|
1441
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I solved 7 blocks yesterday
|
on: March 09, 2011, 02:50:47 PM
|
...
You assume that the software random generator has enough entropy, but it does not. That is only pseudo-random, and that's why i was saying that transactions add more randomness by adding more entropy to the pool. I disagree, for this purpose the PRNG doesn't need a lot of entropy to be in practice indistinguishable from truly random. This can be verified by experiment - generate for a test block chain with no transactions, and see if any deviation from randomness can be found. Has such experiment been ever done by anybody ? |
|
|
|
|
1442
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin
|
on: March 09, 2011, 11:15:26 AM
|
The discussion is not about the current protocol, but future extensions.
I thought we reached a consensus that the domain names will be outside of the main chain. + 1 Exactly, i thought that was decided long ago. |
|
|
|
|
1443
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I solved 7 blocks yesterday
|
on: March 09, 2011, 11:14:33 AM
|
FWIW, if you average 2 blocks/day, your probability of having at least 7 in a given day is 0.45%. Of course, if you run the setup for several days, your chance of it happening in one of them is much higher. You know how prime numbers tend to group together? I wonder if it is truly random...
It is random as long as it depends on human actions. Human actions are generally very random. So it is random, because transactions are random enough. Unless of course, transaction data is not included in the hash, but AFAIK it is. Hm? The transactions that occur have very little to do with your probability to find blocks. It depends on whether your PRNG generates a right nonce. To the extent that PRNGs can be considered random, so is block generation. If transactions are also hashed, then they do have an influence on randomness. AFAIK, the candidate block changes every time a new transaction is to be included in it, so it changes the "source" the algorithm has to hash from. They have an influence on whether you actually found a block or not. If at some point my PRNG generated the number, say, 523789, this will or will not lead me to a valid block depending on the transactions. But they don't change the probability or statistical properties of generation. If the PRNG is random, then the transactions can't make generation any more or less random. For example, even if there are no transactions at all, generation will still be random with the same expectation. You assume that the software random generator has enough entropy, but it does not. That is only pseudo-random, and that's why i was saying that transactions add more randomness by adding more entropy to the pool. |
|
|
|
|
1444
|
Economy / Economics / Re: what happens when btc2 comes out?
|
on: March 09, 2011, 11:11:39 AM
|
So, let's supposed btc2 is introduced and is (for one reason or another) technically superior to btc...what would transpire? Would btc collapse in value? Would btc2 fail to gain a foothold because of the mind share that btc has already attained?
The new bitcoin would have to be as technically superior to Bitcoin, as Bitcoin is to centralized currencies. I mean it has to be level higher, waaaaaaaaaaaaay above everything that Bitcoin has now. Not gonna happen, unless another Satoshi-like genius, but twice as smart as Satoshi comes along. I mean it has to be another revolution, on top of the existing revolution. Also, simple change of algorithms/protocol upgrade is not going to convince majority of people to switch (at least it is not going to convince me for sure). There are some psychological/market effects that are in play here, such as network effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effectBecause of the network effect, even if the new Bitcoin-2 with fairly superior protocol arrives, people won't switch. " The good is enemy of the better" or something like this. |
|
|
|
|
1445
|
Economy / Economics / Re: WTH? why a sudden drop by 10 cents?
|
on: March 09, 2011, 11:03:46 AM
|
It cannot decrease value in the long term, unless size of its userbase and/or its economy starts to fall.
So unless some serious weakness is discovered (like technical weakness), Bitcoin is doomed to rise forever.
Do you seriously think the only way Bitcoin usage can decrease is if there's a technical weakness found? Depends on the weakness. - If this is a critical design-related weakness, it may even destroy the currency (but i don't think something like this exists, BTC has been on for 2 years and everything looks perfect) - If this is a serious weakness, it may reverse the expansion for some time. - Smaller weaknesses will only slow down the expansion. |
|
|
|
|
1446
|
Economy / Economics / Re: WTH? why a sudden drop by 10 cents?
|
on: March 08, 2011, 11:18:21 PM
|
So far, bitcoin value is very predictable in the long term.
