Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2016, 02:50:36 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 227 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coinbase now supports Etherium; Is this a threat to Bitcoin dominance on: July 25, 2016, 11:52:20 PM
Heavily pre-mined (80%-ish currently), endlessly inflationary, 'cryptocurrency' which doesn't even provide ledger immutability...

2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Incentivizing Bitcoin Nodes on: July 25, 2016, 11:07:40 PM

"Nodes with open ports are able to upload blocks to new full nodes. In all other ways they are the same as nodes with closed ports."

The contributor of those two lines makes it sound as if this difference between the two is negligible, when it isn't.

In fact, that quoted text sounds like it's overstating the differences-- nodes without open ports still forward blocks too.  The difference is that they make outbound connections and so they can't connect to each other... and now that HS support is integrated, even that difference is diminishing.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin based Blockchain compression algorithm on: July 24, 2016, 07:19:22 PM
0.8.6 is what most altcoins are based on, it is an old codebase with many vulnerabilities. Also look at the screenshots. This is in the wrong subforum.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Release - Open source software - replacing hardware wallets with image { on: July 23, 2016, 08:39:42 PM
This kind of steganography-- hiding data in the least significant bits of images-- is _very_ easily detected by statistical methods, and there are many papers and tools (stegdetect, for jpeg as an example) to do so.

At a minimum, something hoping to perform successful image steg embedding should be using wet paper codes.

5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / High-S transactions, help finding origins? on: July 20, 2016, 10:40:18 PM
There is still a steady flow of high-s transactions hitting the network. The only reason they get mined now is because of some people running special nodes that mutate them to make them acceptable.

Is anyone interested in trying to find the sources?

Here is a list of txids for transactions which appear to have originally been high-S (these are the IDs for the mutated forms that had a chance to get confirmed):


6  Economy / Exchanges / Re: Coinbase Patents on: July 20, 2016, 06:33:49 AM
To my understanding a pledge such as the one by Blockstream is legally binding.
Correct. And in addition to the pledge we have the DPL and MIPA which are two additional distinctive ways that users get protective coverage. These provide additional assurance in case of any limitation or issue with the pledge (and vice versa).  (MIPA is kind of narrow: it says the inventors are also able to grant licenses for defensive use)
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mark Karpeles on bail on: July 15, 2016, 01:28:00 AM
Hold your pitchforks on that point.

In the US at least, most people don't usually pay their own bail. You use a bail bondsman who loans you money for the bail and, presumably, comes and breaks your kneecaps if you don't make payments on the loan or skip down on your bail. They'll sometimes take the title on some property of yours to secure the loan.

I assume the situation is no different in Japan.
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who really owns and manages Bitcoin? on: July 14, 2016, 05:13:52 PM
You can clearly see who can approve new code in GitHub here.
No, you can't-- that is listing org members (and not even all of them since some have set themselves to private-- in fact, when you linked to it I noticed I was set to private and just fixed that, there are 22). It's the list of people who can be assigned to trouble tickets.

There is no set of people who can "approve code", except all the users of Bitcoin-- there are no automatic updates for a reason.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney) on: July 14, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
If what some people on this page of the topic have written is true, and the mind / soul does not disassociate from the body at death, then it could be that Hal's soul is currently locked up in his frozen brain and body, saying "FORGET IT!!!  THIS WAS A BAD IDEA!!! THIS WASN'T SUPPOSED TO WORK LIKE THIS!!! LET ME OUT!!! KILL ME KILL ME KILL ME KILL ME KILL ME..........."

