The P2SH subscript provided in the redemption TxIn must be standard I don't see what justification there is to enforce standard templates when redeeming P2SH outputs, because no matter how what is in the input script it's all prunable. |
|
|
|
moves the bulk of the data to prunable TxIns Speaking of that, is every redemption of a P2SH output considered standard? |
|
|
|
|
I think all transactions should use P2SH for encoding transaction outputs.
The network doesn't need to exactly how an output will be redeemed at the time it's created, so exposing this information early accomplishes nothing good.
|
|
|
|
I see one of the fundamental problem as being deeper than Bitcoin. Data security is being roundly attacked from all quarters, and Joe Sixpack is terribly outgunned. This is unlikely to change for the better any time soon as almost all forces of consequence are against this happening.
There is also an unrelated problem that trying to make Bitcoin solve the 'realtime' problem (in order to make it a more exact replacement for cash) is trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. (IMHO) Both Mike's side and Justus's side make this same mistake albeit for probably very different reason.
A solution which I prefer, and have articulated for some time now, is to have the Bitcoin protocol provide a solid foundation upon which other solutions (either 'aspects of Bitcoin' or not) rest. Doing so addresses:
- the 'outgunned Joe Sixpack' problem by removing him from the equation (...at least until and unless he makes a totally welcome effort to insert himself via a secure paper wallet for savings or whatever and is willing to pay a fair price for the services offered.) The entities who are left find the problem of fraud, theft, etc, quite trivial to solve because they are once a certain learning curve has been overcome.
- the 'realtime' problem since the need for realtime behavior is drastically reduced.
- the unmentioned scaling issues which are laughable absurd in the original implementation of Bitcoin (which persists to this day.)
One cannot really argue that is consistent to solve Joe's data security issues having some third-party help him out, but at the same time it is a viable objection that his economic activity on a 'sidechain' or 'offchain' or whatever is undue reliance on third parties.
One also cannot say that reliance on solutions which rely on core Bitcoin is not itself relying on core Bitcoin. Yes, the reliance on 'true' Bitcoin may be attenuated, but it definitely exists and the attenuation itself can be a good thing in many real-world ways. The economics of Bitcoin mining are all fucked up right now because we're still in the situation of the block reward being large and the transaction volume being tiny. Right now miners aren't in the business of processing transaction - the are in the business of minting new currency and also happen to do some transaction processing on the side. This is not sustainable in the long term. Bitcoin is only economically viable in the long term if the network can pay for enough security, and ultimately this means miners should get most of the revenue from transaction fees, and the kind of fee revenue we're talking about would need come from a billion people performing transactions on the blockchain every day. We can't get there, however, until there is a secure way for a billion regular people to hold their own Bitcoins. Since PC security is probably irrecoverably broken, this means specialized hardware wallets. As it turns out, there is a new ASIC industry whose ultimate fate is tied to the goal of a Bitcoin blockchain that serves a billion people per day. Before long, they'll figure this out and they'll all be in the secure hardware wallet business because they need those to exist in order to make their main mining hardware business viable. |
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance also, but how does the SX implementation of stealth addresses work, if it cannot work with Core client when limited to 40 bytes of arbitrary data in a transaction? Using these tricks that embed data in the transaction signature? As I understand it the secret exchange has to happen out-of-band now instead of happening in the blockchain itself. It doesn't kill the feature, but does make it less usable. |
|
|
|
People could publicly advertise their stealth addresses, but nobody would be able to tell which stealth outputs belong to which stealth addresses by examining the blockchain alone. This looked like it was going to be a very promising feature until someone decided to cut the size of OP_RETURN data in half at the last minute before releasing 0.9.0. |
|
|
|
wow you really are a massive fascist sociopath. Speaking of fascist sociopaths, let me tell you a story typical of those I've heard from people who've been involved in the Silicon Valley startup scene: It's the 90s and a couple of friends take their enthusiasm and ideas with them SV and start pitching. They get a check for a million dollars to fund their startup from an young member of old money family. The friends don't realize it, but their angel investor isn't what he seems. The investor barely talked with them at all, doesn't train them or ask a lot of question about the business. It's almost as if he doesn't care about it at all. A few months into the process of building their startup a few individuals show up. They have business cards from some nondescript company and say they've been retained by the investor to administer "aptitude tests". The young entrepreneurs don't see anything wrong with this and take the test, which turn out to be standard IQ tests with some questions about ethics and empathy thrown in. They never hear anything back from those two again, although later one when of them brings it up to the angel investor all he gets back in return is an offhand comment about them being from "the company". Years later, when the two friends have moved on to other ventures, they happen to come across a news story about the war in Afghanistan. In this story, a single CIA agent is sent to help some local troops flush out a group of insurgents who are holed up in an underground bunker. The agent orders that the troops to empty the contents of few water truck into the bunker, followed by a truck of gasoline. They then order insurgents to surrender or else have the gasoline ignited around them. One of the friends turns to the other and says, "Those guys were testing us to see if we were willing to burn people alive, weren't they?" |
|
|
|
That would be hilarious if it wasn't so insulting to everyone's intelligence. "I don't work for them, I'm just on their advisory board. That's a huge difference you guys." |
|
|
|
If I post to a section accurately I can unlock it? Yet others remain locked and bothersome for a period of time until they unlock? Am I understanding this correctly? As my forum status changes over time by this model all sections unlock? Or is it section by section as I begin to use them? Just because somebody has been very active in the Marketplace sections, for example, does not automatically mean they are knowledgeable about the Mining hierarchy. In order to post to forum sections which you haven't "unlocked" yet, you go through the series of questions in the FSM to make sure your post ends up being placed in the right area. After some number of successful posts in a section, presumably you know what kinds of threads are supposed to go in that section. |
|
|
|
This is something I dislike about craigslist when I post ads there, although it is a good idea to keep things from being miscategorized often, could it be that this is a tool that could be imposed on new user's for a time period? and then reinstated for another period of time if Mods move a topic of a user that miscategorizes topics 2 or 3 times?
