Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 05:12:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 71 »
201  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Random Satoshi's + OCD = Bad! on: October 03, 2014, 05:50:30 AM
Peter Todd wrote a Dust-be-gone script that functions similar to Coinjoin transactions.

All the dust is bundled into one large transaction that is paid to the miners.

202  Economy / Speculation / Re: very simple question on: October 03, 2014, 05:10:45 AM
Here's a logical answer to your question regarding the Consensus Algorithm and Bitcoin Price Index:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TLA3j-ic4

He fails to explain why monetary inflation is a bad thing during initial distribution. He argues that the price would be much higher with Proof-of-Stake: but fails to explain why that would be a good thing.

His marketing background ties into a conspiracy theory I am working on... essentially a PoS coin would be easier for the banking cartel to appropriate.

Edit: he gets into my first objections a little bit in the follow-up video. Yes I understand why large market cap is important. He fails to explain why we should expect it to happen faster than it already has.
203  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Monster transaction: 39016 BTC!! on: October 03, 2014, 04:38:59 AM
that is absolutely hillarious that they didn't pay a small fee to move all that money lol. Would take forever to be verified wouldnt it?

Generally transactions moving 1BTC or more are considered "high priority" within a day.

Technical Details
204  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How to remove the Dust of 1 Satoshi Spam tx on: October 02, 2014, 05:24:45 AM
Peter Todd wrote a Dust-be-gone script that functions similar to Coinjoin transactions.

All the dust is bundled into one large transaction that is paid to the miners.
205  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It's about time to turn off PoW mining on: September 27, 2014, 07:03:23 PM
Quote
Keep in mind that  large miners need to recoup large costs. As they sell newly minted coins, that increases distribution.
...but this doesn't make the distribution more flat which could be considered fair. What would be the purpose of just putting more coins out there. If there would be no new coins newcomers would just buy them from old stakeholders.

People already complain that Bitcoin unfairly enriched the early adopters. By minting new coins, you force the early adopters to transfer wealth to the new miners. These centralized miner will then sell the coin to new users.

If the miners refuse to sell coins, the price will go up, prompting other miners to mint and sell coins. Edit: If the price goes up early adopters will sell coins as well.
206  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It's about time to turn off PoW mining on: September 27, 2014, 06:43:40 PM

Quote
Sold 50% due to mining concentration
did you buy in again? Smiley

No I did not. I do not have extra money at the moment (part of the reason for selling half: I just sold more aggressively than I would have otherwise).

I spent a large chunk on more efficient miners: that have been sitting idling for nearly 2 months now. I should really get on configuring them.

I will change that tag if I ever buy back in.

Even with PoS you need to distribute the coins with PoW or you end up with horrible distribution of coins. The longer the PoW stage and more people having a coin, the fairer distribution. Hard to beat Bitcoin imo
Did you look at the Bitcoin distribution?
My propostion would be that POW vs. POS does not have any effect on the distribution. The only effect is how many ppl know about it while it is distributed.
As for the distribution period: This has two effects:
1) The longer it is the more ppl can get in
2) The longer it is when POW is used for distribution the more do economies of scale matter which centralizes the distribution.

Keep in mind that  large miners need to recoup large costs. As they sell newly minted coins, that increases distribution. (My miner's cost is dominated by commercial Internet costs (only because I run a full node). The Asics I have draw only 80W in total ("free" power).)
207  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [3500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool on: September 27, 2014, 05:42:37 PM
I am having issues with my bitcoind not responding after a few hours running. I am trying to keep my p2pool node active. Just cant figure out what bitcoind is crashing.

Do you have at least 2GB of RAM?
208  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 27, 2014, 05:17:55 PM

The tax CAN NOT be reduced by halving, because the PoW network NEEDS to maintain 10% expense in order to not be laughably easy to 51% attack. Therefore it will reach a new equilibrium that rests at 10%, and continue to suck wealth out of the Bitcoin eco-system at that rate.


