Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2019, 04:17:50 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  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 ... 77 »
401  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Battle of the Altcoins: LITECOIN vs SOLIDCOIN (bet on which will succeed) on: February 09, 2013, 09:23:52 AM
Luceo, looks like the results are in: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=523
402  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Announcement - ASIC mining processor by Butterfly Labs on: February 09, 2013, 01:14:22 AM

403  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin , logo tweak ? on: February 07, 2013, 02:53:34 AM
Looks good. I like the first design. Upload a 256x256 version and a 48x48 version.

Coblee, are you still working on Litecoin development?

Yes, I am. I do really like this design and will incorporate it into the next release.
Mjbmonetarymetals, will you release these designs into the public domain?
404  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Litecoin , logo tweak ? on: February 02, 2013, 03:21:12 PM
Looks good. I like the first design. Upload a 256x256 version and a 48x48 version.
405  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: 20 BTC bounty: Javascript implementation of BIP 38 on: January 30, 2013, 05:30:34 AM
I submitted a pull request at https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/pull/8 . (Edit: demo page at http://scintill.github.com/bitaddress.org-bip38.html )

I'm open to suggestions on improvements, or requests on other ways to package it up.  The core code is pretty short and simple, but it depends on EC crypto, biginteger, AES, SHA256, scrypt, and Base58 coding, so could need some adjustment if anyone would like to use it outside of the bitaddress.org page.  I may also release my scrypt code separately as it looks like there are no other browser-ready implementations.

Please send the bounty to 1GSo3Z3fgsvUH6yKr6s8kJHMFDWvLEuXjs, and thank you!

Congrats, I was nearly done but had some annoying bug left. I'll check performance in firefox and see if my code happens to do better though. (Unlikely though if your scrypt is also based on this one: https://github.com/cheongwy/node-scrypt-js)

Yes, my scrypt is based on that, replacing the node module dependencies with Crypto-JS functions.  I also used Web Workers to do 2 scrypt threads in parallel.

Cool. How about also adding an option to bitaddress.org's paper wallet to allow generation of the encrypted private key and bitcoin address. I would even go so far as to not show the unencrypted version at all.
406  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] BFLS.RIG - BFL Hardware mining & Sales on: December 19, 2012, 10:45:06 PM
Ok folks, there's a few hold outs and they are going to be out of luck, since we can't wait forever.  If you want to change your bitcoin address, send me the following:

Email address  Old Address New address

I am going to populate everyone in the database and start payouts either this weekend or next week.

You should probably just pay the people that didn't respond at the btc address that Nefario gave you.
407  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 on: December 04, 2012, 08:41:21 PM

I really didn't keep much records.  The only thing I used was the website for making payments and taking in deposits.

If you didn't keep records, how can you have been operating anything other than a scam from the outset?  You've pretty much just admitted that you spent any funds which were in your wallet however you felt like spending them at the time and that you basically treated user deposits as your personal piggy-bank.

I sent the btc to places I thought were going to bring a good return.  So no this wasn't a scam.  I got scammed and that is why I'm not able to return all the coins. 

How many coins do you owe? How many coins do you have with Pirate? You must know these 2 numbers.
408  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 on: December 04, 2012, 08:08:55 PM
Hashking's guaranteed and insured deposit = just like pirate's BTCST with the same risks and 1/4 of the rewards.

If you are interested in settling, I would ask you to come clean with your books.
How many coins did you take in and where did it all go? How much of it was a pass through to Pirate? How much of it is owed to you by other members? And who are those other people? How much of it went into purchase of mining hardware? What kind of mining hardware do you have?


I agree, to be able to steer towards a fair  settlement I think a significant amount of transparency is vital.

I really didn't keep much records.  The only thing I used was the website for making payments and taking in deposits.

You didn't keep records of how the money was used?!? You don't know who owes you what? How much did you have passed through to Pirate?
If I were you, I'd post information about everyone that owes you money and try harder to get money back from them.

You don't know how much of it was used to buy mining hardware? How many ghash do you have?

Or did you actually just put all of it with Pirate?

I think you need to be more open than just saying "I really didn't keep much records".
409  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 on: December 04, 2012, 03:07:49 AM
Hashking's guaranteed and insured deposit = just like pirate's BTCST with the same risks and 1/4 of the rewards.