If you read the proposal's penultimate paragraph you'll see that users earn the ability to skip the FSM for certain sections after they have a track record of properly posting in that section. The forum tracks member status (brand new, newbie, full member, hero member, etc) on a per-section basis taking into account how many of their threads get moved to other sections. If a user maintains a sufficiently high accuracy rating they "unlock" that section and can post to it directly without going through the FSM. |
|
|
|
|
Suppose I want to be able to resolve .bit domains, without using any external service.
Installing namecoind and NMControl together will accomplish this, right?
|
|
|
|
1. Is there any reason to worry that the current mode of bitcoin development is starting to deviate from the original intentions of Satoshi?
2. Who are the people pushing for such a bad change, and what associations do these people have?
3. What can normal people do about it, normal people who have their plate mostly full with real life issues already?
4. Should there be a new foundation, replacing or in addition to the existing bitcoin foundation, and if so, how would we assure that this foundation also did not become corrupt?
5. Would perhaps the best idea be to monitor the source code and make efforts to alert the community if certain changes were implemented?
6. Is power of various resources in the bitcoin community to centralized? I noticed there's an overlap of mods of bitcointalk and r/bitcoin for instance. Who controls the wiki and so on. I think it's important that there's not a single person or group of persons having too much power. Even if they do not intend to misuse their power, they might if a gun is put to their head, or to the head of their families.
7. The cryptocurrency world is fast paced, and it is hard to pay attention to everything that happens, is there a central repository where the most important issues are handpicked and highlighted? I noticed your blog seems to be a good source. I don't have specific answers to these questions. In general, it's not a good idea to rely on single individuals or organizations to protect your interests. The interests which are threatened by Bitcoin are very good at subverting that kind of organization. The most important thing you can do as a Bitcoin user is realize that you've got options. Satoshi's client is no longer the only game in town, with libbitcoin and btcd maturing as viable alternatives. If it were up to me the community's focus would be on making the Bitcoin network heterogenous, with no single implementation running a majority of the network. The fact that all miners run on the same reference implementation is only slightly less of a problem than the 51% attack everybody is so worried about. The international Bitcoin community should be hard at work building independent alternatives to US-centric services and software if they want their own interests to be protected. |
|
|
|
I thought that the very reason most people are involved in bitcoin, esp. on a very commited level is because they want something different from the current banking system that we have. Bitcoin users who feel this way are going to need to get very vocal, very quickly, or the assholes in the world who do not want the unwashed masses to have this option are going to dismantle it. |
|
|
|
|
If a sender exchanges one secret with the recipient, it's currently my understanding that every payment that sender creates would have the exact same output script.
It would be a useful property if individuals could exchange a secret once, and generate a deterministic series of output scripts from that point on.
|
|
|
|
This is probably worth highlighting: Hmm, then I think your faith needs to be shaken. Bitcoin is money, and money is a purely artificial social construct. The interpretation of what a bitcoin means, or what a dollar means, has always been and always will be a human decision taken in order to achieve some socially useful goal. How could it be any other way? Do you want humanity to be enslaved by its own money?
This notion that the block chain encodes some kind of natural, immovable law that's above human judgement is a very strange one to me - I guess it comes from the fact that encryption *is* based on some kind of natural law. Without the key you can't decrypt a message no matter how strong the consensus is. But Bitcoin doesn't use encryption anywhere, just digital signatures. The only thing approaching natural law, that stops majority consensus controlling everything, is lack of information. Hence all the discussion around privacy and anonymity that goes on all the time. Get it? Mike Hearn is fine with changing the network to take your bitcoins away as long as he think it achieves "some socially useful goal." |
|
|
|
Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur.
They're evolving into birds?  |
|
|
|
The natural 'solution' to the 'problem' here would be to simply blacklist transactions signed by an un-mapped private key. To 'get there' we need a working taint authority. The 'Bitcoin Source Code Co-Author' (Alex Waters) is hard at work on the problem. So is Mike Hearn. |
|
|
|
Strangely that link, when clicking on 'view entire thread' at the bottom gives the message 'There are no messages in this thread. ' There can't possibly be any usability problems with the Sourceforge web interface, because Gavin Andresen himself insists that the bitcoin-development mailing list is perfectly accessible to the general public. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
