Why is this important? 14nm is state of the art fabrication technology, ever since the ASIC arms race began btc mining chips have been using old fabrication technology, now they have reached 14nm it means we will plateau in advancement at the same rate as other processor chips ...
The situation with various chips claiming 28-22-20-14nm is that this is not a very "precise" measurement. For example, some components of a chip might be 28nm and some others might be 14nm. There's quite a bit of misleading practices going around with nanometer labeling. Ideally, detailed specs would be like: Component A of the chip is: X nm Component B of the chip is: Y nm Component C of the chip is: Z nm Until then you could have a very "stretched" specification based on a single aspect of the chip. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could try Kristov Atlas, who did Darkcoin. But it will probably always require the devs saying what their code does if the reviewer is not understanding the logic somewhere.
If I remember correctly, Atlas did it for free, although the community did gather funds that exceeded 1000 DRKs / a masternode, at the time, as a donation / compensation.
|
|
|
|
What scaling problem exactly are you referring to here? ^
Bloat in particular. There was an attack exploiting this generation of bloated mixings and the response was to increase fees so as to make the attack less feasible. Isn't this an "attacker economist" response to the problem of generating bloat from the mixing? ...
It gives an example of how the math and probabilities (keyword) of the level of mixing increasing decreases the probability an attacker would be able to successfully link addresses together on the monero block chain in a non-liner fashion.
In other words, the system is not 100% robust in itself. It is not designed to be 100% safe. It is designed with the assumption that someone doesn't have a lot of funds to sybil the shit out of the system. In DJB's block post he states the following:
...
The "attacker will probably fail" approach. People taking this approach say things like this: "We're designing this system so that the cost of breaking it is larger than the resources available to the attacker."
...and this is precisely how sybil attacks are dealt with in Monero. Monero is counting on the possibility that the resources of the attacker will not be sufficient to sybil attack and unmask those trying to be anonymous. |
|
|
|
Yes I agree that at the mining level or forking the block chain with enough computational power is an issue (inherent with any coin using a similar consensus model for verification of transactions), BUT that is not the issue we are discussing as that is merely determining the block/ledger for which a coin stores transactions. The item of topic was "privacy" and how Dash's approach has been an "attacker economist" approach.
As far as I am aware, the "attacker economist" approach would also be used for dealing with the possibility of Sybil attacks in a cryptonote coin. The fee structure would also be an "attacker economist" approach to prevent the blockchain from being bloated to DOA levels (and the coin / transaction network going to the grave), due to the problematic scaling and bloat of ring signatures at high mixing level. |
|
|
|
IMO you are right on that, however this is a failure of all cryptocurrencies, not DASH exclusively. Cryptocurrencies rely on attacker economist rationale, including Monero, Bitcoin etc. "Honest miners", bloat attacks vs fees increase (Bytecoin attackers (?) on Monero), etc etc.
Actually, AlexGR, he isn't at all right. Mostly because he presents one attack vector, which is nearly impossible to acheive, as the only issue. The point isn't to get a majority control over all masternodes, but rather a 90%+ minimum for less than 1% chance of deanonymizing a transaction. It's not a matter of how much it costs to gain control over the MN network enough to either deanonymize a transaction or other malicious actions (such as double spends, etc...) It's a matter of ability, and there is no way any entity can do this without just about everyone selling off their Masternodes, and only to this malicious entity in a free market. You think that's going to happen? The nature of the dis-incentive is of the type he originally described. In other words, a rival with tremendous amount of money can theoretically attack the system. We are counting that this is not "realistic" to happen. But the same is true for all cryptocurrencies (PoW, PoS) and their entire operation. The same is also true for all mixing-based anonymity systems, due to the possibility of sybil attacks. What are Monero guys saying against Bytecoin? "Ohhh the preminers hold 80something % of the first coins which can be used to deanonymize the mixin of later users..."... Now, of course, there are degrees of chance, probabilities, etc etc on what might happen. But, in the end of the day, even a 0.000000000000000001% chance that something might go wrong, is proof that the system is not designed to be 100% robust in itself, instead if operates with certain assumptions on the economical behavior of the users of the network. |
|
|
|
It appears that Dash uses the "attacker economist" approach.
I happened to read the quote, but what exactly are you referring to? What part of DASH implementation uses it and what sub-type of attacker economist logic is used? Here is another quote of exactly what I am getting at in reference to DASH: In other words, instead of purposely designing their systems to be cryptographically sound so that the "attacker will definitely fail" or the "attacker will probably fail", they instead (unwittingly?) design it so that "the attacker's expected cost of carrying out an attack exceeds the attacker's expected benefit from doing so."
The unfortunate knock-on effect is that such an approach only works like that for a limited time...as the value of the cryptocurrency grows, so does the level of sophistication of the attackers that find it an interesting target.