If you are interested in settling, I would ask you to come clean with your books.
How many coins did you take in and where did it all go? How much of it was a pass through to Pirate? How much of it is owed to you by other members? And who are those other people? How much of it went into purchase of mining hardware? What kind of mining hardware do you have?
410  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 on: November 28, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
Perhaps everyone could take a debt reduction of something "middle-ground", such as 30% debt. That would certainly make it more manageable, and is better than getting nothing and hk going into bankruptcy.

If everyone was willing on accepting around 30% of what is owed at current market I would be able to pay back in roughly 2-3 years. 

Lol. Can you comment on how a 100% guaranteed and insured deposit is now a 30% insured and returned in 3 years?

I'm afraid people are going to come after your assets as those are what should be used to guarantee these deposits.
411  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Litecoin - a lite version of Bitcoin. Launched! on: October 14, 2012, 08:24:07 AM
Can someone compare LTC to PPCoin for me? I dont understand PP coin, it seems like the more you hold it the more it's worth, so if the devs premined I rather not use it.

Look at charts on proofofstake.com 

People here claimed the dev had premined 10m+ and other crazy stuff, so I made a chart from block history, it's all a farce.

As for 0.7.0, coblee is a good guy, and good dev imho, but hasnt posted here in over a month.  I think he's too busy with other stuff. Maybe one of the other devs could branch it?

Yeah, I've been busy. I will work on getting another Litecoin client released soon.
Oh yeah, happy birthday to Litecoin!
412  Economy / Long-term offers / Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 on: September 11, 2012, 08:56:45 PM
I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Hashking, I think you should reconsider this position. When you guarantee a deposit, you are basically guaranteeing it with your personal assets. Otherwise the guarantee makes no sense. And since you screwed up by putting deposited funds with Pirate, you should own up to the mistake and honor the guarantee by selling your personal assets to cover the loss. If you are already doing that to make good on your guarantee, please continue to do so. And thanks for trying to make things right.
413  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: LTCPPT - Litecoin Pirate Pass Through (CLOSED) on: September 03, 2012, 03:56:39 PM
Not yet  Sad
414  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] [PPC] PPCoin Released! - First Long-Term Energy-Efficient Crypto-Currency on: August 23, 2012, 06:46:52 AM
I'm kind of scared/nervous/happy...
I found 1450.56 PPC in my Balance, but there is no transaction to back it up.

How can I figure out where it came from? ( http://46.166.138.142/dev2.php < Raw list of all my transactions ).

If you are using 'listtransactions' they appear to get moved off as soon as they mature into a balance.
Do you know where they get listed into?
I have no idea why I can't figure this out.

listtransactions only returns the last 10 by default.
Try:

listtransactions '' 100
415  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 09:38:08 PM
We could have the reward decay the longer it takes users to sign blocks. But that only alleviates the issue.

But why would you make your blockchain theoretically weaker? I really see no reason for it, it doesn't really prevent any kind of attack...

Point taken. Do you see a way to fix up this proposal so that it's not theoretically weaker?
416  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 04:43:36 PM
killerstorm, I don't think your attack scenario is feasible. If he can pull of the double spends, the value of the currency will drop significantly. The attacker has to entice more than 50% of all stakeholders (in terms of coins held) to agree to sign his blocks in addition to the main chain. Why would the largest shareholders be interested in helping with a double spend attack. Also remember that the largest stakeholders will be the exchanges and if they are acting rationally, they would sign all the blocks on the main chain and would not sign any of the attacker's chain. I think your attack is theoretically possible but not practical.
417  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
He thinks that large stake is necessary to help yourself to do a double-spend. But this misses the fact that attacker can simply bribe people to make signatures for his double-spending fork.

A double spend kind of needs to be done in secret. If it's out in the open, then the entity (like an exchange) that you are trying to double spend against will see that you are trying to perform a double spend attack and they won't let you withdraw. And since stakeholders are chosen at random, you would not be able to tell who to bribe unless you announce your fork and your bribe to everyone.
418  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 08:29:10 AM
I like the idea of probabilistic PoS. I think the motivating problem is exaggerated but this could have other advantages too.