Are you kidding? There is no long term data to speak of. It's perfectly possible for the price to stay at the current level well past a couple of months, or to drop below your artificial rally trendline. As long as Bitcoin popularity will grow faster than new Bitcoins are printed, that is highly doubtable. Do you really believe that Bitcoin market's value will stay for long at 5-6 Milion USD ? It only takes one medium-sized investor (or thousand of small investors such as geeks) to double the current value. So i think that within max 1-2 months we are going to have a rally. And within 6-9 months... anything can happen. IMHO even 10 - fold increase is possible. Alot of people are hoarding their bitcoins, waiting for a huge increase (ie: to 2 $) to sell everything and forget about mining if it isn't profitable anymore or will continue mining if it is. but that big sell off after the rally might mean a major decline Great, I'll wait till then before I buy more.  I meant later on, when the difficulty will be very high and that the BTC will be around 2$ and is still profitable, people might mass sell and it'll fall back to 0.8$ or 1$ and Bitmining won't be profitable anymore and then everyone will mass sell and quit... and bitcoin will die This is a worst case scenario btw, not exactly what I think will happen :p What you are saying is a relative and temporary situation. Bitcoin has a market, which means that it will self-balance itself regularly. The more people use it, the more balanced it will be. The more people use it, the more value bitcoins have. It's a currency which is deflationary by design. It cannot decrease value in the long term, unless size of its userbase and/or its economy starts to fall. So unless some serious weakness is discovered (like technical weakness), Bitcoin is doomed to rise forever. |
|
|
|
|
1447
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I solved 7 blocks yesterday
|
on: March 08, 2011, 11:07:40 PM
|
FWIW, if you average 2 blocks/day, your probability of having at least 7 in a given day is 0.45%. Of course, if you run the setup for several days, your chance of it happening in one of them is much higher. You know how prime numbers tend to group together? I wonder if it is truly random...
It is random as long as it depends on human actions. Human actions are generally very random. So it is random, because transactions are random enough. Unless of course, transaction data is not included in the hash, but AFAIK it is. Hm? The transactions that occur have very little to do with your probability to find blocks. It depends on whether your PRNG generates a right nonce. To the extent that PRNGs can be considered random, so is block generation. If transactions are also hashed, then they do have an influence on randomness. AFAIK, the candidate block changes every time a new transaction is to be included in it, so it changes the "source" the algorithm has to hash from. |
|
|
|
|
1448
|
Economy / Economics / Re: WTH? why a sudden drop by 10 cents?
|
on: March 08, 2011, 08:25:30 PM
|
So far, bitcoin value is very predictable in the long term.
Are you kidding? There is no long term data to speak of. It's perfectly possible for the price to stay at the current level well past a couple of months, or to drop below your artificial rally trendline. As long as Bitcoin popularity will grow faster than new Bitcoins are ( EDIT: mined), that is highly doubtable. Do you really believe that Bitcoin market's value will stay for long at 5-6 Milion USD ? It only takes one medium-sized investor (or thousand of small investors such as geeks) to double the current value. So i think that within max 1-2 months we are going to have a rally. And within 6-9 months... anything can happen. IMHO even 10 - fold increase is possible. |
|
|
|
|
1449
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I solved 7 blocks yesterday
|
on: March 08, 2011, 08:20:53 PM
|
You know how prime numbers tend to group together? I wonder if it is truly random...
It is random as long as it depends on human actions. Human actions are generally very random. So it is random, because transactions are random enough. Unless of course, transaction data is not included in the hash, but AFAIK it is. |
|
|
|
|
1450
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I solved 7 blocks yesterday
|
on: March 08, 2011, 06:28:35 PM
|
The beauty of randomness... You know, it is theoretically possible (however very very very very tiny probability) to solve 30 blocks in one day on a machine doing 10khash/sec. But i think that winning a block on core2duo after 5 days, qualifies one for playing national lottery  |
|
|
|
|
1451
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin
|
on: March 08, 2011, 06:15:38 PM
|
Would this payload "domainchain" proposes to use be stored in the block chain indefinitely? How big can the payload be and what is it's purpose in the protocol? Can nodes choose to ignore it?