Trying to solve the privacy problems in a way that relies on the honesty and opsec of a small group of individuals is simply privacy theatre, no different from those that claim that Bitcoin is private as long as there's no address reuse. IMO you are right on that, however this is a failure of all cryptocurrencies, not DASH exclusively. Cryptocurrencies rely on attacker economist rationale, including Monero, Bitcoin etc. "Honest miners", bloat attacks vs fees increase (Bytecoin attackers (?) on Monero), etc etc. The mining process itself is one where you expect that the other will not do something stupid to the blockchain, but instead respect his mining costs. But if you are a government and bring an NSA super-farm online, and don't care about "mining costs", well, you can fuck up every PoW blockchain on the planet because cryptocurrencies have not been designed to withstand such an attack. And if you have money to spend, you can fuck up every PoS blockchain. And if you have money to spend, you can also sybil every transaction, including Cryptonote. Would I like crypto to be more sound? I would. Would I like people to take its security more seriously? I would. That's not what we have though and I'm not seeing many working towards this direction. |
|
|
|
Just googled "Dash", and www.dashpay.io is now at the top of the second page of search results. When we get the SEO bump of www.dash.org, we could give the Kardashians a run for their money... Try with incognito / private mode, or another pc. Google tends to personalize search results. For me, dashpay.io is the 5th result in first page. |
|
|
|
It appears that Dash uses the "attacker economist" approach.
I happened to read the quote, but what exactly are you referring to? What part of DASH implementation uses it and what sub-type of attacker economist logic is used? |
|
|
|
So, hearn is definitaly not interested in financial freedom
I'm willing to bet that all the money he'll get from the mega-banks will afford him quite a lot of financial freedom. Not sure about the rest 7bn people though  |
|
|
|
when the halving comes
hash-power won't drop so dramatically
Its not as tho the big farms aren't turning a profit...
and miners only get more efficient.
so there will most definitely be a lot of miners dropping out but closer to 10-25%, hashrate will drop out, and then start to climb again....
.... .... Let's say that, for example, it takes an average of $7 of electricity to generate $10 of bitcoins. That's a pretty good profit margin and is probably over-generous. Now the halving happens and suddenly everyone is spending $7 of electricity to generate $5 of bitcoins. The most sensible thing to do is switch off until the next difficulty change. The problem is, this is not just for one miner but any of them who are paying over $5 of electricity to generate a bitcoin. Now, as I say, I think this won't come to pass for various reasons but those reasons are not very solid. I will use a gold analogy to show something here: Bitcoin's mining game theory is slightly different than the one gold has, in the sense that when the price of gold goes down mining can be temporarily halted in deposits which require more energy expenditure in terms of diesel etc. The gold miner knows the gold will be there to dig later, in the more "expensive" cut of land, if gold prices rise and it becomes profitable. Now in Bitcoin there is a race against time as the production is steady for 4 years, then halved, then halved, etc. So, unlike gold, where a spike in prices can lead to production increase of the unmined gold in the expensive cuts, BTC will still get -50% production every 4 years. This knowledge of the dwindling supply (that if I don't mine today, tomorrow it won't be there to get mined - it will be lost), makes the game theory aspect somewhat more speculative and risky. What if I mined today and dumped much later when coins-to-be-mined will have been reduced significantly and my price for the same coins will have gone up? It's something that must be factored in. So even if a miner says, ah crap, we got a halving of -50% so it's not worth it anymore, he has to remember that even at a -50% rate, in 4 years from that time, the rate will be even lower (-50% again). It's something that also works in his favor. |
|
|
|
So those traders who sold at $2000 and thought Christmas had come early get screwed. If Gemini had a safety mechanism the error wouldn't have happened, It should compensate the traders who lost out. Bter has a warning box when you place an order with an excessive price. If Bter can do it, Gemini should have done it. It goes to show, there really is zero reason to ever sit fiat on an exchange. I was negatively affected by this trade reversal decision, and I think that it is really bullshit and unprofessional for them to authorize a reversal based merely on user error. If they were to authorize such reversal based on a technical glitch or a hacker, that would probably be a more justifiable reason. I'm going to attempt to communicate with them about honoring my trade (even if they personally have to absorb the cost (mine had been filled and subsequently reversed at merely in the mid $370s... those fuckers), and if they do not side with me, then I am likely going to discontinue using their services and pull my bitcoins (and fiat) from their exchange. Again, this is really bullshit, and goes to show really bad judgement in their lack of credibility building foresight. In the past 12 hours, I communicated with Gemini regarding my assessment of their decision to reverse trades, and I requested that at minimum they make me whole for such reversal and that they commit to changing their policy in such a way that in the future they are not going to reverse trades based on "customer error." I anticipate that most likely they will not comply with my request, and accordingly, absent some other materially relevant developments, I will need to remove all of my BTC from their exchange and to discontinue using their services. I would prefer to keep my account active with them, but if they do not commit to some form of non-reversals in the future (except for maybe in very extreme circumstances), then it seems too unreliable to continue to use their services. At this time, I have discontinued