adding tx are symptoms.

Hoarding is called thus not because people are jealous (there is that element, tho), but mainly because people (who have no Bitcoins) are not waiting for the system to change, reset, repair.

They want a medium of exchange that allows them to replace broken or provide missing infrastructure.
You can also gauge the opinion of a currency by the behavior of thieves.

The amount of fraud in Bitcoin is right now related to how many people think it's a joke. Thieves want bitcoins to get easy dollars.
In the future they may steal Bitcoins so they can get a TV at a yard sale which they can put on auction for more Bitcoins.

But they are not doing that now.

I have sent the chewing gum from my LTC auction. 30.1 LTC for 5 sticks (I sent an 18 stick pack I bought for $1.69 - no 5 stick sugarless anywhere near me). Most 5 sticks are $.35 here. 1.69 / (18 / 5) = 1.69 / 3.6 = $.45 ish

LTCs trade at $.0055 - on the hypothetical chewing gum market they are worth $.35 / 30.1 to $.45 / 30.1 or 2.3 to 2.8 times.

And that's from ppl who have a lot. Combine low supply with renaissance mindset and you'll really see some action. Also for ppl who say that ppl are getting a bargain at 30.1 - I don't want $. I want cryptocoins. So they are in fact undervalued. The gum is cheap only if you want $.

I will be auctioning a T2330 Intel 1.6 GHz Laptop CPU for LTC soon.

I wasn't kidding when I said I would make a stand.
16  Economy / Auctions / Discussion for CLOSED Litecoin Auction - 30.1 LTC for 5 pc unit of Chewing gum on: March 23, 2012, 01:17:06 AM
So there you have it.
30.1 LTCs will get you a 5 pc stick/pack of gum.

Some things went right, some mistakes were made.

notme pls PM me your details.
17  Economy / Auctions / Bid on a stick of chewing gum - litecoins only - 25 bid auction - see disclaimer on: March 18, 2012, 11:46:15 PM
DISCLAIMER: Chewing gum contains aspartame. I do not recommend consuming this product. But the Bitcoin economy launched when people used them to exchange goods and conveniences. Exchanges came later.

Price:
Brand:
Variant:
Comment: Why'd you price it at this rate? For example: I want my currency to be 100% again (96+% loss currently in fiat). Or anything.

Single unit as sold at gas stations or grocery stores.


Happy bidding.
18  Economy / Marketplace / Service shares offered for BTC, LTC, PPUSD on: February 23, 2012, 08:53:48 AM
This is a model where I take all the risk. As my vendor stated, I can do whatever I want with the storage as long as he doesn't have to do anything.

Goals:
Replace Bitcoin with vouchers for service that paypal can't reject.
Provide a quick way for people to get bitcoins and litecoins without the usual hassle.
Provide a way for bitcoin businesses to have mass quantities of funding and be able to ride the panic.

I recently purchased 6 months of VPS hosting service. I am not using any of this service. I do have a separate purchase with this vendor.
Instead of having the service provisioned I declared service shares at 100 shares per BTC cost at full retail price. I did get a discount for purchasing 6 months at once and not actually having it provisioned.

To purchase service with these shares you can submit them to me as 114 shares for each month. Since the goal is not to increase my vendor's exposure, once you purchase service those shares are considered consumed and no longer exist (barring issues with the service). This would not be the case if you were purchasing products rather than service.

6 months of service @ 1.14 BTC per month = 6.84
100 shares per BTC * 6.84 = 684 shares
5% fee both ways in trades
initial profit potential = 6.84 / (6.84 - my discount)

I am selling these shares for Bitcoins, Litecoins, and PPUSD.
I will also repurchase these shares for BTC, LTC, and PPUSD.

At the time of purchase: (not including 5% fee)
USD/BTC = 4.39
USD/LTC = .0083
BTC/LTC = .00153
BTC/share = .01
LTC/share = 6.54

The price of one month of shares is dependent upon the current USD price of Bitcoins.

While I will be taking in my 5% and my discount, I will also be purchasing service such that every outstanding share is matched with service.

I take the risk that no one will want to buy these shares. However, liquidity is a joke at this time. Paxum cutting off bitcoin caused the usual panic.

