Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 07:42:12 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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 113 »
761  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 10:30:23 PM
You could arrange bitcoin so that you had to submit n different PoW hashes in each block; each of which met a difficulty target (about n-fold lower than the current one).
Interesting, need to think about this.
Is that you, bomb?  Grin

I didn't get this. Can you explain in more detail ?

You mean you watched the linked movie and still don't see the connection between his and bomb's words?

TL;DR (or rather: TL;DW). I watched first 30 seconds and I see no connection.

I don't have time to watch the entire video just to get your point. So get to it.
762  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 09:38:16 PM
You could arrange bitcoin so that you had to submit n different PoW hashes in each block; each of which met a difficulty target (about n-fold lower than the current one).
Interesting, need to think about this.
Is that you, bombGrin

I didn't get this. Can you explain in more detail ?
763  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 01:42:38 PM
This is out of the scope of the devs, it's a core protocol issue. I think defending against casual double-spenders is certainly feasible. The real problem is with well-funded entities trying to harm Bitcoin with majority attacks.

There are some proposals for alternative systems (e.g. proof of stake), but they are fairly controversial.

This is right. Concern over double-spends is way overblown.

If I understood the paper correctly, using the method described by @Meni Rosenfeld, it is possible to double spend as many transactions as one wants simultaneously, thus completely paralyzing the entire network (Somebody correct me if I am wrong).

They don't make economic sense.

They make sense, if you are a government or a banker with millions of USD in accounts.
Few millions is really nothing for destroying your greatest competitor.
764  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 01:13:07 PM
Maybe you didn't know, but ASICs for Bitcoin are being built already and are a couple orders of magnitude more efficient than GPUs. They are going to destroy Bitcoin!!! What was your point again? Bullshit!

You are actually right, however my point is not completely bullshit.
It will be much easier to gain 51% in Litecoin than in Bitcoin, because there is (and probably will be) much less hashing power, as there are no GPUs in the game.

Quote
Also, because of litecoin's blocks are produced 4 times as often, Litecoin will require few times as much bandwidth and disk space comparing to bitcoin.
Bullshit! The bandwidth is almost entirely consisting of transactions. Block headers are negligibly small.

OK, i didn't know that. My point is invalid.

Quote
Merged mining is also impossible with Litecoin, as its algo is completely different.
This cuts both ways, you know. Bitcoin is not compatible with Litecoin. It's algo is completely different!

Why try and invent a bullshit reason when there is a legitimate one? (the wider adoption of Bitcoin)

I don't think you understand.
Because Bitcoin's adoption is wider, if Litecoin had the same algo, all the equipment used to mine Bitcoin could be used to mine Litecoins AND Bitcoins at the same time (with some modifications of course).

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining

So i find it a critical flaw that this isn't possible. It that was possible, Litecoin could quickly gain hashing power close to Bitcoin, which would make it stronger. Without it, it may take long, long, long years.
765  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
Why are we still using bitcoin instead of litecoin again? because it's most accepted?

Because litecoin's algoriths are built so that mining with GPUs is infeasible, so it would be very easy for a large & powerful entity (US govt, FED or whatever) to build their ASICs quickly and completely destroy Litecoin.



Why don't you just say yes, because it is more accepted instead of making up a bullshit reason?

This is not a bullshit reason. I was thinking about buying some litecoins myself, but i resigned because of this.
Litecoin can be easily killed by creating a simple FPGA or ASIC which will make 51% or even 95% attacks very easy, because there are no GPUs in the game.

Don't you see how big of a flaw is this ?

EDIT:
Also, because of litecoin's blocks are produced 4 times as often, Litecoin will require few times as much bandwidth and disk space comparing to bitcoin.

EDIT2:
Merged mining is also impossible with Litecoin, as its algo is completely different.
766  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 12:44:17 PM
Why are we still using bitcoin instead of litecoin again? because it's most accepted?

Because litecoin's algorithms are built so that mining with GPUs is infeasible, so it would be very easy for a large & powerful entity (US govt, FED or whatever) to build their ASICs quickly and completely destroy Litecoin.

Litecoin is basically ASIC-only thing, there is nothing else that will mine them efficiently.
767  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 12:10:03 PM
Interesting... the conclusions presented in the paper seem valid.

I wonder if the devs are already working on this, because it seems serious.
This is out of the scope of the devs, it's a core protocol issue. I think defending against casual double-spenders is certainly feasible. The real problem is with well-funded entities trying to harm Bitcoin with majority attacks.