any attempted trades with them, except for a couple of real minor orders that had been outstanding still remain outstanding. and currently, I am thinking that I will give them a few days to respond to my earlier request before I take any further actions, such as removing my coins from their exchange. By the way, I should also clarify that the notice that I received from Gemini had additional language as follows: "The customer who placed the order notified us immediately afterwards, and our team moved as quickly as possible to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, due to trading you performed in the hours in the hours between the erroneous trade and the reversal, you now have a negative balance in either the USD or BTC portion of your account. You will need to reach a non-negative balance before you can withdraw funds from your account." Accordingly, since my subsequent trading activities resulted in a negative account balance, as a result of Gemini's trade reversal, there seems to have been a little more impact on my account as compared with someone who had experienced the trade reversal but had not engaged in any subsequent trading activities. Reading this: https://exchange.gemini.com/user-agreementI don't get how they can get away with reversing transactions  "The Exchange Ledger enables immediate settlement of sale or purchase transactions when the transacting accounts contain sufficient funds. "
"All buy transactions are purchases of Digital Assets with fiat currency that settle immediately from a pre-funded Fiat Account, are recorded on our Exchange Ledger. All sell transactions are sales of Digital Assets for fiat currency that settle immediately from a pre-funded Digital Asset Account and are recorded on our Exchange Ledger."The "GEMINI INFORMATION ACCURACY, LIABILITY AND RISKS" part, is also saying that if you settle a transaction, or incur big losses, etc, etc, tough luck. "v. for any transaction that is completed;
...
vi. for the price at which you buy or sell Digital Assets on Gemini;"... "Please also note the following risks in accessing or using Gemini:
i. The risk of loss in trading Digital Assets may be substantial and losses may occur over a short period of time."
...
v. transactions in Digital Assets may be irreversible, and, accordingly, losses due to fraudulent or accidental transactions may not be recoverable;
About reversals there is the "SYSTEM DISRUPTIONS OR MALFUNCTIONS" part, which is not really about user errors as I read it. |
|
|
|
suddenly i had this bearish feeling come over me and i sold all my bitcoins.
see you all sub 300 suckers!
 Lesson learned  |
|
|
|
That's how fiat money works -- it doesn't matter what the coin is made out of, USD isn't backed by copper. That said, the penny is one coin that actually costs more to make than its face value. It's not made out of zinc because can't afford copper.
Fiat money was not supposed to be backed by precious metals, but then the debasement got so high that they can't even be minted on base metals like nickel and copper. They are manipulating people perception with the copper plating - a process which adds a lot to the minting cost. The US mint could use a zinc alloy, and in EU, they could be using a stainless steel alloy, as is, without any plating whatsoever, but they don't. They want people to think their money is copper  Monetary perception is everything for the value of money. Bitcoiners could learn a thing or two from the banksters. |
|
|
|
To say that gold is a better investment than Ruppees is not an argument for gold. It's an argument against Ruppees. Anything looks good compared to something worse.
When you have to store your wealth, and you live in a "developing" country with foreign exchange issues, capital controls, or even gold restrictions or taxes to prevent you from dumping your national currency in order to buy the X or Y hard asset, your options are limited. This is the reality of billions of people around the world and it's an argument in favor of "sound money" compared to confetti* fiat. Naturally money will find its way towards gold, silver, btc. * Even in the US and EU, our money is not even worth the metal it is printed on. 1c coins are zinc. In Europe it's even worse. 1c/2c/5c are all iron (steel). Iron FFS  And they plate it with a thin layer of copper to make it appear valuable. |
|
|
|
Transactions mean absolutely nothing, nobody transacts in Gold EVER. Bitcoin is asset protection and remittance above all else. Transactions day to day are at least 10 years away, and i am pretty sure will be nothing like what they are now, probably not even in this blockchain.
I love your second point though it is exactly right.
 Gold would have to appreciate by 74% to be at it's 2011 valuation. That's a very poor argument for holding BTC with no xaction value. Again, it depends where you live. If you are in India, which is an extremely large holder of gold, and people deal with gold all the time, your national currency used to buy 1 USD with 45 INR in the start of 2011. Now you need 66 INR to buy 1 USD. What this means, if you are living in India, is that if you dumped your INR for gold (which hundreds of millions do - something that is unimaginable for us, westerners), your fiat "losses" in your national currency are much different than those of an American. |
|
|
|
Not that again No, not everything that gets laughed at [though the internet never was] eventually becomes outrageously popular. Most do not. Bitcoin transactions are growing. Payment processors like Bitpay release stats that show increasing usage. Things are moving forward. Could they move faster? Of course. IMO they could move way faster if there was integration of online games and Bitcoins so that an entire new generation of tech-savy kids can grow up with Bitcoins. They don't need to be "educated" in its use nor will they find it "too complicated". The user base could explode if a few large game companies allowed gamers to buy/sell with BTCs (or altcoins) from inside the game's marketplace - while they take a commission from these transactions for maintaining the marketplace. Well sure. "Each individual investor" decided that bitcoin is a speculative commodity, one which has lost 2/3rds of its value over the last 2 years. What's your point?