At the very least I'll prove that what the Federal Reserve does is not rocket science.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Proposal for multigenerational token architecture on: January 09, 2012, 05:51:14 AM
I have had this idea banging in my head for a while.

But first...
It's kind of odd for me with my Anon tendencies (I create technologies and memes that explode in your ears) looking at the nasty whitehat destruction that Luke-Jr pulled. I say it's odd because I wouldn't be in any community that didn't have people willing to attack it from within. I can only wonder at Luke's reasoning, but I witnessed Anons attack their own several times though not in a destructive way, rather simply to cause temporary hesitation. But that was too far.

THAR CAN BE ONLEE WAN! - Luke Dash Jar Jar

A 6 hr protest at most and then move on. Blackhats disrupt. Whitehats destroy. Nation building space crusader. Christ Almighty.

/rant

I've been thinking a while about a mined token architecture involving multiple token bases.

1. Suppose you have a given difficulty for generating a Bitcoin and by some luck you generate a coin that would qualify at a larger difficulty. We can call that birthpoint.

2. The new token base would need a birthkey to make payments between one token base and the other impossible. The birthkey would be generated and converted into an address which would then be the token type identifier. Then the birthkey is thrown away. The birthchain is recorded.

3. Quantities are signed with that address / token type identifier.

4. The initial difficulty for a new token base would then be as follows:
w = birth threshold
x = difficulty of the motherbase
y = difficulty of the birthpoint
z =  collective age of a wallet relative to a motherbase
   = sum of (children * lineage of children * amount of each child base) for each lineage in a wallet
bitcoin would be generation 0

a = y / x = relative difficulty ratio
b = a / w = how difficult the birth was
c = x / b = the reference difficulty
difficulty = (c + zb) = xw/a + za/w = x^2w/y + zy/w = (x^2w^2 + zy^2)/yw

The value of a wallet then would be the Euclidean length of all currencies sharing one eldest motherbase.

A^2 + B^2 + C^2 ... = V^2

5. This should satisfy both the necessity for diversity to prevent abuse of power which Luke Jr demonstrated and also Luke Jr's concerns (I can only guess) that perhaps arbitrary low difficulty beginnings are bad.

6. Also it allows you to intentionally create new token bases that are of higher initial difficulty. "Hoarders" and early adopters might like a token base with higher difficulty which would result in a more stable price and would be glad to let go of those bitcoins they are sitting on to acquire it.

Crypto-currency alchemy. /bows
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / [FALSE ALARM] Security issues in the console client plus use of recovery tools on: January 09, 2012, 02:56:32 AM
Bitcoin console client and storage needs fixing:

One of the odd things about wallets is that you can send more than what you have in an account to an address you already have as long as you do not send it to the outside world.

Having said that, it would be possible then to:
1. Get coins out of nowhere!
- send 1000 BTC from one account to an address in the same wallet.
- use extractKeys to get the private key for that address
- use pywallet GUI to add the 1000 BTC address to a new wallet

2. Intentionally remove coins out of the BTC economy!
- do #1
- start bogus investment service
- repeat #1 a la Madoff
- receive new investments
- wait until investment is 10x original amount
- destroy wallet containing the address with negative amount of coins
- send original coins back to the address with negative amount of coins
- send rest of coins to the same address
- microwave the hard drive and then hit it with a sledge hammer

3. Increase the number of bitcoins in your wallet
- do #1
- sell bitcoins at an upward ramp of prices in increasing quantities
- do #1 again
- sell bitcoins at a large quantity at a fixed price forcing the price downward
- do #1 again
- sell bitcoins at a downward ramp of prices in increasing quantities
- do #1 again
- sell bitcoins at a large quantity blocking any attempts to increase the price
- watch people panic
- buy coins as they fall
- do #1 again
- sell more to make it a steady drop
- buy like crazy up to a price point
- sell like crazy to drive the value of your coins way up
- return all the extra coins to the black hole in your wallet.

There must be a way to prevent the client or blockchain from storing negative numbers.

I sincerely hope this post makes fiat trained speculators' heads explode. Lulz.
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!