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):


 66cd25ffa2166484f5cca506af1fecb72a1702868baac9f687a6d99a4c320a8f
 4218f7fbd078676cc947f9f65a797152a2264d4ab3b97c7e385988f520141cba
 f0e4bd7e94d13e3dbdf99eb4cbecc2ff06447f9e63b918c59d1507dc8244c5fe
 b21b260817a6bc2431d92f1829c875631df264051a443304542bf1e2d66cb1a3
 5b35bf06f7d662ccc56d8feb52db43d2b4d6f9136d0e13c887dccf237f5a2969
 cacdd00567c30b3e48e49174fb320efbc5aeb270162242a84a205031e68ba382
 cce6b2dd89c42afe1eab3a4dcc560453515cfbd0bf0060c454b0f30340a1598f
 3adcdc564692f00fbb1792e90b8cc3858629b7cca4723a70a704942e447f559d
 b214a090f663c203d07470911089d6f43effbe89dbe5105078e7e9cb7a23f4f8
 463697ba3de7cdf664eec32f733afaafd4420602fac732f7f38a1bd4c042e896
 0a47f478e15c3b380a36c5b814a5c8024f11c502969640f5d941e7dbad6de340
 1cc6fa4c37ac0e74b74b9d5f51aecaa90887bcf94c64258621e01c730ee7fd51
 55192be1a7510c541b02f4db8d4ef5a30339efebf46886ac15526c51d3fbc13d
 12fe77b2b4a698894534c2e77f6d11df205ccf21568e61c16046ebd1ae09b047
 4bf5108b3cced77e9906bd94b87977a8df2438ba2a3a19ba2e1518666c764983
 24390b6848a18bfd30ffbd3e10861515022fea2e30c0cd1ceca777740c7a86ee
 ae53552694144e5a4d840408bd79a62c8746aef4bbc155adf0652c2ea287bdc8
 18d3b40b6638f18e6d1eb5a0b8ca00fcebf64d7604ba5e28af7ff28b49efc977
 7482c567f20dc8672aabe828587e2ce59f6200352b17776503fd13ed3308751f
 58f381eea35ca53be31bd3f5e7080200563660661a2596b1e9ffc272cebeebcb
 c8a6fd916c87ab821815061be9403e10c9c4bac9be36ad7ed912af59abbb4687
 e6ebbd64b839e43d8f7976c13ed07d4fabf004341b0cc13ab2a13f2197ea6bd8
 3729f405cd54916c15988e0921ab309b438728462144ebad61c9f136b10bb58a
 b4afc58224de92107831f47703a4149a801651318f88dbcb8fa9074df3c3162d
 70f1bd6097a4e840f1b0dbdcf263e8cac37fb6105f7b2d0b8fade1f0590d5e5d
 4a9fda6c59b0f17d5438c43fbcfd0023252ff0a86df6e6c20de5ce7bd13983e5
 4a030272358cfb001b376a15e9526225f3714e25b53dbc3f2a13445cdf947ed3
 78239f7808d73021dab9b85ad3abd467b3add4ee03db26d4b6ce1ad1c7abbf60
 f6e5f4e0d4e5727cc5f386c61cdc4c68db4e58db6f7223b2a11fe2e88c8abef2
 47172a10a0718a804c01fff443c5fe6a23f7c763c9a66f5b9971d6bfbdcd0a90
 616ada60080bf656665cb5f32e58fb09d8aa47d156bc29a6bf88ed583990a5c1
 660e09824fe2cf7ca150c085dcbbb2318a3c30b5a0730b5d02eb466b1c7861d7
 6354cf56426648da423c9628fe0826f4e793e9d3a741eda11f106d475ab2d27d
 be5dfe6f2d2fa6b52e824fce271850ab29b1b6898149e33b35e954a0e69a6161
 0dc49684545fb8fa9c791003e70decffec4eab67113b88d7b91bae86600e1f15
 5688d81403121d5609cb39fb62a51d35ee0ecce53a9deb2b4fa62af8fef25926
 2c092e6ba01356699fea40c482c96a519ef1ddc2fbae7da8b04ef724ce9f926e
 fbfd74b5d79ecb35366f4e8d4b8576de7b851ed0758f190a029e6c3fd6ad23fe
 cd926bdc5e2b8c1224b4741466421ea6ae1da0ceb1ace6c7e670d3a31525038a
 97ef4772cc23c39e3cc281dc54474ef49d9f6b93dda3d8d461bb6d07c135bf80
 78450676ae8c2c7e4940ded64a04cf67fbbfc47c912a51c7c8c40a1d5220b769
 32392686c71458c624ca5734244aaf5fe153f92d1a61983ed3717bb1fc329f1b
 1dc72d720c2134632d69f2b6a51f5472634e40f016a68b79425606db42551030
 59732273a5aa07742e85a3add9f1e63d653127df5862e77e89b68f0a9d9c779f
 2bf130de8e1fe22973da372d8b3d21a989d3748aecc9e904699ff05d8f293e31