I don't think anyone here wants to do him like that, do we?
You can imagine things like that but it's oddly specific. Why that yet not have that be the problem when people are burried rather than cremated (or vice versa).
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and me (Hal Finney) on: July 13, 2016, 02:16:16 AM
I was just doing some searching, and I saw the link back on page 14 in this topic about Hal Finney being cryopreserved.
No disrespect to Hal, but I think that cryopreservation is a load of SHIT.
No one who is cryopreserved will ever be revived.  The body simply does not work that way.
Each one of us, me, you, etc...  WE are not the physical "we" that we see and feel in and of our physical human bodies.  WE are the life energy, the "soul", as it is, and we merely inhabit these human bodies for the length of this bodies' lifespan.  It is like living in a house that is freshly built when this body is born, and then over time the house decays and collapses, equivalent to the death of this human body.
So the actual Hal Finney is gone, probably onto his next life already, never to return to the long dead human body, or "house" he once lived in.

People have died-- no respiration, no heartbeat, and no brain activity for reasonably long spans of time--... under special circumstances of low temperatures and low oxygenation (which limited apoptosis) and survived.

Even under your mystical interpretation of life which is unsupported by scientific inquiry-- how could you have any idea how long someone must be dead before their soul "energy" couldn't return? Why should time even have meaning to soul energy?

And if it does someday become possible to recover people preserved today, every one of us that didn't support it vigorously will-- in hindsight-- be part of the largest scale mass murder ever... perhaps billions of lives that could be preserved, ignored, because some people had a hunch about soul 'energy' and what not.

The main thing I dislike about many religious and spiritual advocates isn't their unfounded beliefs-- knowledge has limits, currently for sure, and perhaps forever, I see no harm in dreaming about the gaps in between the things we know-- but, rather, the profound lack of imagination and the level of certainty in their ignorance.

If, in spite of all objective observation, "we" aren't these beautiful machines whos operations exists squarely in the somewhat known physical laws of the universe; but are instead some kind of ineffable soul energy unconstrained by normal physical law that would make it observable... Then why the heck should we expect that energy need to obey time? causality? distance? entropy? or otherwise behave like a physical thing, since you've already decided that it isn't one.  No one has yet attempted to restore a cryopreserved person with a result that "should have worked" and yet found it didn't, and the closet we have (some freak accidents) suggests that people _can_ miraculously be revived if the meat machinery is in good enough shape. And the technology of cryopreservation, even if it can never be applied to whole people, is essential science that could eventually transform emergency medical treatment, organ transplants, and many other things.

I don't think this argument does anything to debase your view of an ineffable soul-- if anything it glorifies it: a soul that can transcend time and space to be returned back to the right place when summoned by the collective, careful, brilliant, and loving work of mans finest minds in the culmination of generations of study of the wonders of nature all around us... I think that kind of soul is a lot more grand that one that cares about "before" and "after", loses its attention, and goes elsewhere or fizzles out.

And I wonder, if some hundreds of years from now Hal will read this thread and feel sadness for each of us that didn't make it.

But especially for people who aren't popsicles now, there is no reason to be sad-- there is reason to work. As far as anyone knows a all forms of death from natural causes are curable and only ignorance, fear, and insufficiently audacious romanticism prevent us, collectively as mankind, from solving it--

Many people with old money are constrained by perverted social dynamics from funding research to fight death at a fundamental level-- the vision of some billionaire trying to live forever is so reflexively distasteful to people that they often won't fund it, even though the science might eventually save trillions of lives.  I hope that more people who've gained wealth through Bitcoin will have the courage (or at least the ego) to buck that trend-- and I think we do, since I know at least six long time bitcoiners who fund relevant research.

Put another way, maybe you're right and Hal and no one else could ever be restored this way. So what? Many wealthy people already have funerals far more expensive than cryopreservation. And those funerals don't have even the tinyest chance of helping them come back in the future. Being cryopreseved wouldn't have any effect on your soul if they exist... but if works, it might just bring you back.

Or, in other words:

"So the possibility [...] may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million to 1! Even if the odds of [...] succeeding to this degree are slim, are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about..."

Assuming you think the possibility of living for hundreds of years in the future is very valuable for you or those you love, a long shot bet on that would be a pretty good pay-off.