There are some proposals for alternative systems (e.g. proof of stake), but they are fairly controversial. I think the solution to DoS attacks is a DAG system as was described once by Maged.

I did a little thinking and came with this quick&dirty trick, but it will probably be a stupid idea, so please dont bite me:

Wouldn't it be possible to completely disable resending/re-broadcasting valid transactions having X or more confirmations ?

I mean if a client knows that sufficient amount of other clients from enough different IP ranges has the transaction confirmed, then it will reject the same transaction broadcasted with different parameters.
768  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending on: December 12, 2012, 11:51:41 AM
Interesting... the conclusions presented in the paper seem valid.

I wonder if the devs are already working on this, because it seems serious.
769  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2012-12-07 the verge - Bitcoin exchange gains clearance to operate as real bank on: December 09, 2012, 03:23:29 AM
This is only true if you are an omnipotent master of the universe. It is because only someone who has mastered all the knowledge there is, can make statements like this with such absolute certanity. So you are a god, in a way.
It's been almost 300 years since epistemology was invented as a discipline, and yet people can still say things like this and expect to be taken seriously.

"mind-virus" is an understatement.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

This is simple logic. IF there is an extremely advanced being who has the power to affect time-space continuum in every imaginable and possible (or impossible) way, then there would be no way of detecting it, unless it wanted to be detected by design. Complete control, complete power.

Whether it wants or not to be detected is a topic for another discussion.
770  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2012-12-07 the verge - Bitcoin exchange gains clearance to operate as real bank on: December 09, 2012, 01:21:46 AM
Nothing good comes from believing things which aren't true.

This is only true if you are an omnipotent master of the universe. It is because only someone who has mastered all the knowledge there is, can make statements like this with such absolute certanity. So you are a god, in a way.



771  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2012-12-07 the verge - Bitcoin exchange gains clearance to operate as real bank on: December 09, 2012, 12:36:57 AM
A prayer for subStrata:  "Dear lord, please protect me from your followers."
Religon is such a mind-virus.

I don't think it is always this way.

It simply that people who want money, power and women, twist everything around them (including religion) to suit their needs.
772  Economy / Exchanges / Re: Bitcoin-Central, first exchange licensed to operate as a bank. This is HUGE on: December 07, 2012, 01:16:28 PM
Half-measures == Half-reached goals.

When you want to buy something in a grocery store that does not accept bitcoin and does not even know what it is, what do your "full measures" consist of, exactly??   Forcing the marchand to accept your bitcoins anyway?  With a gun or something?

This is silly.   Bitcoin is about monetary freedom so if you like the idea you must accept that a lot of people will NOT know about your currency and/or will NOT accept it.   Hence it makes sense to have bridges between different currencies.   A bitcoin-friendly bank would be a very efficient way of accomplishing this.

In a grocery store I pay with dollars coz noone accepts bitcoins. In 20 years the situation will be the same. Because some guys made a bridge between dollars and bitcoins. Because they hid a wallet with coins in a bank vault and gave ppl paper money. Because they made Bitcoin an instrument to store wealth.

773  Economy / Exchanges / Re: Bitcoin-Central, first exchange licensed to operate as a bank. This is HUGE on: December 06, 2012, 09:03:34 PM
I was fairly certain that no bank outside US would touch US citizens with a 10 foot pole, thanks to US's numerous financial regulations.

Here's the most well known example of that:
 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act

So in order to know which accounts are held by U.S citizens (so as to be compliant with FATCA), will Bitcoin-Central then need to require verification of identity of all accountholders who wish to continue using the exchange?
Once again, we are not subjected to US regulations.

Well, New zeland is also not subjected to US regulations, still US shut down perfectly legal service operating there.

But I wish you guys best luck anyway.
774  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: POLL - Importing Private Keys in Satoshi Client. on: December 06, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
I think import private key should not be exposed to average users. Sweep private key should be offered instead.
Users are apt to believe that once they import a private key they have ownership of the funds. But someone else who has the private key can still swipe them, a rude awakening. Offering sweep solves this.
+1
+1  Yes, please.
+1

How about an "Advanced" menu which needs to be unlocked with a big warning sign in which such features can be added?
This. Please.
This too
+1

You would like both options very much, yes.
775  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 03, 2012, 02:26:38 PM
@ Technomage - The situation is as serious as it can be. It is too bad you are so easily lulled and convinced to drop your guard.

I'm not dropping my guard. In fact I'm more vigilant than ever thanks to this incident. I'm backing off though, but just for the time being.

Oh come on.