Another way (not sure if easier are harder to calculate) is to have the mod of the previous block hash deterministically pinpoint a single satoshi from a coinbase transaction. Then follow that satoshi as it travels from transaction to transaction until it reaches an unspent output. Then that output address will be selected as the next stakeholder. You can do this deterministically. Since the initial satoshi picked from a coinbase output is evenly distributed, the eventual selection will be evenly distributed also. I can explain more if people are interested in how this will work.
I don't think satoshis are tracked the way you think they do. If there's a 50 BTC coinbase which is split to two addresses you can't say "this satoshi went to output A and this satoshi went to output B". Not a major problem though, if you agree on a randomness seed (deterministically from the blockchain) you can simply trace the chain forward, in each step choosing a random output weighted by number of coins.
Satoshis are not tracked that way, but you could track it that way. You just need a deterministic way to do it. So just map every satoshi in the input to a satoshi in the output using an ordered 1 to 1 mapping. So for example, if you are looking at a transaction with an input of 50 BTC and 2 outputs of 25 BTC each and you are tracking the a satoshi that is located at 26.11111111 of 50 BTC, then you would follow the 1.11111111 satoshi in the 2nd output. Does that make sense?
Yes, you could do that. You need to be very careful though not only with the order of inputs and outputs, but also with the order of transactions in a block since the satoshi can end up as a tx fee.

Essentially this is equivalent to how I suggested to look at it.

There is a standard ordering of transactions in blocks, right? If not, having it alphabetized by address is fine. As long as all the nodes use the same deterministic way, we are good. Satoshi ending up as a fee is fully supported. Since those will just be sent to the miner's block reward and it can continue follow the path.

The only catch is it's possible for a miner to destroy coins by not redeeming the full 50 btc in the coinbase. When that happens to our tracked satoshi, maybe we decide that there's no stakeholder for the next block.
419  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 08:10:44 AM
I like the idea of probabilistic PoS. I think the motivating problem is exaggerated but this could have other advantages too.

Another way (not sure if easier are harder to calculate) is to have the mod of the previous block hash deterministically pinpoint a single satoshi from a coinbase transaction. Then follow that satoshi as it travels from transaction to transaction until it reaches an unspent output. Then that output address will be selected as the next stakeholder. You can do this deterministically. Since the initial satoshi picked from a coinbase output is evenly distributed, the eventual selection will be evenly distributed also. I can explain more if people are interested in how this will work.
I don't think satoshis are tracked the way you think they do. If there's a 50 BTC coinbase which is split to two addresses you can't say "this satoshi went to output A and this satoshi went to output B". Not a major problem though, if you agree on a randomness seed (deterministically from the blockchain) you can simply trace the chain forward, in each step choosing a random output weighted by number of coins.

Satoshis are not tracked that way, but you could track it that way. You just need a deterministic way to do it. So just map every satoshi in the input to a satoshi in the output using an ordered 1 to 1 mapping. So for example, if you are looking at a transaction with an input of 50 BTC and 2 outputs of 25 BTC each and you are tracking the a satoshi that is located at 26.11111111 of 50 BTC, then you would follow the 1.11111111 satoshi in the 2nd output. Does that make sense?
420  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Proof of Activity Proposal on: August 22, 2012, 07:24:36 AM
Lets say there exists a pair of short competing forks.  There is an earlier fork, the one you heard first and a competing later one. Network convergence demands you sign the earlier one, but you're not the chosen miner for the blocks there. You are, however, a chosen node in the weaker fork.  You (like almost all users) have no transactions that would be reversed by mining in one over the other.... so you confirm the weaker one because _doing so cost you nothing, and in the event that it does win, you get more coin that way, so doing so is the rational action_. Your choice isn't "Fork A" or "Fork B", it's "sign" or "do nothing"  _independently_ on each fork you're permitted to sign, and signing costs you nothing and has a non-zero expected return.   With PoW you're burning a finite resource on your preferred choice, and you can't simultaneously mine multiple forks without diluting your resources.

There's nothing inherently wrong for someone to sign a weaker fork because he was selected as a stakeholder in that fork. If his signature helps that fork become the best chain, then that is the best chain. The point is we are trying to make it harder for a fork held in secret to outpace the main chain. For your scenario where 2 blocks were found at the same time and one of them has you as the stakeholder, then by all means, sign that block. Since you'd want that fork to win. And let fate decide which fork wins. In the end you still need PoW to build on the chain.

While this instability wouldn't extend beyond your signing horizon, you'd likely lose stability within it, and it also potentially presents interesting attacks against newly bootstrapping nodes.  (e.g. a late created fork with lying timestamps with 1/3rd the POW difficulty but every single block signed because they're all held by an attacker)

It would take a lot of hashpower and stake for an attacker to create 3 blocks that all select the attacker as the stakeholder. I don't think that's going to be a problem.
EDIT: I just reread what you wrote. It is possible for an attacker to spend the time and energy to generate tons of blocks to try to build 3 consecutive blocks with him as stakeholder and use those blocks to trick newly bootstrapping nodes. Not sure how big of an problem this is though.
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 ... 77 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!