|
Το ωραίο θα είναι να ανακοινωθούν forks στο bitcoin cash, fork στο fork δηλαδή...
|
|
|
|
|
Αυτό πάντως δεν είναι το logo του κανονικού bitgo αλλά ενός κινέζικου.
Επίσης είναι και ανορθόγραφοι, αντί για wallets γράφει "WALLTETS".
Ότι ναναι δηλαδή.
|
|
|
|
|
Ακόμα και αν βρήκες μπλοκ στο κανονικό bitcoin δεν έχει καμία διαφορά. Μάλιστα μπορείς να πεις ότι είσαι άτυχος γιατί έκανες solo θα είχες βγάλει ευρώ με 6 ψηφία.
Το ίδιο ισχύει και στα άλλα νομίσματα.
Οπότε για μένα αυτό το stat είναι εντελώς άχρηστο. Έχω ακούσει ότι υπάρχουν κάποια pools τα οποία δίνουν ένα μικρό bonus στους block solvers αλλά δεν έχω δει κάτι στην πράξη.
|
|
|
|
|
Εγώ που έκανα προσωπικά τη διαδικασία δε συνάντησα κανένα καμία κωλυσιεργία, την έκανα τη δουλειά χωρίς κανένα πρόβλημα, ούτε μου πρόσθεσαν περισσότερους δασμούς. Πλήρωσα ακριβώς το ΦΠΑ + κάποια έξοδα αποθήκευσης επειδή δεν πήγα εντός διημέρου όταν κατέφτασε το δέμα αλλά την επόμενη βδομάδα. Το μόνο κακό είναι ότι πρέπει να αφιερώσεις ένα πρωινό να πας στο Ελ.Βενιζέλος.
|
|
|
|
Slipwalker
είχα καιρό να μπω και τώρα είδα τα μηνύματα σου.
Και εγώ έχω παραγγείλει στο patch Δεκεμβρίου αλλά δεν έχω ακόμα καμία ενημέρωση
γνωρίζεις κάτι παραπάνω?
στα έξοδα σου πρόσθεσε και 75-100 ευρώ για έξοδα εκτελωνιστή
Τα οποία μπορείς να αποφύγεις αν πας και κάνεις τον εκτελωνισμό μόνος σου στο Ελ.Βενιζέλος.. Δείτε και εδώ για περισσότερα http://www.akouseto.gr/ektelonismos-o-apolytos-odigos/2/Το έχω κάνει και εγώ, μου πήρε περίπου ένα 2ωρο. |
|
|
|
|
Δεν μιλάω για το τι λέει επίσημα το electrum. Απλά λέω ότι θέλει προσοχή τις επόμενες ώρες/μέρες μετά το fork γιατί η κατάσταση μάλλον θα είναι ρευστή. Το electrum μπορει να λέει ότι θα κάνει list το legacy btc, εσύ όμως όταν ανοίξεις το electrum και κάτω λέει "BTC" (και όχι B2X) μπορεί παρόλα αυτά το transaction που θα στείλεις να πάει στην 2x αλυσίδα.
Ξαναλέω ότι το τι υποστηρίζει το κάθε exchange, wallet κλπ. ή το τι υποστηρίζουμε εμείς είναι άσχετο του γεγονότος ότι θέλει προσοχή ιδιαίτερη μετά το fork.
|
|
|
|
|
Δεν είναι έτσι απλά τα πράγματα.
Αν μετά το fork το hashrate του segwit2x είναι μεγαλύερο από αυτό του legacy, τότε το electrum (όπως και άλλα αντίστοιχα wallets, εκτός του core) δε θα "ξέρουν" ποιο chain είναι το legacy και ποιο το segwit2x. Με άλλα λόγια μπορεί να εμφανίζει "BTC" ως υπόλοιπο, όμως μπορεί στη πραγματικότητα τα transactions να γίνονται πάνω στο segwit2x.
Είναι πολύ θολή ακόμα η κατάσταση και θέλει προσοχή, ιδιαίτερα μετά το fork μέχρι να καταλαγιάσει όλο αυτό το μπέρδεμα και να δούμε που θα κάτσει τελικά η μπίλια.
Συμβουλεύω όλους να περιμένουν να δούμε το αποτέλεσμα, ασχέτως το τι πιστεύουμε σχετικά με αυτή την ιστορία, αλλιώς μπορούμε να βρεθούμε προ δυσάρεστων εκπλήξεων.
|
|
|
|
|
"View keys" in Monero and Zcash do indeed allow someone to see a 'hidden' transaction, but if you are doing illegal stuff, I doubt you would just voluntarily provide a view key to the authorities..!
|
|
|
|
|
So far I have seen some people arguing for 100% privacy, and some for (pseudo)privacy as it is now in bitcoin. (It is pseudo-privacy and not privacy, you can't be 100% anonymous with your transactions on a public blockchain free for anyone to view, no matter what tricks you use like Tor, mixers etc - if you are still not convinced there are several articles/academic papers out there that show exactly that).
