I will argue that 256 coin flips from random.org is the best random number possibility available. And assuming that you push the results through an offline computer using brainwallet offline, you will have a VERY SAFE, VERY RANDOM private key.
LOL. A "VERY SAFE" number which is trivially known to a third party. Is someone at "random.org" paying you to encourage people to have them generate their private keys, or did you come by this cluelessness naturally? I haven't looked recently but last I checked random.org methods were secret and not peer reviewed. So not only may the results be trivially maliciously logged (by the site operators or anyone whos compromised their system; or the operators of the VPSes they use (rackspace cloud)), they're probably more likely to be accidentally flawed because their methods are not reviewed. A. Attacking an idea or postulate is a great thing. Attacking a person and calling them "clueless" is ad hominem and is below your status as a moderator of this board. B. Random.org is peer reviewed here https://www.random.org/media As well as tested by third party orgs like http://www.ecogra.org/ Their methods are not secret but they are not public either. C. So lets examine your logic: Since random.org (peer reviewed, certified and in business since 1998) creates a buffer in advance full of billions of ones and zeroes and since it uses https, someone could log the front end usage of these ones and zeros after they leave the buffer and before they hit the https (side note on magnitude: these ones and zeroes from the buffer are used for ALOT of different applications on the site other than coin flips), track the usage by ip, collect and then echo the data once an ip pulls precisely 256 bits of data, run the bits through a key generator, (also try various combinations of the 256bit sequence like only look at the last 256 bits, since the first x bits could have been a test), create a database to collect all of these new bitcoin address and repeatedly query the entire blockchain to see if any of the addresses are extant. If any one address is extant and holds bitcoins, import the corresponding key into a wallet and steal the bitcoins. OK... I will concede. This may be possible. Its not likely considering the high level access, the subterfuge necessary, and the high number of bitcoin addresses to generate & query; not probable, but maybe possible. So to test your theory I am going to publish a bitcoin address that I created using random.org, leave some BTC there and see if they evaporate. If they magically walk away, then we will know that someone at random.org is malicious. If nothing happens, then Im going to stick with my "SAFE" comment. I will however add a note of caution to the thread warning people that 1) They could get struck by lightning today 2) Earth could get destroyed by a meteor in the next 5 minutes AND 3) Somebody at random.org might guess your intent out of the millions of possible intents by those who use this service, parse through the data looking for precisely 256 bits of interesting target data turn them into a bitcoin key and steal your BTC. Dear Mythical Hacker at Random.Org: I created this address with the coin flip service on 02/07/2015. I flipped 8 coins at once using Polish Zloties. I pulled precisely 256 bits of data from the buffer to make it easy on you. Please steal my bitcoins. Here is the address: 1DcS5pEgjnLGJ43h7znVxdcxMfx6pfaZvA A. He may have been a little harsh, but you need to understand cryptography for some of these things. And you can't simply claim something is secure. I am trying to learn about cryptography, and all I've really learned thus far is that there is a lot out there and one can quickly do a lot of damage. B. Those are random citations that don't any really appear to be peer review of the methods. For random.org to be tested their methods should be fully disclosed. They have a question covering this in their FAQ: https://www.random.org/faq/#Q2.2 It talks about gaming and gambling. Being verified for that is NOT the same as being verified for cryptographic purposes. Also see https://www.random.org/faq/#Q1.2 Standard security practice before using something in cryptography is that it's open to inspection and that a lot of people have looked at it. The code they use is not available so how do you know it's right. C. In theory the whoever can access the machines they use can get to the random numbers generated. These include the hosting company, the site owners, hackers with access etc. gmaxwell did point out that the most likely source of error was a accidentally poor implementation of the random number generator process. The point is you cannot know because it's all closed source and not reviewed. So do you want to use something that is well reviewed random generator or something that may or may not be random? A poor random generator may make it possible to solve private keys for 1 in 1000 or 1 in a 1000 000 generated using the site. The point is even 1 in 1bn is a lot (and I mean a LOT) less secure than other methods used to generate private keys. So your test address is probably safe, but how safe you won't know, because it's all closed up. Now if lots of people start using the service (like when someone start recommending them) the odds start looking a lot better for an attacker. This is my lay understanding of the issues around something like this. GMaxwell writes from a development point of view. Make it provably safe therefore trustless (not requiring unusual trust). I appreciate that view point in a developer, because it makes the code useful for very large values. The "test" is one which uses very small bait: 1DcS5pEgjnLGJ43h7znVxdcxMfx6pfaZvA has 0.05 XBT. It is not a very valid test. It will not entice someone with an exploit to go after those coins. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I was thinking to use the Bitcoin network for a project, and concluded after some thinking that the numbers of transactions I needed would be to high for me to believe in the network to take my transactions (kind of contracts)
So I would have to rely on my network.