AFAIK, BitDNS data will not be stored in Bitcoin main chain... i thought this is already clear. Under the plan by theymos, it would be stored in the bitcoin main chain. satoshi suggested an alternative, where there would be multiple bitcoin chains, and the non-currency data such as BitDNS would be stored there instead of the main chain. OK, but has any final decision been made ? Personally i hate bloat and i don't like the idea of storing non-currency data in the chain... |
|
|
|
|
1452
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin
|
on: March 08, 2011, 02:29:31 PM
|
Would this payload "domainchain" proposes to use be stored in the block chain indefinitely? How big can the payload be and what is it's purpose in the protocol? Can nodes choose to ignore it?
AFAIK, BitDNS data will not be stored in Bitcoin main chain... i thought this is already clear. |
|
|
|
|
1454
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Bitcoin.org Redesign (mockups inside)
|
on: March 08, 2011, 07:58:26 AM
|
Here's what I'm thinking: [image] I swiped the layout and some other parts from another site however I'm working on composing a separate post and don't wish to share that URL just yet. Nope, didn't like it really. 1) First impression is a mess 2) Second impression is "typical business". 3) I think we want Bitcoin idea to be more independent, opensource & p2p - related than business-related (i may be wrong there though). |
|
|
|
|
1455
|
Economy / Economics / Re: WTH? why a sudden drop by 10 cents?
|
on: March 08, 2011, 07:44:17 AM
|
S3052 said there will be a breakout soon and we're in a rally mode.  It's no rocket science this time, just look at the chart:  The latest date that the outbreak can happen at is T_max. But i would rather say that it will happen much much sooner, like in max 1/3 of the length from last recorded value to T_max (which makes it a month, maximum 2). It's gaining speed after all, not rising with constant speed. So far, bitcoin value is very predictable in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
1457
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions
|
on: March 08, 2011, 07:19:02 AM
|
It might be nice to add OP_WHIRLPOOL etc. to Script to ease a switch if one is ever needed.
Well, it sounds like a flag would be nice in this situation. Value 0 = "classic" hash Value 1 = sha512 Value 2 = whirlpool What if the network could theoretically accept different hashes (and perhaps different pub/priv keylengths ?) Sounds like a bad idea to me. Instead if 1 security problem, you have 3. Security will be always as strong as the weakest hashing method you can choose. Correct, the right way is to force inclusion of more than one hash. + 1 Well, didn't think of that. EDIT: Gentoo Linux (which I am a proud user of) uses this approach to decrease possibility of collision even further. Gentoo's package management ford SHA-256 + SHA-1 + RMD 160 + size checking for every file. |
|
|
|
|
1458
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thought Experiment: Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme?
|
on: March 07, 2011, 11:18:03 PM
|
Suppose a Bitcoin clone with little to no changes would startup tomorrow. Would miners switch?
I think they would, because early adoptors had (and still have) a big advantage with the current inflation model.
During the first year about half of all currently existing bitcoins were mined, while there were practically no transactions, and almost none of it has been spend.
Why would late comers simply accept this? If you newly learn about Bitcoin, you'll always have an incentive to start from zero.
Unlike gold, bitcoin is not unique and was never intended to be.
I'm not arguing on economic grounds, and do support the austrian school, so please don't restart the old inflation vs. deflation debate.
It's about sustainability of continuous network growth, which seems to need an equal playing ground in time.
It seems that you are missing one critical thing about Bitcoin. The value of bitcoin does not come directly from protocol, or from technical details. It comes from the people who use it. So it doesn't matter how many clones of bitcoin you make, miners won't switch because the forked coins will have no value, because it won't be possible to convince a lot of people to switch to it. The more people use a currency and exchange it for real goods, the more value and more power it has. Also, stop comparing Bitcoin to Ponzi scheme. If Bitcoin is ponzi scheme, then gold is ponzi scheme too. If gold is ponzi scheme, then every bullion (and any valuable and scarce thing than can be used as a currency) is ponzi scheme. Comparing Bitcoin to Ponzi annoys me. That is absurd. |
|
|
|
|
1460
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Dealing with SHA-256 Collisions
|
on: March 07, 2011, 10:58:58 PM
|
It might be nice to add OP_WHIRLPOOL etc. to Script to ease a switch if one is ever needed.
Well, it sounds like a flag would be nice in this situation. Value 0 = "classic" hash Value 1 = sha512 Value 2 = whirlpool What if the network could theoretically accept different hashes (and perhaps different pub/priv keylengths ?) I don't know If I'm thinking right here, because I'm not actually a C/C++ programmer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