If you don't think it's at least worth considering, then you fail the test that would have defined you as a very early user of Bitcoin if you'd noticed that you had the opportunity.

I suppose, given how few people thought Bitcoin's long shot was interesting back when Bitcoin was worth nothing, I shouldn't be surprised that many dismiss ideas like this out of hand. Smiley Perhaps something more to think about... Maybe some of of you who missed out in Bitcoin in 2009/2010 won't also miss out on a vastly extended lifespan? Smiley

When the brain is deprived of oxygenated blood it dies very quickly.
Certainly not my area of expertise, but the techniques used for cryopreservation are quite remarkable. For small amounts of tissue the damage is negligible to non-existent which is part of why it's perfectly reasonable to keep human embryos cryogenically preserved for a decade (or more!), not just possible but widely done! The results on larger organs are less successful due to issues with evenness and speed, both in the preservation and recovery. But you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the serious work here,  no one argues that this stuff is even _likely_ to work with the state of technology right now-- but it's far from the absolutely impossibility that has been argued here.

Not to mention the indirect effects: I would sure prefer to live in a world where many people believed they needed to care for it to preserve it for themselves into the far future, than with people who expect to just vanish or go to some prefabricated paradise even if they make a mess of the place here.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If Blockchain is patented, can they bring down the rest of the altcoins? on: July 12, 2016, 06:27:20 AM
if Craig Wright successfully claimed he is the real satoshi and had moved coins from satoshi's wallet to another wallet.
Can he then claim patent of blockchain? If yes, can he bring down the rest of the cryptocurencies?
Even in if that scammer managed to convince governments that he was Bitcoin's creator-- he couldn't patent it.  An inventor's own publication or public practice eventually becomes prior art that blocks the inventors own patents. That time limit has long since run out.

So what exactly is Craig Wright's objective upon claiming all these?
I assume that Wright is attempting to defraud investors who understand the patent system no better than you did before this thread-- people who think that he can patent Bitcoin, and thus has highly valuable patents.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Bitcoin community 100 percent certain that the early big names from 2009 on: July 11, 2016, 09:36:53 AM
We can be sure, however, that this question is really boring and a waste of time.

Bitcoin was specifically designed so that it's creator-- and ideally, any other person-- their actions or motivations, doesn't matter.

Worrying about Bitcoin's creator is mostly just showing that you don't get the point.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Reponse to Roger Ver's "Time to End the Block-Size Blockade" essay on: July 07, 2016, 09:02:23 PM
It is really unfortunate that, with so many people running around on Reddit and BTCT that we are unable to keep a higher node count. If half of us were to run a single node, the situation would definitely improve.
That would require a lot of people who don't own any Bitcoins to run nodes... Smiley
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic on: July 05, 2016, 11:52:23 PM
about 11% of total nodes
You should add some scare-quotes around "nodes". There are other ways of measuring nodes that classic advocates haven't figured out how to sibyl attack yet, through one of these mechanism I measure 4.7% (amusingly, it was roughly at the same number even at their peak of "25%"-- showing they've had more attrition of sybil nodes than actual ones). Of course, this doesn't measure actual users being behind those nodes, which I suspect is far lower...

blocks mined in the last 24 hours were in BIP-9 (old version without SW)
whereas typically half of the blocks mined were BIP 68 112 113 (new versions including SW)
There are no blocks signaling SW yet.   BIP68/112/113 have activated so they are no longer signaled, any miner still setting that bit would be seriously buggy.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic on: July 05, 2016, 09:12:52 PM
This question is important because my belief has always been that if something else wins out, core will adjust and may again become the best client, however, what the best developers do is far more important than what core does.  So as a developer with "nearly a lifetime of relevant experience" that helps to "identify initiatives which are likely to be successful" I'm interested in whether he would jump ship if he had to (supporting classic or unlimited, for instance) and also in whether or not he would believe he had to (vs expecting the ~75%/+ longer fork to die off without confidence in the ~25%/- fork concurrently being so shaken that there is no longer a "successful initiative" on either "side").
Many of the people pushing for hardfork size increases are pushing a vision of Bitcoin that will almost certainly become highly centralized-- See for example the comments on Reddit today with people arguing that it's possible to handle 8GB blocks using computing systems at quasi-youtube scale-- some don't consider this a problem; from my perspective such a system would be completely uninteresting (and a detriment to mankind, if it survived at all).