Bitcoin is for reference, not to be used to store to much data on blockchain, the smalest it will stay, the more resilient it will stay
What are today transaction per second for gold market ? maybe we should target this.
And continue to work on side chains or other merged solution, including using proofs from bitcoin network, without writing into it
So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen! Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way! Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them. Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain? The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service. Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others? |
|
|
|
Apparently these folks are thinking that we have a few years to worry about this still... http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/We aren't yet at half the limit on average, so doubling by 2017, we still won't be there. So, how about that BIP to get a block size metric into the block chain, where it will always be able to tell us what a good block size will be? It would be nice to not have to talk about this again. |
|
|
|
I suspect you are not standing atop the great pyramid with me, which I encourage because the perspective is truly enlightening:
You understand a lot of things.
Do you understand that it may not be necessary to guess?
Don't you think it would be better to measure than to guess?
We have something that will be there in the future telling us how big blocks can safely be, the block chain itself can tell us.
We do this already with difficulty, which is adjusted by how frequently acceptable hashes are calculated.
If we are going from a fixed limit, to a flexible one, let us at least attempt to do it so that we are no longer guessing.
We are determining a certain definition of what is to become a very special measuring device, because it is one born of consensus. Because of this it is in fact necessary that there is both some guess and some form of communal error vs what would be ideal (because one cannot tell the future, and mankind to this point is perceptually in conflict). THAT is the true problem the architect realizes. Now you can convince the elite of this, but the issue is rather the masses wish bitcoin to be many things that alas it cannot be. This is upsetting to the religious masses but not the top "scientists" or rather the "priests" and "advisors". So what we are seeing is rather that we must make a consensus on a stagnant dead fixed decision, and allow what grows around it to be that which is "adjustable". Unless there can be no consensus towards that direction, and then it seems everyone loses. (It shouldn't be seen as irrelevant that the greek/euro decision is to be discussed and announced soon and might dissolve the euro eventually). Not so special as you imagine. All measuring is born of consensus. When that fails, space shuttles fall out of the sky because a consensus between English units and Metric units was not made. -- We are contemplating moving from a static limit to a dynamic one. This should be done thoughtfully rather than arbitrarily. We aren't hitting the 1MB limit now, so a 2MB limit would probably be just fine and less risk. The problem there is that this debate happens whenever things like this are discussed.... So, a dynamic limit is proposed, to end the repeating discussions... EXCEPT IT DOESN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS JUST AS MUCH AN ARBITRARY GUESS ABOUT THE FUTURE. If there were a way to to end the discussions, and have a limit that adjusts so that it is never too big or too small we would be done here. This problem has been struggled with since version 0.3 or so. |
|
|
|
Miles were different too, and quite a number of other standards.
Our disagreement seems based when and whether consensus is more important than quality, and the difference between and standards and protocols. I'd aver that it is quality which creates consensus in protocols.
This debate is not over what makes a standard unit of measurement. I'll suggest to you that we are not designing a standard, it is a protocol, which is an entirely different thing. A megabyte will still be a megabyte, and a block will still be a block.
Where an authority may deem a standard, it ought not deem a protocol.
This is why the connections I have made are so significant. Szabo's seamless comparison of software and the Wealth of Nations, allows us to completely bridge the "data" from our economic history and we are then clearly able to see the connection of things such as the arising of pyramids as a product of a secure society. We ask "how can they be built so accurate", when the reality is they could NOT have been so secure and wealthy without such accuracy (again trying not to suggest which is the cause and which the effect). And so also is important that "what is ideal money?" to which John Nash has extensively explained and extrapolated for us (and I seemingly am by far the most read in the world on this issue (and would love to meet someone to the otherwise)), and then there is THIS poster that is the most knowledgeable on the concept of "ideal poker" (the evolution of "skilled games"). But you allude to a disconnection of words, and or language, or in other words when it comes to protocol you refer to what is "ideal dialogue", and this too have been extensively explained, by Dr. David Bohm (where both bohm and nash have interesting connections to einstein): http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/chaos-complexity/dialogue.pdfAnd so rather than your point about the differences between protocol and measurement standing, I think rather our point of the similarity between these things is more "relevant", or deserves to be relevated, or needs relevation. In other words the pyramids being the bedrock of the civilization was the necessary measuring device or basepoint for all aspects which include language (basis of protocol/communiciation). Clearly we didn't forget this, but we didn't understated there relations in the first place (or for a very long time). It cannot be irrelevant we lost our understanding of any of this as well as the actual Egyptian language itself up until 150 or so years ago.