You lost me here. The halving will happen regardless of conditions. Over time, fees are supposed to replace the block subsidy.

Hash-power follows price. If Bitcoin is laughably easy to attack now: that is due to poor adoption. That implies that Bitcoin is not important enough to attack by well-funded actors. The hope is that by the time Bitcoin becomes a clear threat to well-funded actors, it will not be so cheap to attack.

Of course, in that case, a well-funded adversary can use the "hack every node" strategy I outlined for PoS coins. In a PoW system, it would be easier to recover from such a scenario: since the block-chain would still be largely trusted due to the proof-of-work it contains.

As I said in this post:
Bitcoin is a revolutionary experiment. It is the "first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers." (Out-of-context Bruce Schneier quote) Governments and banks will attack it through legal and technical means. It may only have a small niche over the next 50 years. If that happens, it will be OK: because it is just an experiment.

Converting Bitcoin to PoS would invalidate the experimental results. I really am curious if Bitcoin will turn out to be the first secure networked application in the history of man-kind. The main thing that makes me doubtful is that today's computer systems are inherently insecure. Formal correctness proofs are generally limited to military applications where you want to be able to deploy special weapon modes in war-time without prior testing. Even safety-critical systems like automotives still use Ad-hoc debugging. This allows bugs to creep in.

209  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It's about time to turn off PoW mining on: September 27, 2014, 04:05:00 PM
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm suggesting to convert Bitcoin itself to PoS. I wasn't aware PoS was an altcoin. Your argument is laughable.

PoS Bitcoin will be an alt-coin as long as the majority of the nodes feel that PoW is adequate. It would take dramatic events to convince me that PoS is better than proof-of-work: mainly since PoS does not solve the initial distribution problem in a fair way.
210  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Australian Govt. form asks if I own any Bitcoin of Cryptocurrency on: September 27, 2014, 03:27:32 PM
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/forms/sa369

page 15/18 and they say Cyber currency can't even get that right

Thank you for that. The actual question:
Quote from: Income and assets form
Do you (and/or your partner) have any other assets (in or
outside Australia) that you have not already advised us
about on this form?
Include
taxi plates, time shares, racehorses, greyhounds,
travellers cheques, cyber currency (e.g. bitcoin),
collectables (e.g. stamps, coins, wine, art, antiques),
commercial fishing licences etc.
Do NOT include
an account used exclusively for funding
from the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

No [ ] Go to next question
Yes [ ] Give details below
  • Description of asset
  • Current market value
  • Amount owed
  • Currency if not AUD
  • Your share %
  • Partner’s share %

Seems straight-forward to me: estimate the value of your Bitcoin holdings in AUD. The "Amount owed" would be $0, and leave "Currency if not AUD" blank (since your estimate is in AUD).

They may re-evaluate your eligibility if it hits the news that the price of Bitcoin has reached the moon though.

The "control" thing brought up earlier may be important. If you have your Bitcoin held on an exchange, you don't control it. If the price goes up too fast, your exchange may be "hacked".

Edit: I am not sure how I would answer that question for unappraised collectibles Tongue
211  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 27, 2014, 06:08:44 AM
Bitcoin CAN NOT be a good storage of value, because the PoW mining expense is way too high. By holding Bitcoin, you are basically charged a 10% tax each year. That's not a good storage of value. Bitcoin can become a good storage value if it converts to a Proof of Stake network.

It is my understanding that most PoS coins use PoW for initial coin distribution. Bitcoin is still not generally regarded a viable,  so the continued coin distribution is justified, IMO. The 10% tax will be reduced to a 5% tax within 3 years.

The "unfair" wealth of the "early adopters" is a common criticism I hear about Bitcoin. You appear to be arguing that the early adopters should control even more of the wealth.
212  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Ready to admit bitcoin is a failure? on: September 27, 2014, 05:59:23 AM
I think it is too early to expect wide adoption. Major change takes a generation or two.