No one _has_ to support anything here they don't want to; and I'm surely not going to support something that puts us on that route and I doubt practically any of the active development community would.  Presumably anyone okay with that path would already be supporting Bitcoin "Classic", but clearly none are.

16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic on: July 05, 2016, 08:36:49 AM
I agree that the miners made a mistake. Basically, if Gregory Maxwell wasn't at the agreement, you don't have an agreement. 
I disagree. He's smart enough not to participate in closed-door meetings which are counter-intuitive to Bitcoin.
Just so.

But beyond that, this weird fantasy that I am some uniquely important person in Bitcoin is just completely without basis.  It's a narative spun by Mike Hearn in an effort to bring down regulatory hellfire on me to drive me out-- since for years I (and most other people actually doing the work of supporting the system) was very careful to keep a low profile, it didn't work.

Having my support on something doesn't magically make it a success. The fact that efforts I support are often a success is much more because I have nearly a lifetime of relevant experience that lets me identify initiatives which are likely to be successful and I prefer to spend my time working on those... than it is because I or anyone else has some kind of magical influence. ... regardless of what stories some people find advantageous to tell.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockstream wants to rewrite the bitcoin whitepaper on: July 03, 2016, 08:48:28 AM
Dishonest fraud on my Bitcointalk? It's more likely than you think!

Blockstream has nothing to do with Cobra's post, I didn't even hear about it until an /r/bitcoin mod asked me to come refute that claim.  The people telling you otherwise are lying to you with a specific intention of manipulating your views.

Also, to be entirely fair, the blockstream core devs started proposing soft forks/BIPs that are necessary for LN to operate long before anyone had even heard of LN, and at a time at which the concept of anyone using any kind of "off chain" transaction would be generally considered to be "not using" bitcoin.
Huh? We learned about it at a public presentation, same as anyone else... and didn't do anything with it until after Mike Hearn publicly criticized us for not providing more support for it.

If you're thinking things came before, it's because Lightning was constructed out of things already in the development pipeline-- things which were independently useful or even  necessary for the future.

(what is clearly)The goal of the blockstream core devs is to make Bitcoin something very different from what satoshi originally meant it to be and from what it is today.
Payment channels were invented by Bitcoin's creator, and the Bitcoin protocol includes specific affordances to enable them.

Even Gregory Maxwell said the white paper is still relevant.And btcdrak as Core contributor also said that would be ridiculous.
However an updated version of what the Bitcoin network is today is a good idea imo.And this could be add as a second version beside the original white paper.
I mean the network has changed so much the last 7 years, so why not document and publish it.
The whitepaper is great and still describes the system (even with segwit!) pretty much exactly as well as it described the very first release!

... Though it didn't describe the very first release all that well, except at the highest possible level.   For example, it says almost nothing about difficulty retargeting, it says nothing about the coin supply schedule, it says nothing about nlocktime or sequence numbers, it says nothing about _script_ at all,  it describes a version of SPV (with alerts) that can't quite be implemented in the protocol we have today.

Of course, it says nothing about the attacks that weren't known at the time, like selfish mining-- or that a constant proportion attacker in a world with exponentially growing hashrate will eventually reorg the whole chain with probability 1.