Bribe me with a solution that will not have to be revisited again in the future.
One that is not based on a prediction of the future but that adjusts with the needs of the future automatically.
Give me blocks that are as big as needed but not bigger, and protect us from rogue miners that may want to knock lower bandwidth miners out or increase the storage costs for everyone running a full node by loading up blocks with massive transaction bloat.
There have been such proposals made, they are not as simple as Gavin's. If we have a solution that provides good confidence that we never have to have this discussion again, that is a bribe I would accept. Why go from one wrong number to another?
Yes exactly and this we must understand is part of the problem (and so arises the solution), because clearly in the future such a consensus may in fact be impossible, but we must also understand as well, it seems that in choosing the bedrock unit for society that will come out of the block size decision, we have only the very little empirical evidence that was needed to be gathered since block-chain genesis. And so gavin's best guess, is by far the most logical best guess available. There cannot be a better extrapolation from the future (at this time), and so the ideal here becomes the consensus that is closest to the architects suggestion. You understand a lot of things. Do you understand that it may not be necessary to guess? Don't you think it would be better to measure than to guess? We have something that will be there in the future telling us how big blocks can safely be, the block chain itself can tell us. We do this already with difficulty, which is adjusted by how frequently acceptable hashes are calculated. If we are going from a fixed limit, to a flexible one, let us at least attempt to do it so that we are no longer guessing. |
|
|
|
If we are against the royal cubit (20mb), then I should like to understand from the individuals perspective, how much you could be bribed for too accept and adopt it...or what your counter offer might be... thanks (are we standing on the pyramids together? Quote Launch the interactive, choose “khufu” and then “view from top. Stand on the pyramids: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/explore-ancient-egypt.html) Bribe me with a solution that will not have to be revisited again in the future. One that is not based on a prediction of the future but that adjusts with the needs of the future automatically. Give me blocks that are as big as needed but not bigger, and protect us from rogue miners that may want to knock lower bandwidth miners out or increase the storage costs for everyone running a full node by loading up blocks with massive transaction bloat. There have been such proposals made, they are not as simple as Gavin's. If we have a solution that provides good confidence that we never have to have this discussion again, that is a bribe I would accept. Why go from one wrong number to another? |
|
|
|
In the ideal case, we would discover this method of calculation, and that would let us avoid future forks over this same issue in case it ever must be re-readdressed in order to "save Bitcoin".
Ah, I think you've missed my perspective! and possibly the very nature of this problem. First in relation to money and what is considered "ideal", we should definitely consider 20 years of lectures on the subject: http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdfAnd then of course we must consider what it is, in fact, that does create the wealth of the wealthiest "nations" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm (AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. By Adam Smith) It might be helpful as well, if you would be so kind to stand atop the great pyramid whilst we discuss this important matter: And so truly we end up with the realization that CANNOT in fact have the ideal case, that by discovering a method or measurement then we might be able to choose what is ideal. Because we are simultaneously asking the question of what that method should be. Or in other words, because of a shit ton of backwards reverse engineering type maths, there has been a realization that there can be no consensus on the ideal. Consensus will only come on some that is not ideal. In other words there MUST be a single static consensus and it cannot then therefore be ideal...and so in light of such insanity the only logical solution would be to take the architects advice, and I simply point out the relation of his specific advice to the royal cubit. We will tell the masses it is related perfectly to the pyramids, and that will make sense to them: In Ancient Egypt, cubit rods were used for the measurement of length. A number of these have survived: two are known from the tomb of Maya, the treasurer of Tutankhamun, in Saqqara; another was found in the tomb of Kha (TT8) in Thebes. Fourteen such rods, including one double cubit rod, were described and compared by Lepsius in 1865.[6] These cubits range from 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length, and are divided into seven palms; each palm is divided into four fingers and the fingers are further subdivided.[4][6][7] Miles were different too, and quite a number of other standards. Our disagreement seems based when and whether consensus is more important than quality, and the difference between and standards and protocols. I'd aver that it is quality which creates consensus in protocols. This debate is not over what makes a standard unit of measurement. I'll suggest to you that we are not designing a standard, it is a protocol, which is an entirely different thing. A megabyte will still be a megabyte, and a block will still be a block. Where an authority may deem a standard, it ought not deem a protocol. |
|
|
|