I would suggest that to concisely answer the question, you have to look at the big picture, not yourself as an individual.
Let's say I am using fiat money. I get paid my salary to my bank account, I pay my bills, my doctor, I buy my vacation and my sex toys.
Q: Do I have the right to keep these transactions private?
A: Of course I do! I don't anyone to be able to take a picture of my entire life just by looking at these transactions (not my friend, my neighbor, my employer or the government). Nor do I want to advertise my savings amounts to the entire world.
Q: Does bitcoin (as it is today) help me keep these transactions private?
A: No (see above). => Bitcoin as it is today can not be used as a total fiat currency replacement.
Now let's say I am an illegal materials/goods trader (drugs? child pornography? human trafficker?) or I am otherwise engaged in some criminal activity (money laundering? blackmailing? scamming?)
Q: Do I have the right to keep these transactions private?
A: NO. Authorities will have to suspend your privacy rights if you are suspect of taking part into illegal activities.
Q: Should authorities "unmask" your private transactions in such cases?
A: Yes. If you are part of an organized and lawful society you should think the same. If not, go find a place to live in some anarchist country on in the jungle with the monkeys.
Q: Can a 100% private - anonymous cryptocurrency (Zcash?) be auditable and accountable for such illegal transactions?
A: No. => Such a currency can not be used as a total fiat currency replacement.
Now you might argue that Bitcoin (or some other cryptocurrency) might not totally replace our fiat currencies but could somehow be a global-"subcurrency" that could be used for some types of transactions (e.g. capital transfer across countries). Such thing might be a possibility.
But those who dream ourselves living our lives only with cryptocurrencies, I think that a cryptocurrency that satisfies the properties "anonymous" and "accountable" will have to be invented first.
I added a poll to this post to see what your opinions are.
|
|
|
|
|
I get your point.
By using my first example, if e.g. a malicious node pruned the tx "Bob->Charlie (25BTC)", then the tx "coinbase -> Alice (50BTC)" would be partially orphaned, since it was originally linked to the tx "Alice->Bob (25BTC)" and then became linked to "Bob->Charlie (25BTC)". Alice would effectively get all the coins back from charlie.
So the only solution would be to enforce CoinJoin as gmaxwell suggested, however these coinjoin transactions are interactive and optional.
Maybe an incentive to the users to use such transactions (zero tx fees?) would help, which would in turn enable pruning the intermediate coinjoin transactions safely.
|
|
|
|
You need to either know where Bob got the output to verify that the block is valid or you need to have some other way to prove that a block is valid. You can't just assume a block is valid even if it is deep in the blockchain, that's not the security model of Bitcoin.
Ok let me rephrase my question: Suppose we change the security model of bitcoin, and enforce transaction pruning at the blockchain level (not at the client level) in a fashion described above, for blocks that their height is < (H - N), where H is the current block height and N is a set constant. Would that model be insecure? If not, why? |
|
|
|
You can do that locally once you have downloaded and verified the blockchain. You cannot do that to the blockchain as a whole because I don't know whether the transaction "Bob->Charlie (25BTC)" is actually legitimate when I am syncing a new node. For me to check that it is legit, I need to know where Bob got the output to spend. Just because a transaction is in a block with a valid proof of work does not automatically mean that all transactions in the block are valid; that's not how Bitcoin works.
You can certainly do this locally as that is basically what Satoshi suggests in the whitepaper. But as gmaxwell pointed out above, what we do now for pruning locally is way more efficient than what Satoshi suggests. Satoshi suggests that we throw away parts of blocks as UTXOs are spent. But what we do is that we maintain a separate database with our UTXOs and chainstate data so we don't actually need to have the blocks themselves. So we just throw away old blocks entirely because we have validated them and taken the things from them that we need and stored them elsewhere in a more compact form.
Why would you need where Bob got the output? If that transaction is included in a verified block, it means that it is valid. And if that block is like 1000 blocks behind the current block, it's impossible to change it. (I am not talking about how the current bitcoin protocol works). I was thinking of something like transaction cut-through https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281848.0 which is already being implemented in mimble wimble. |
|
|
|
No. Pruning is working exactly as intended. Pruning and what Satoshi said in the whitepaper are two completely different things.
...
Because without the full transaction history, that data can be forged. You can't know whether a UTXO is legitimate without knowing the transaction that created it and what that transaction spent. You need the full transaction history to verify the validity of a UTXO. With UTXO commitments (which do not yet exist) we could do that, but we will need a fork to enable such functionality.