Even if Bitcoin suddenly got wide adoption tomorrow: it would only really replace wire transfers. The reason is that every transaction is broadcast world-wide. With the 1MB block-limit, it has been estimated that the network can handle about 7 transactions per second. If widely adopted as-is, Bitcoin transactions would simply be too expensive for most every-day transactions.

Bitcoin is still an experiment. I am curious if the "proof of work" thing will survive another 5 years without a crippling attack.
213  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 26, 2014, 04:05:06 AM
Where's your rebuttal? I don't see anything disputing the fact that PoS is much more expensive to attack against. You just keep saying Bitcoin is expensive to attack, that's your opinion, I don't believe $500m is expensive for a well funded and determined attacker, such as nation government or big banks.

How many zero-day vulnerabilities and network nodes do you think you can find with $500 million?

With PoW nodes, they have no reason to be storing a "hot wallet". With PoS nodes, every node has a "hot wallet" in order to prove "stake".

The implication is that a determined attacker may be able to control more than 50% of the "stake" for a lot less than $500Million. As a bonus, they would be using less than 1MW of power while attacking the network (assuming thousands of machines to get good connectivity/node isolation).

Quote from: Odalv
Yes, I will only accept bitcoins with 12 * 6 = 72 confirmation (12 hour ... "old" money)  so DOUBLE SPEND will NOT be possible with only 90% of hash power.

With >51% of the hash-power, an attacker can roll back transactions. With 90% of the hash-power, they can roll back 8 hours every hour (in secret until they release their fork).
214  Economy / Goods / Re: Green Laser Pointers *400/600/800/1000/2000MW (Refund if seized) on: September 26, 2014, 02:39:31 AM
I have no idea why "Wicked Lazers" is allowed to sell hand-held 1W (Class 4) lazers. These things are much brighter than 60W bulbs that radiate in all directions: mainly in the IR spectrum.

There is no way to use them safely. Such powerful lazers are supposed to have an interlock that shuts off the beam if the door of the room (it is permanently installed in) is opened.

I informed the local police about the mere existence of such powerful hand-held lazers. Unfortunately, pilots of the police helicopter can not easily defend themselves against such a lazer because they would have to know ahead of time what colour is being used (If you block red, green, blue and IR for good measure, you have a blind-fold).
215  Other / Off-topic / Re: Bitcoins at risk from BASH security vulnerability as dangerous as Heartbleed bug on: September 25, 2014, 06:52:34 PM
It is not as bad as heartbleed because the heartbleed bug would leave no logs.

Also, for the attack to work, the attacker has to rely on unsanitized inputs being passed to the shell. I don't think bitcoind does this.

I would have to check if my bitcoin node is actually using Bash. I know Bitcoind does not have root access.
216  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 25, 2014, 05:52:07 PM
Wrong, it's extremely easy and cheap to attack PoW network, tons of PoW altcoin has been attacked to death.

Zero successful 51% attack on any PoS altcoin so far.

The 51% attack does not work on PoS coins because they are centralized. They use aggressive check-pointing. They also can not be "forged" securely (to an off-line wallet) since you need to keep the private key in memory (of a network-connected machine) to prove "stake".

Most famously, Vericoin (NxT) was rolled back after the Mintpal hack. (Another article talks about how Vericoin was not rolled back after BETR was compromised: paying ransom instead).
217  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 25, 2014, 05:32:23 PM
It's not so much an inflation, but an expense as result of PoW mining, everyday $1.5M is transferred from the Bitcoin eco-system, into the pockets of ASIC hardware vendors and electricity companies.

I disagree: mining difficulty follows the price, not the other way around. If miners start to find it unprofitable, the hash-rate will drop. Less efficient miners drop first.

POW is important because it requires an attacker to expend scarce resources: something POS based currencies do not. The problem with POW is that we still do not know for certain it will work in the long-term. (It seems to inherently assume people are generally "good".) Bitcoin is still very much an experiment.