In the ideal case, we would discover this method of calculation, and that would let us avoid future forks over this same issue by the limit adjusting as needed, so that it never must be re-readdressed in order to "save Bitcoin". The ideal case is to recognize that whatever problem a protocol limit is believed to solve, it's being solved the wrong way, then solve the problem a better way, then remove the unnecessary limit. That would be fine too... better even, however other than a block size limit, what may be a solve to too large (even absurdly large) block sizes? Large blocks have a slightly higher chance of being orphaned, but they also have a counterbalancing effect of being a type of 'innocent' selfish mining. This effect is stronger against smaller mining concerns or lower bandwidth pools. |
|
|
|
It seems then that we could think about different ways to implement bitcoin from the get go. So, Mr. "Registered: 27 May 2014", where did you come from, and who exactly do you mean by "we"? I came from the same place we all came from, we just seem to have forgotten. But to be clear I am only extrapolating the past from current knowledge (like pyramid archeology), as well as help from Szabo's concise article's and interesting lectures about "ideal money" and how it might come about. I think though, we can take all this further and begin to take a look at what the market mechanism, voting system, or bargain might look like. First we need to verify we see the problem correctly (I say "we", because I cannot self verify myself). It seems that the Architect (Gav), is suggesting after some initial pyramid data that there may in fact be an optimal "cubit" size. There are those that recognize this and will support such a change and those that have their own ideas on what is optimal. Since it must be some form of mass consensus only the popular ideas can win, and in fact it seems then we are left with the possibility of only the strongest (or well supported) concept in order to change, where as any amount of significant disagreement will necessarily produce "no change". We can start to ask silly questions, such as how much will the change side be willing to pay the no change side, and what form of payments will they take? In other words what is the market equilibrium in which you could offer enough incentive for those that do not support the most popular change to adopt/enact it? If enough players voted they would not accept any amount of incentive in order to make this change (especially to the royal cubit sized blocks), then it could be shown that no change could in fact take place. What happens then if it can in fact be shown that there is some how enough incentive to transfer to those that could in fact be "bought"? Gavin is not claiming to know the optimal "cubit" size. He doesn't know what the optimal size is, and would tell you that himself if he had the time. What he is offering is his best guess at what the upper limit supportable is now and what it will be in the future. It is, at best, an educated guess. None of us know what the optimal size of the future is today. People in the future may know what it is, or there may be a way to calculate it based on data that will be available then. In the ideal case, we would discover this method of calculation, and that would let us avoid future forks over this same issue by the limit adjusting as needed, so that it never must be re-readdressed in order to "save Bitcoin". |
|
|
|
identity, login, and other certificate authority information might as well be backed by the security of the bitcoin network. ie, use namecoin, which is merge mined with bitcoin. for ex. https://onename.com/Identity and access rights are not necessarily linked. These are different but related problems. |
|
|
|
If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources) ...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them. There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers. I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs. BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence). The goal in both cases XAU/XBT is to increase what is "sufficient" to subvert the currency. XAU has had thousands of years head start, and is mostly but not completely subverted. Justusranvier correctly points out that growth is a helpful defense or that. Bad forks are harmful to it. Arguably, so also it is harmful for my showing how a proposal for a fork is bad. It is just not as harmful as would be the implementation of it. |
|
|
|
Likely a sting operation, in which he agreed to proceed with BTC transaction knowing the funds will be used for something illegal.
These MSB stings are weird. It could be the case that no crime is ever committed by the accused beyond the disregard for the possibility of someone else doing something in a place where it is considered wrong... I imagine a case where a sting is done by picking names off a LocalBitcoin list in some LEO's home turf. They pick a fellow that has done 5 or 10 trades and has some ratings, and they do a deal and LEO mentions they are buying acid with it. The bitcoin seller assumes they are going to order some legal low-pH chemical online, the LEO arrests the seller for money laundering claiming that he told the seller he was buying drugs. The accusations will be horrific, because the LEO gets to seize all sorts of property, some of which go straight to their expense account. Judge and Jury give deference to LEO because that is the standard practice. People reading the media releases will form judgements based on the accusations, far ahead of any trial. Defendant will get pressured to plead guilty to a slightly lessor charge. Jail and impoverishment by legalized theft follow. Having bought or sold a few bitcoin with strangers for very small money (way under any legal limits) I can see how it could happen to just about anyone. "Let's be careful out there." |
|
|
|
Arrived in conference venue. Updates will likely be scarce from now on. Let's see how it works, so far has been great  More photos will be nice ... but don't forget to enjoy it there! Looks amazing there! The food and service can certainly be something to bring back to Malla. That ocean view would be a bit difficult to bring to Malla though.  The service at Malla was 100000000 times better! Everyone who was there can confirm it:) And the Ocean view is there! Except it's not an Ocean it's a sea The service at Malla is beyond comparison. |
|
|
|
Risto, didn't knew you're into Christianity.