Should it mention all these things, probably not.  Some of the things it does mention are things that continually cause mistakes and confusion-- e.g. it says nodes prefer the "longest chain" but this is wrong and unworkable, the insufficiently precise statement has made academics dismiss the system as broken, and even cause the developer of a popular SPV wallet software to implement the protocol in a wrong and insecure way.  Yet that could be avoided with a couple word tweak.

But even given all that, it's a remarkably clear and lucid document; which at its level of non-specificness continues to accurately describe the system... and I think it should be left alone.

But I also agree with Cobra's point was that people looking for an overview of how Bitcoin works should probably be directed to something that benefits from eight additional years of experience.  Just getting rid of the @#$@ longest chain misunderstanding would itself be a big improvement.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current SegWit code does not fix O(n^2) on: June 30, 2016, 07:33:06 AM
If you've seen his posts anywhere else before, you'd know that he calls it the "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset".
I actually haven't since he's on my ignore list (and I'm only replying to satisfy my masochistic tendencies), but I did Google the phrase and fail to find anything useful. I'm just going to assume it means "SegWit plus all other Core updates I don't understand or like".

Don't be so hard on him on this (every other reason is good to go).  SegWit Omnibus changeset sounds like something _I_ would say-- I'd use it to refer to the pull request that implemented the segwit consensus rules, the segwit wallet support, and the huge amount of testing infrastructure.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current SegWit code does not fix O(n^2) on: June 30, 2016, 07:25:32 AM
We layfolk are not party to the detailed development plans, and that is OK. However, with several Core supporters deriding alternative node implementations for limiting the effects of the O(n^2) issue, rather than solving it head on

Fundamental misunderstanding, conflating the protocol with non-normative implementation particulars.  The Bitcoin protocol has a design flaw where transaction validation can take time quadratic in the size of the transaction. No implementation can avoid this wasteful computation because it is a consensus rule normative to the protocol.

With an increase in blocksize this wasteful computation could easily be turned into a system halting denial of service.

Rather that fixing it, Bitcoin Classic implemented yet another useless hard limit of transaction sizes-- to keep the bleeding at a moderate level. (Still allowing blocks to trigger 1.2 _gigabytes_ of hashing)

Segwit's design addressed the issue in two ways: One is that the extra capacity in segwit is for witness data, which is not hashed by the signature hasher. Because of this even with no fix, the worst case possible is much less significant than a plain 2MB block.  The other is that segwit changes the data structure which is hashed to not require the quadratic computation, by making the part of the hashing that all signatures would share identical that computation can be shared-- the resulting structure can be hashed with O(N) work instead of O(N^2).  These are both done, integrated, and tested since 2015.  Both are fundamental to segwit.

The point Peter Todd was making was that the segwit implementation in Bitcoin Core doesn't make use of that changed structure in the second improvement to actually save the computation possible from that second improvement.  There is an open pull request for it it just isn't integrated yet.  Btcd's does however.    This is an implementation specific difference, on my computer it does, on yours it doesn't and we're totally compatible.  Similarly, even ignoring segwit Bitcoin Core is normally many times faster than btcd, but both are compatible.

Our focus is on correctness, compatibility, and ensuring flexibility, not in getting in every last possible optimization into the system on day one. Not changing the signature-hashing algorithm, just changing the data structure, made review for correctness easier, and also allowed compatibility testing (between the naive code, the unmerged optimization, and the btcd implementation).

The important thing is that the design flaw has been eliminated for segwit txn; allowing the implementations to implement the optimization at their leisure.  It makes not a difference at all if anyone actually makes use of the new structure until segwit is activated on the network.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Current SegWit code does not fix O(n^2) on: June 29, 2016, 09:35:34 PM
lets get to the short and curlies of it.

Can you explain to me what the change does and what significance it has?

I think that would do more to get the details, like making it clear that your "concern" is motivated by harassment rather than actual concern.

but in regards to a publicly downloading implementation that handles real bitcoin data on the real live bitcoin network.
will the optimization be included in the next release.
I expect it to be included in any release with segwit activated.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 227 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!