If you've bought at 3$ you are up 100 times and if you bought at 30$ you are up 10 times. Losing and gaining is highly dependent on your point of entry. In the end of the day, the spike is irrelevant. If the spike never occurred, and you told people back in the start of 2013 that in the end of '13 we'll be at 100$ from 30$, in the end of 2014 we'll be at 200$ and in the end of 2015$ we'll be at 300$ - everyone would be happy, except bears, trolls and shorters  . It's the perception that it went higher and then lower that plays with people's feelings. Otherwise the long-term trend is good. If you want to see some real pumps and dumps in speculative commodities, check the Rhodium long-term chart;  |
|
|
|
So what you're telling me is "it's not happening, but that's actually a good thing, because it could"?
You are confusing the "it's happening on a trivial scale" with "it's happening on a non-trivial scale". Messaging software, like ICQ, back in 1996 had trivial use. A few hundred thousand people were using it. A "skeptic" could say back then ' oh, so if it's not used by the whole population it must be a failure". ....Or they could be more reasonable and say " look, this is something new, most people don't know about it, but as they do and they learn what it does and how it can make their communication better, they will start to adopt it and it's just a matter of time before the user base expands significantly". Today messaging software of all types is used by billions of people. It has attained large scale adoption. Right now, bitcoin is treated as a purely speculative commodity, think glorified poker chips.
It's up to each individual investor to understand why they are holding it and whether it has any potential or not. But if it had already realized its potential we wouldn't be here price-wise. Nor there would be any debate on scaling, etc. You don't quite get what gives gold its value, and since you also don't get what gives bitcoin its value, you assume that the two are interchangeable, am I right?
It is safe to assume 99.999%+ of the people do not know what gives gold its value (and I don't mean the obvious market demand = price). They think they do, but they don't. However to really understand the value of gold you must also understand the nature of the reality we are in. And that's something that is more scientific, esoteric - even metaphysical. |
|
|
|
That's more like it, many of those are good reasons for bitcoin to have value - and all better then "Bitcoin is scarce" which is easy and fundamentally lazy.
Usefulness + scarcity go hand in hand in this case, so both are essential elements. Regarding the 12kg / 1 BTC scarcity ratio, there is one key parameter that is lagging for BTC in order to start catching up in price (and I'm not speaking of catching the price of 1oz of gold, but rather 400 oz of gold). This parameter is the mining cost. The cost of mining 12kg gold / 386oz of gold is from 200.000 USD to 400.000 USD - with a mining cost estimated at ~500 to ~1000 USD per ounce, depending the field. The cost of mining 1 bitcoin is currently nowhere near 200k or 400k USD needed for extracting 12kg of gold and this affects its perceived value. When bitcoin generation starts to become much slower, and mining competition makes mining quite harder, this will have to change. Those who are in for the longer term and co-factor the mining curve situation, have a very different price estimate from those who are trading day to day. ... Bitcoin is still "trivial". If this was happening on a large scale, we wouldn't still be at 4bn marketcap.
Ah, so no evidence of this actually happening? Gotcha. You asked me for large scale. There is no large scale use of BTC right now, whether we are talking about the "west" or developing nations. If it was happening widely we wouldn't be at 330$. But that's precisely why the situation is bullish, because what is now happening on the fringes of society, by a few tech-savy people who happen to know and use BTC, has the potential to spread to a far bigger % of the population. One of the safest assumptions is that adoption and use will increase - unless something catastrophic happens. |
|
|
|
...
No because they can't go to an exchange, sell BTC, get USD to their bank account and then go to their bank and withdraw USD. They can't do that. They will get national currency instead - in most cases.
So they use BTC as a hard currency / USD-equivalent currency. The BTC payment processors do the rest: If a payment processor can accept BTC as currency and send you a shipment of tangible assets like gold, silver, technology stuff (iphones, laptops, etc etc), it's like you have actually paid with USD and paypal. But it's not necessary to spend your BTC - you can also hold them as a safer alternative (compared to local currency that is devaluating), as some do with their hard currency holdings.
Can you point me to a country where that's actually happening, on non-trivial scale? Or are you talking about China, wher that's simply not the case? Bitcoin is still "trivial". If this was happening on a large scale, we wouldn't still be at 4bn marketcap. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
