Bitcoin Forum
June 29, 2022, 05:48:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 ... 327 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BIP47 - Reusable Payment Codes - Notification Tx on: March 01, 2016, 08:42:06 PM
Do you think this will get added soon?
Wallets can implement this whenever they like. Several have already started.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BIP47 - Reusable Payment Codes - Notification Tx on: February 24, 2016, 10:04:53 PM
Quote
4. Alice renders her payment code (P) unreadable to anyone except Bob:
  i. Replace the x value with x':
The problem is x is the x coordinate of the secret point S = a * B = (x, y)
where a is Alice's privatekey and B is Bob's publickey point (B = b * G)
Question: even if I replace x by x', it won't change the value of the Payment Code
since x is not involved in this value !
What I'm missing ?
In step 2, you generate a 64 byte blinding factor.

In step 4, you xor the x value and chain code portions of the payment code with the blinding factor.

This means the data you put in the OP_RETURN output is only readable by the recipient.
3  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will the free open source Armory wallet continue to be developed going forward? on: November 13, 2015, 04:59:40 PM
Closed source and DRMs are old models, mostly created and maintained by the entertainment industry (for poor results).
They went wrong because once the product became data, then it became a commodity whose price naturally wanted to collapse to the marginal cost of production (for data, very very low).

There will always be a market for entertainers to produce live performances and bespoke works, and that market doesn't require DRM because the product is intrinsically uncopyable.

Likewise, source code is just data. You can't really sell source code. You have to find something else, something intrinsically uncopyable, and sell that instead.
4  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will the free open source Armory wallet continue to be developed going forward? on: November 12, 2015, 11:56:49 PM
If there was only a way to do drm with open source
Any time you think drm is the solution to your problem, you're solving the wrong problem.
5  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will the free open source Armory wallet continue to be developed going forward? on: October 28, 2015, 05:40:59 PM
Cute sentiment but I do not think you understand the type of resources required to build this type of software where individuals can generate and hold the private keys of their own wealth. Funding the building out of the core infrastructure the entire community uses has not been cheap and many people have made significant sacrifices of both time and money to get Bitcoin where it is today.
Of course businesses only survive by attracting paying customers, so the need of Armory to do so is clear.

I'm not sure you appreciate the way that Armory's value to potential customers changes as a result of being closed source.

I guess Alan sent out a bunch of form letter PMs in September about this change. I got one wherein he mentioned a possible "power user licence", which to me is a complete non-starter.

Even though I have no problem paying for software, I'd never buy a license for a closed-source version of Armory. Once somebody who wants to steal Bitcoins decides they can get the best bang for their buck by going after cold storage users, they are going to make a beeline to Armory to obtain that list of licensed users and/or attempt to compromise your internal source repository and insert a backdoor.

Personally, I will never use a cold storage wallet that I don't compile myself from publicly-available source. A closed-source Bitcoin wallet is a spearphisher's wet dream.
6  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 08:11:28 PM
But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.
I mentioned this, idk about a hundred pages back, in the form of talking about what mining is actually for.

The only reason we need a P2P network and mining at all is to resolve double spending. Most of the work of validating transactions is stateless, except that two proofs are needed which require a mined blockchain to produce:

  • The inputs to the transaction exist
  • No transaction exists which spends the same inputs

There are really only two ways that mining can fail:

  • A miner can perform a double spend
  • A miner can execute a denial of service against valid transactions

The point of proof of work is to raise the cost of both of those attacks. Bitcoin never has made either of those attacks impossible in a mathmatical sense (and doing so is probably impossible) - all Bitcoin ever did was put a defined cost on those two attacks.

If people would stop arguing about undefined terms like "decentralization", then maybe instead we could talk about attacks in terms of ways an attacker might reduce the proof of work cost for performing double spending or DoS attacks.

It should be possible to stop worrying about miners and all the ways they might behave sub-optimally, as long as they don't have any way to avoid paying the specified PoW cost for any attacks they might perform.