218  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Crashing Again.... on: September 25, 2014, 04:22:20 PM
That is a slow slide. It happened after the June 2011 crash. I had like a year to buy in at $3--$5 (and failed to).

The reason is inflation. 25BTC are created every 10 minutes or so. At $450/coin, the works out to $1.62Million/day (25BTC/block*6blocks/hour*24hours/day*$450/BTC) that must be invested every day to keep the price up.

If that investment does not happen, the price falls. The block reward with halve again within about 2 years. I think by then Bitcoin will likely have a value of $5000/coin or more.
219  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We neet bitcoin ATMs on: September 25, 2014, 03:51:46 PM
Yeah, yes we do, but we need to stop the ID scan and all that fucking orwelian looking shit. We need to do it anonymous FFS, otherwise it defeats the point. Look at this shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnm4xFC2xNo

We need to avoid this shit ASAP. We need to make it simple. Put FIAT into machine, Bitcoin gets transported in your wallet, period! We need to hire people as security to avoid people robbing you and what not and that's about it. No one is going to want to scan their ID's and creepy shit like that.
BTC ATMs needs to scan your identification to comply with AML/KYC requirements. If they did not do this then the ATMs would likely get shut down and the owners/operators would likely get charged with money laundering.

I think scanning ID will add somewhat level of legitimacy to both bitcoin and bitcoin ATMs.  

Depending on your Jurisdiction, it may be possible to have low-volume ATMs (less than $1000/day) avoiding any reporting requirements. I looked into this a bit yesterday and document my results in this post. While $1000/day may not be much, if every business has one, it should be possible to find one not maxed out.

Either I missed something, or the US regulations seem to more clearly allow it than the Canadian ones.

220  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: September 24, 2014, 02:49:27 PM
You're eventually going to get caught and prosecuted for money laundering and unlicensed money transmitting. I hope you're not in the US.

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/bsa/title18b.html

That was not entirely helpful, but is at least a starting point. Simply exchanging foreign currency does not automatically make you a money transmitter. To find out if you qualify as a money transmitter, you have to look up the regulations. I found an unofficial copy:
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations; Title 31: Money and Finance: Treasury; PART 1010—GENERAL PROVISIONS; Subpart A—General Definitions
The relevant subsection is subsection (ff)
Selected quotes:
Quote
(ff) Money services business. A person wherever located doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized or licensed business concern, wholly or in substantial part within the United States, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(7) of this section. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States.

(1) Dealer in foreign exchange. A person that accepts the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more countries in exchange for the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more other countries in an amount greater than $1,000 for any other person on any day in one or more transactions, whether or not for same-day delivery.
.
.
.
(8] Limitation. For the purposes of this section, the term “money services business” shall not include:
...
(iii) A natural person who engages in an activity identified in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(5) of this section on an infrequent basis and not for gain or profit.

My reading of that is that you can set up a bitcoin ATM in your place of business with a $1000/day (global) limit with no problems and no KYC requirements.

If you want to sell more than $1000/day, you are allowed to do that too, all long as you don't make a business out of it (maybe one transaction every quarter).

Edit: I suppose I should look up the Canadian regulations too: I think that is where I pulled the quarterly limitation from.

Update: What I found linked from the the FINTRAC website does not appear promising. The regulations can't be understood without reading the Enabling Act.

While transactions less than $1000 do not need to be routinely reported, Canada has no minimum threshold where suspicious activity (were you suspect terrorist financing or money laundering) does not have to be reported. It appears the regulations are structured such that small businesses are expected to act as a franchisee under a larger MSB: where the larger business handles most of the reporting intecraceis.

There is also the issue where non-SWIFT transfers are supposed to have comprehensive information about the sender an recipient accompanying them (Bitcoin really does not support that in a secure/cheap way). Bitcoin is also border-less: the reporting requirements change for a "Foreign Politically Exposed Person" (probably why CaVirtex is Canada-only).


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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 71 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!