Ok let me express a simple example: Suppose Alice got 50BTC from a coinbase transaction on block #n. Alice then transfers 25BTC to Bob on block #(n+1) which results Bob having 25BTC and Alice a 25BTC UTXO. Up to that point, we need all blocks and transactions for blockchain validation. Then on block#(n+2) Bob sends Charlie all of his funds, 25BTC, leaving Bob with 0 BTC. Now the transaction "Alice->Bob (25BTC)" is not needed to remain on block#(n+1) since Bob has 0 UTXO, and the transaction "Bob->Charlie (25BTC)" was verified on block#(n+2). Also this improves privacy since it makes harder to link transactions and taint coins. I believe that's what Satoshi means in his whitepaper #7 by pruning Tx0-2 from the block on the right. If this implementation requires a hard-fork, that's another story.. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Ok as far as I understand, you have to download the whole ~150GB blockchain nevertheless, then enable pruning afterwards to be left with a couple of gigabytes of blockchain data.
The other part that I understand is that not all nodes can have pruning enabled, some nodes must keep the whole blockchain anyway. All this makes pruning much less effective.
By reading #7 of Satoshi's white paper, It seems that current pruning functionality is not working as intended.
So why don't we just store coinbase transactions and UTXOs? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
What's your definition of "viable economic alternative"?
If that's restricted to use cases such as capital transfer or investment, yes its is viable.
But if we want to include more common use cases like the ones I described, I don't think it is.
Which brings me to my original question: how can we fix it? How much more private should bitcoin and other similar non-anonymous cryptocurrencies become such that they would be viable for mainstream everyday use and wide-adoption?
Someone could think a way to leave it as is, and move these transactions to a side-chain or off-chain.
Another solution would change its underlying transaction confirmation process entirely, maybe with something completely new like mimblewimble.
All this without sacrificing accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I won't argue any more that Bitcoin is not anonymous but rather pseudo-anonymous, there are thousands google links out there to show you exactly that.
If you don't take this fact but try to convince yourselves and possibly others that bitcoin is anonymous, I guarantee that you are on the wrong path. Today you might create a random bitcoin address, buy some BTC from a bitcoin ATM or from someone on the street and there you are, having some bitcoins on your random anonymous address. In that sense, yes you are anonymous. You might even manage to move these funds around by those tricks some of you described, like using an exchange in the middle (by providing bogus identification, I seriously would not go to that direction since you are falsifying documents, which is a crime - and don't tell me it is not because you are not hurting anyone blah blah blah).
But I did not start this thread talking about how we use cryptocurrencies today. (where 99.99% of us treat it as an investment).
I am talking about a a day in the future where bitcoin (or some other cryptocurrency) might become mainstream.
This means getting your salary paid in BTC, pay your rent in BTC, take a loan in BTC, buy your holiday vacation in BTC, pay your children's school in BTC, pay the restaurant in BTC, pay your doctor in BTC.
(Replace BTC with ETH or another crypto of your choice which does not offer anonymity, so no ZEC or XMR)
In such a situation, NO, you are NOT anonymous whatsoever. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Using an old ASIC for heating is an obvious way to earn something from obsolete hardware. Even the oldest ASIC is more efficient that an electric space heater. An unwanted byproduct of course is noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Καλησπέρα,
πωλούνται BTC, ισοτιμία kraken + 1%.
Πληρωμή με λεφτά στο λεπτό της Πειραιώς.
Όποιος ενδιαφέρεται ΡΜ
|
|
|
|
We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?
The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be. If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need. Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO. Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address. Obviously if you just send the bitcoins from one address to the other, that won't work... We're talking about using a middle-man, such as an exchange. Most exchanges send from a generic or random address (not the one you use to deposit in them), so it becomes practically impossible to track. Old address -> Exchange deposit address -> [Exchange send using their own address] -> New address Your new address is only linked to the generic address of the exchange and the generic address cannot be directly linked to your deposit address, so you're "anonymous." You can't rely for your anonymity on exchanges. Keep in mind that exchanges have your personal information. If you use an exchange in the middle, you might become anonymous to me, but you won't be anonymous to the professional de-anonymizers. It's like using a regular bank. |
|
|
|
We all know that Bitcoin transactions are not anonymous but pseudo-anonymous, resulting in many problems like tainted coins etc.
Some cryptocurrencies offer significant more privacy (Monero, Zcash etc) but at a cost.
However my question is more fundamental: How 'much' privacy do we really need for a widely-adopted cryptocurrency?
I believe Bitcoin as-is won't get adopted for everyday transactions. Nobody would want showing his buying habits to the whole world (imagine how many ads and flyers you would get).
On the other hand, I don't believe cryptocurrencies that offer too much privacy will get adopted either, since they will be used for criminal activities and eventually get banned.
My feeling is that we want a currency that offers privacy to some extent, without revealing our transaction to the world but still be possible for law-enforcement to track illegal activities.
What do you think?
The pseudo-anonymity fits the bill just right. Complex enough for an average user and even a motivated party not to truly be able to understand what your transactions are, but on a public ledger for analysis by experts if needs be. If you want higher anonymity for whatever reason, then you can use a different public address for every transaction as was mentioned above and initiate the transactions from different IPs if you feel that need. Otherwise, the technology is just right in the respect of anonymity IMO. Again, you don't get anonymity by using a new address, each time you create a new address and send your funds to your new address, that address becomes linked with your old address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