Completely off-topic: have you ever thought that Bitcoin might be that mark of the beast Revelation talks about? Nobody shall buy or sell?
Not at all. That is a description of a radical version of legal tender laws. Bitcoin is legal tender exactly nowhere, (and that is a virtue). If you want to throw some Revelation at it... the block chain would be closer to the "Book of Life" of Rev 20:12, wherein all the deeds are recorded for all time, and people may be judged upon these. |
|
|
|
It seems those higher bids were after the finish. His Excellence Prince Jacket is an honorable auctioneer with an eye to the clock, but those bids may yet be helpful for price discovery and HE is still generating ample science. SCIence Property Auction ( SCI Points )
The auction will end in 3 days from the time of this post.
|
|
|
|
|
For the Hex Dice, I'd like to see them in happy homes:
BTC0.05 for a pair will get me off my butt to get them shipped to you in the USA, for international, probably a bit more. Let me know where you are and I'll let you know how much more.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has a BIG potential but we limit it, a max 20MB block size is not a drama. Come on guys, the actual block size (1 Mb) is not for ever. As "technology" the "changes" are obligated.
Swapping one arbitrary number for another is how software is developed. Protocol development is another thing entirely. It is not enough to change it. Protocols demand to know: "Why?", "Under what conditions will it next change?", "What triggers a change?". "How will we measure for that?", "What risks are there for measuring it in that way?", "How are those risks managed?", etc... If for our parameters, we are picking subjectively selected arbitrary numbers (guesses) based on even the best available predictions of the future, we know that we will be wrong eventually. What then? (That's how we got here today) People that design software, say: "So what? The installer will just download the latest patch and we go on." People that design protocols, say: "We have work to do." The alternative is that a central committee appoints itself as the arbiter of block size limits and everyone salutes it. This is not a likely result for Bitcoin, which is possibly one of its biggest distinguishing features from all the other choices. |
|
|
|
No it doesn't. If it can't be used for illegal purposes then it's worthless. The point of decentralized crypto is to protect us from unjust laws and allow us to decide for ourselves what is right and what isn't. That's what freedom is all about.
Respectfully disagree. The Bitcoin blockchain is set up to easily allow someone who knows any addresses belonging to you to see who has given you money and where you are sending it. This is unacceptable from a privacy standpoint -- you would never accept a bank publishing all your transactions out in the clear. This is precisely why Monero exists, to be actual virtual cash. And, in any case, if you believe that there is a 100% foolproof system for payments that you can use to break any law you'd like to that exists online... well, I would say you'll probably find out soon enough that that's a bad idea the hard way. It's hard to tell if you actually believe what you're saying or if you're just attempting to limit your liability. I certainly can't fault you for that. But stealth addressing alone is plenty sufficient for the issues you describe: protecting your privacy from your "neighbor". However, it's not our neighbors we're concerned about. It's our brothers. Privacy is not about lawbreaking, its about privacy. Confusion on this matter seems... weird (and possibly RICO engendering). Stealth addressing is only a part. When Bitcoin has stealth addresses on by default, (or forced on), within the protocol. That would provide some part of the privacy picture. |
|
|
|
'bitcoin-legacy'
I like the way you've subconsciously described "mpcoin" as 'legacy'. It tends to suggest old, outdated, obsolete, defunct etc... Bit of a negative word in my opinion. Maybe your subconscious is telling you something? Just sayin. or we could also call gavincoin the bitcoin 2.0..   You might be surprised to learn that we aren't even at 1.0 yet, we are still 0.x. If you aren't thinking of it as beta, you probably can't imagine what the big leagues will look like. |
|
|
|
i think the 1MB chain is doomed
il be going with the foundation bitcoin core's decision as will the majority of big exchanges etc
to stick with a minority who want to mine the MPcoin would be crazy imo
Probably so. I mostly wish Gavin's latest proposal was less of a bad one. They get better with each redo though, and there is still time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