This forum is almost 95% full of paranoid people (No offense - I do realize that I myself am quite paranoid). The devs cannot even lift a finger without somebody on the forum saying "one of the devs lifted a finger" ! OMG they betrayed us !!!!!!!11111oneoneone.

So if you want to find vigilant people, this is probably the best forum for that in the universe.
776  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 01, 2012, 10:17:24 PM
No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

Fighting fire with fire is pointless. The point beyond which hand of the system can't reach is farther away than most can imagine.

...yet there are people even now, massively selling drugs (and were selling arms, but armory is closed ATM) for Bitcoin over the internet. Silkroad is the proof that what you are saying is false.

We already have the technologies to protect us from governments. Bitcoin is one of such technologies. We only need to reach for it and use it.

Also, you should watch Jay Rockefeller saying that "Internet should never have existed":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

They are NOT in complete control anymore, otherwise he wouldn't be so desparate to say it. And this shows they ARE afraid of us and of the Internet. We CAN win this.

This assumes that the greatest threat to freedom actually comes from government. I would argue greatest threat to freedom in many cases actually come from big business in the private sector. 
There is a government official with an iPhone. Which of the two is the greater threat to freedom of speech the government official or the iPhone? I would make the case for the iPhone.

You are correct, however...I am also simultaneously correct.

That is because in fascist countries, or countries that are heading towards fascism such as USA, big corporations and governments are working very closely together.
777  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 01, 2012, 09:58:27 PM
No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

Fighting fire with fire is pointless. The point beyond which hand of the system can't reach is farther away than most can imagine.

...yet there are people even now, massively selling drugs (and were selling arms, but armory is closed ATM) for Bitcoin over the internet. Silkroad is the proof that what you are saying is false.

We already have the technologies to protect us from governments. Bitcoin is one of such technologies. We only need to reach for it and use it.

Also, you should watch Jay Rockefeller saying that "Internet should never have existed":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

They are NOT in complete control anymore, otherwise he wouldn't be so desparate to say it. And this shows they ARE afraid of us and of the Internet. We CAN win this.
778  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 01, 2012, 08:56:52 PM
How about you put some time into getting changes you've made to Bitcoin client become implemented in official client? Let us know why it failed.

Oh, it is a very simple answer. There are multiple reasons, all of them perfectly understandable:
1. My fork (you should call it patch actually) is too simple to be considered for pull-request and to be included in official client
2. I'm not a C/C++ programmer, the code i would produce would be shitty.
3. I don't have time to learn C/C++ properly to make a PROPER fork, so i stick with this patch of mine.
4. None of the official devs, or even alternative client devs care about the feature I want. Actually, even many "normal" people don't care, so that isn't a surprise.

Once Bitcoin is overtaken and become used as one world currency, it won't matter if each and every one of us came up with unique client or coin.

People will always have the freedom to choose if they want to use the official client, or one of the other clients. And there are already multiple clients plus several more clients on-the-way. So you will ALWAYS have choice.

And, If you don't like the set of choises you have, you can write/fork your own. If you know how to do it.

You seems to be unaware of where the world is heading to. Enjoy "freedom" while it lasts.

No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.
779  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 01, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
You're obviously unaware of serious disadvantages of Open Source model. Why not check some articles on how HTML 5.0 came into being?
You should be able to realise how easy is to manufacture consensus, which is about removing any chance for oppossition to fight back, ever.

OMG, what the hell you are talking about ?
I'm starting to think you're delirious or trolling.

Actually, i have perfect proof that what you said above is total crap. This topic. This very topic is the perfect example that proves that it is extremely difficult it is to manufacture consensus in the Open Source world !

Really? What you are obviously not aware of is that you, me and everyone else oppossing jgarzik lost the battle before it even started.

Incorrect again.

This is similiar situation to the topic of Bitcoin Foundation establishment. And guess what - somebody made a poll asking "do you support bitcoin foundation", and about 30-40% (if memory serves me right) responded that they do not trust the foundation (do some searching, the poll is still on the forum).

This is not a centralized project and nobody tells us what to think.
780  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? on: December 01, 2012, 08:21:44 PM
You don't understand what you are talking about.
I know, I know. You don't know that the Gopher protocol presented an alternative to the World Wide Web

Where did you guess that from ? Surely not from my post.

FIY, i used gopher and telnet intensively in high school. SSH barely even existed yet (as did internet banking or firewalls) and everybody used unencrypted protocols for freaking e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. We also played Text-MMO's (called "MUDs") before even the "MMO" name was invented. So yeah, I know how the internet looked before the WWW era.
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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 113 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!