View in these terms, having any protocol-mandated block size limit at all is a built-in denial of service attack and so should be removed as soon as possible.
7  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 06:17:36 PM
Picked a bad weekend to not check the forums.
8  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 14, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say
If everybody adopts a "do the opposite of anything Mike Hearn suggests" policy, then they've just shut their brain off and given complete control over their decision making to Mike Hearn.

It's a great way to achieve the opposite of the stated goal.
9  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 13, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
I'd say the term "store of value" has meaning in the context our current world of fiat money, where you need a hedge against inflation. In the case of Bitcoin while it is still not yet mainstream I think a special definition is useful: an asset that retains or grows its purchasing power over the years (particularly in contrast with fiat money), with growth of course being considered even better as a store of value than simply staying level. Also the difficulty in confiscating it should be part of its store-of-value merits.
There is certainly a difference between forms of money that work well, and forms of money that don't, that many people have observed throughout history.

The problem is that the explanations for those observations are not correct, because they are tautological. They show up in conversations with goldbugs all the time.

Q: What is a store of value?
A: Anything that has the properties of gold.

Q: Why is gold a store of value?
A: Because it has intrinsic value.

Q: What is value?
A: It's what anything with the properties of gold has.

Q: Can you give reason why I should buy your gold other than that you want to sell it?
A: ...no.
10  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 12, 2015, 06:27:34 PM
Just because you collectivists don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  This is a wonderful example of how degenerate your philosophical flights of fancy have become and how much they have degraded your understandings of reality.
This is exactly what religious people say when you debunk their claims by pointing out contradictions or lack of evidence for their claims.

The "store of value" concept was basically invented by Aristotle two and a half millennia ago, before basically anything was understood about trade, markets, labor specialization, or any of the other factors that we now know make economies work.

I could point out some of the additional work that's been done since the bronze age, like the understanding that money is a ledger that measures delayed reciprocal altruism, but I don't even need to.

All I have to do is point out that if your claim that a store of value exists is true, then you should be able to produce a non-tautological definition for it.

Can you?

PS: I LOL'd when the socialist who's advocating centrally-planned block sizes referred to me as a collectivist. Do you not realize just how transparent that is?
11  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 12, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
This is a fundamental disagreement on the value of Bitcoin then which IMO is first SOV then payment network.
There is no such thing as a store of value.

You've described the religious approach to understanding money.
12  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 12, 2015, 02:49:45 AM
I'm really disappointed. Theymos is going full retard and muddying the waters by linking the 21M with the 1MB.
Just because there were two very obscure early bugs in the maintenance of the 21M supply limit does not mean that the limit is or ever was uncertain. It was always set in stone.

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

This is an example of a black box understanding of Bitcoin. There is no principles or methodologies we can apply to the problem of understanding why Bitcoin works, so it's just magic and any potential change is scary because nobody knows how magic works.
13  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 10:02:00 PM
I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.

It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
A pessimistic explanation would be that maybe nobody actually wants solutions to any of Bitcoin's problems. They just want to have problems to point to as excuses for furthering one agenda or another.
14  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 09:21:59 PM
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
15  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 08:49:10 PM
I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.

"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)
You must not understand what proof means.

The problem with your statement is that you've expressed it in terms of an unsolvable problem, which is begging the question.

Processing 24 GB of data in a 10 minute period is possible with technology that exists today. It does not require faster-than-light communication, or violating mass/energy conservation, or solving the halting problem, or anything else that's actually impossible.

Perhaps what you actually mean is that handing a 24 GB every 10 minutes would be expensive using existing technology. Perhaps even so expensive as to cost more than Bitcoin users would be willing to pay.

Expressed in those terms, you have a statement that can actually be rationally evaluated.