 881f11442cedfaf3added561eb47f09522b94390e198b5a676b1c7c31c341ba2
 e07d46acec0b936fbfbf4b43f1ada13e1f5bbc9c39319945b35736946fa27c19
 fe2e08e07cdd4b7a9fc70841899af6d59d52b180b4a7d01adf5fe0a1a8a3fdcd
 c2f17bf1c93fb12e3f0e3d54c817f98ad2d68d3e8bb10c1297a92652cebf9f29
 a20f805a45e3c3fbd6e4ea711e68ff2df519490cf7da984c9e4b4740b86ef7fb
 413bd5a599b3f95cee98b0def130fcde7af464fa2122305bf076e60ec523bdc2
 9fdaead9aded7d21dafe5966fa8457ba06eb08b56b863bf2fb507c23c4e37312
 d296caef92e30dbdf52008e2339614ebcd7bceee491a8aac3a46f2bb6a88933e
 fce8acc2d75481901be94d6fd7cfbac4de225e0399556143b49dabbc839e7137
 16b8753d85402e52d154acc07b46d4a416efdba04c9fccaa6e4272446844c1f4
 dcb9aac101988dac9f7b09fc9572830119d241c070d00504f7370e3fd2822e2f
 ab22fba4ffc4dff2820cd01c3e451015b608330d8607327d47aca2eb01125e2a
 88fff8d5fad5e8a3fadee2c4d94b9df3cd8a8dcf3665507c46c32194970f5fbd
 e133b675014146aef7363d492114aec0cc8ee74d800db6d743139a9cb03467cd
 ebd6aebc248dfdfa7af46f19d35f930e643eb3675b6606f1ef5468d84de12315
 533e8c8a49bb39d06226229d3a8e31e67f7fd906a501f192c265d212ae573eff
 8d2b48449687376a464d872a0ca89321535be66691fe504b2ded0774b58548c4
 d237e25e67c78763ec9a68aa3fee055c434155f0d764ca685f37a867ea94a3ea
 007628d3b19d8802946dccebb0eab96935f8c6e11eadd00d9537cb9a9be30491
 faf207a88c6601fc9e637097ee44e775b9610af792b86269dadefdbecab89f89
 f1bfacd6bd3cd18bc55fd6b819843e054b33f6654a87a45c5cefa54349e56b93
 7c25df8d0f98520995b644a17b120679afb6ba083e94ec19667cae09496e6c36
 285f0131b80fadd60e191272e8a2be8760bab8ae2ebf33cdf4721f2938c78760
 700358899649d129dcb45f49474047a6831fea1cb0cb3ccf8eb9593605c9e16d
 cbb261f050dc4a1f248f944acfeac8667db378d4029e3db72c60319af7c516f9
 a06df3f0b737f8ec013d2f64cf4c5bf6b4572f960e0775634ff8b4ecf99d6b49
 42f1905292d8f62d06467a6bbb8a21fb4f354afcb4703520e75cc2c3062a26e1
 ee8a9a7c98af7729efcd419d978ee22ca28f0a1ef28c52fa39f511b1df751eb1
 314daa27edcce90eeda259e14e763bf23832202334ea047031e2c97389608096
 b24efbcc282941055bdc4efe918784045467f2e5b7f7d7f7e0e2fc797a99a0ff
 c8dcfbeaecd894c5c4bb2ea304c0edc33098e123bded906bef500f42d9af12c7
 ad80e0452a88dfdeac137d7d8bb5176a215709bd3f833815ad66ffc3efc02361
 eaf23f317ba9db8f00a3e971c3d58707a756a5dc7a31f0d41dd7ddac01bf55f4
 c1d3592866cabb91d06ab8f285aded45d6d9131b34fc0eb131e7f21c66c1a34d
 bfe36e4d6af62571a26596a0671c3701997c4b612bf9ffda4c48ca8ffca92a20
 37025dfe5cd66c3ddd30a334d31e4f32618bd68b187e60e5872ed769246fad43
 077619db4bbda76b0dbae8f78f365ac0d605d8f83ce70641669226d4f1ba5bb2
 053667aadffee3a96782e025af297bf832402879e1f3767e73fd98f128b40e65
 ca065d660b2fd47cdd82d650cb30cca1e29aafb45f67c32e6c3e66d00c935270

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-- http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

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

Quote
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)
coincident?
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.

Quote
(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.

Quote
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!