You'd need to establish how much it would cost to pay for the hardware and operating expenses to operate a 24 GB/10 minute network, and then estimate how much the users would be willing to pay per-transaction. If the estimated costs exceed the estimated budged, then you'd be correct to say that the network would probably be too expensive to operate.

Of course, once you've phrased the problem in a manner that allows for potential solutions, then it becomes possible to talk about productive things like, "what steps could we take to reduce the cost of operating the network?"

On the other hand, if you phrased your "obvious truth" in a form of an unsolvable problem deliberately because you have a preference for the problem remaining unsolved, then keep doing what you're doing.
16  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 08:08:08 PM
If you'd like your thoughts to have any kind of value at all, why not show some work for b and c?

Bring some evidence to the table instead of just your feels.

I'm sorry. It so obvious to me that you do not have computer who can handle 24 GB block every 10 minutes.  And if you think you have or you WILL HAVE (in next decade) then it is like debating with 5 years old child.
Did you notice when you shifted the goal posts, or are you not even conscious of the manipulation?

In what way is your original statement relevant to my computer?

"b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)"
Your answer was that it is my feeling. So show me computer what can handle 24 GB blocks b/c I have never seen any. (maybe NASA has some supercomputer)
That's not what it means to show your work.
17  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 07:58:50 PM
If you'd like your thoughts to have any kind of value at all, why not show some work for b and c?

Bring some evidence to the table instead of just your feels.

I'm sorry. It so obvious to me that you do not have computer who can handle 24 GB block every 10 minutes.  And if you think you have or you WILL HAVE (in next decade) then it is like debating with 5 years old child.
Did you notice when you shifted the goal posts, or are you not even conscious of the manipulation?

In what way is your original statement relevant to my computer?
18  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 07:44:05 PM

Blockstream was incorporated a full year before Lightning Network was introduced by independent developers. This is a load of BS and yet another attempt at vilifying respectable developers by the reddit mob.
The idea that most transactions could be moved off the chain certainly existed before the public lightning announcement.

Adam Back was talking about sidechains at the 2013 San Jose conference.

Another forum member told me he was investigating micropayment channels for off chain transactions in May of 2014.

The date at which Lightning was publicly announced does not prove anything about what the Blockstream founders told their investors.
19  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 07:16:45 PM
Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

I think it is obvious that:
 a) without new technologies we will need 24 GB blocks.  ( 10 billion transactions per/day )
 b) current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not handle any time soon)
 c) with SC and LN bitcoin can stay decentralized and handle billions of TPS using small blocks  (maybe bigger than 1MB be we are far from reaching limits of 1 MB blocks)
it great that you think something is obvious.

If you'd like your thoughts to have any kind of value at all, why not show some work for b and c?

Bring some evidence to the table instead of just your feels.
20  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 11, 2015, 06:29:51 PM
it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.
That isn't the problem.

The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of work is actually invalid and should be rejected.

If that capability existed, then nobody would have to care whether or not miners choose to burn their own electricity mining invalid blocks or not.

This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.

I don't think I agree with the highlighted part.

The structure of the blockchain's proof-of-work on minimal sized headers is itself the mechanism SPV clients use to determine if a chain is valid. Yes they do not verify the chain's contents themselves. Instead they rely on the fact that producing a false longest chain is prohibitly expensive and thus very unlikely.

To effectively pull off a longest but invalid chain attack requires an attacker to spend more mining effort than the rest of the ecosystem, in order to produce a false chain that will never be acknowledged by the p2p network and can only be used to temporarily trick SPV users.

In short, proof of work on headers is itself a form of validation.
What you are describing is not a proof. At best, its a suggestion.

If a majority of miners are building an invalid chains accidentally or intentionally, the problem will get sorted out eventually but in principle there's no upper bound on how long that process will require.

On the other hands with some relatively simple new messages and protocol requirements the time required for SPV clients to get back on the valid chain can be reduced to the time needed to propagate a message across the network regardless of the hash power supporting the invalid chain.
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 ... 327 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!