|
It's not necessarily bad, but it could mislead the rest of the network into thinking, "oh well, we have enough nodes, I will not bother setting one myself". We want to ideally have 1 node per person (and many people running nodes), this strengthens the network. 1000000 nodes in the hands of a couple of corporations is less secure than 1000 nodes spread all over the world, by individual parties that don't know each other.
If a single person has a ton of nodes, that is a single point of failure, and you want to avoid single point of failures in decentralized networks.
|
|
|
|
Very interesting find!
In sci-fi currency backed by energy, or in the form of energy itself, is a pretty popular trope, so maybe the last quote was influenced by it. But I wouldn't say that Bitcoin is backed by energy or hash power, because PoW is "wasted" in the process, you can't get it back like you could have exchanged banknote for gold. So, Bitcoin and other coins are secured by PoW, but not backed. There are projects like Storj and Gridcoin that actually try to make coins backed by storage space and computing power, but so far they were not as successful as PoW coins, and there's a lot of criticism towards their security, which I think is valid.
The current state of your coinbases are increasingly backed by the "wasted" energy as more blocks get pilled above the previous one, so personally I think one could use the word "backed". Looks like the IP lead to an ISP in the netherlands. There's also the "uk-finance" thing on that forum, some theorized about how satoshi used that newspaper from the UK to make a connection with that... Unfortunately most likely the IP belongs to another person now since it's been 10+ years and ISP usually delete logs after X years, I doubt they store 10 years worth of logs assuming it wasn't a proxy anyway. |
|
|
|
It's worth posting the plain text interview bitpico did with for some website: On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:08 PM, Alyssa Hertig < alyssa@coindesk.com> wrote: Sure thing! Few questions for you: - Why are you attacking bitcoin cash? It is a stress test to validate the integrity of the Bitcoin Cash network on behalf of it’s investors. In the past Bitcoin has been attacked for good and for bad but it’s integrity remains intact which provides investor confidence. The #1 basic rule to all decentralized computer networks is that if it’s not attacked enough to resolve any problems then it will end badly. Skype is the perfect example of a decentralized computer network that was reverse engineered, attacked and subsequently 3 indivduals collapsed all 100,000 backup supernodes leading to a full centralization of the protocol to Microsofts datacenter. - What kind of attacks are you executing? Everything from low-level TCP/IP stack attacks to high level bitcoin cash protocol attacks. The combination guarantees several things: 1. The weakest nodes running on VPS’s will crash or run out of bandwidth and become non-responsive. 2. All other nodes will begin to stall out from multiple back-to-back pre-mined 32 Megabyte blocks. Our LevelDB stress testing shows that the Bitcoin Cash UTXO database on a complex 32 Megabyte block can require up to 200 Gigabytes of RAM to fully process and if this RAM is not available the UTXO database will become corrupt and if LevelDB doesn’t release the memory the OS will become unresponsive. Our LevelDB stress tests have been active for over 7 months since we migrated our Bitcoin implementation’s codebase's UTXO set to it’s own database; that said LevelDB wasn’t designed to handle such complex Big Data being read, written and deleted in-parallel. - Why do you think you'll be able to fork the blockchain? There are only a handful of mining pools and not enough nodes to enforce network rules; isolating majority of these nodes allows us to utilize our own nodes to withhold blocks and/or headers, reject blocks and/or headers, purposefully fail to relay block’s and/or headers and so on. Recently the Bitcoin Cash network has hard forked to accept 32 Megabyte blocks. With a combination of sybil attacks and our farm producing 32 Megabyte blocks (in-advance) we can inject enough blocks to induce latency and churn into the network so that miners will fall behind on consensus and begin to build their own chains since we will have isolated all of the miners nodes to our own nodes with different rules regarding blocks sizes they are willing to accept. At this point anyone can double-spend at any Bitcoin Cash Zero Confirmation merchant, even from a light client and with zero-effort; the funds will simply show back up once connected to another isolated node. We believe we have already perfected our approach and our studies are conclusive; LevelDB cannot sustain our complex blocks and Bitcoin Cash is 85% centralized to only a few data-centers and miners. If Bitcoin Cash were 15% centralized then our efforts would fail except for the LevelDB weaknesses; our confidence as always is high. When we attacked the Bitcoin LN we failed across the board except for the massive nodes that crashed however they were quickly fixed and running again. This was a win-win for Bitcoin LN; only time can tell how Bitcoin Cash will withstand the assault. Looks like they tried to bring the LN network down too and they couldn't, I cannot wait to see how Bitcoin Cash handles the pressure. Their nodes are certainly centralized by some Amazon VPS in China. Full 32 MB blocks are going to crash most of the nodes if they have the resources to sustain the attack. Doesn't look to good for BCH, if it gets exposed it will be the end of the "blocks as big as needed" scaling approach. BCH fans can't also claim that this is a blackhat attack. The fact that they are advertising it and giving a deadline is very whitehat. When Jihan, Roger and co spammed the Bitcoin network, they didn't say anything. The attack could be even more brutal if made by surprise at key times, but they are being nice. |
|
|
|
|
Well one would expect that institutions would be competent enough to find good OTC deals from other institutions or individuals in which they could get enough liquidity from without resorting to exchanges, but look at what happened with the MtGox situation: The person in charge of liquidating the coins in order to pay creditors went to freaking Kraken to dump the coins. Then recently they seem to have given up and will do the correct thing (to send creditors their actual BTC, not converting to fiat). But if they wanted to convert to fiat, they should have gone OTC, and they didn't, this shows how institutions can be really amateur.
|
|
|
|
The anonymous structure of the blockchain technology is a breeding ground for criminal activities life money laundering, drug trafficking?
No, pseudo anonymity of Bitcoin does not encourage criminal activities. The fact that we are dealing with something that has value, gives it more incentive to be used for crime. Do not forget that Cash is more anonymous than Bitcoin. Criminals do not have to be encouraged to use anything of value for crime, they just do. Bitcoin transactions are traceable on the Blockchain, under certain conditions, which makes using this for criminal activities a very stupid idea.  I think this is delusional. Anyone with a brain that's about to commit crime would use a mixer to hide their tracks. I tested a mixer out of curiosity once with some BTC, and it really makes it a mess to track the coins back. Unfortunately I can forget about cashing out these coins now to buy some property because I will not be able to justify its origins after the inputs became all a mixed mess, and I don't want to be labelled a criminal. It is what it is, despicable criminals will profit from Bitcoin, just like how good people that need to move or hide wealth from totalitarian governments and other attackers will profit from it. It's a double edged sword, but then again what weapon isn't. |
|
|
|
Never seen these ones before: I have this idea of a future with virtual peer to peer banking. A kind of
decentralized and secured system. Gone would be the times that governments
and banks can track and interfere with our money transfers. Or even
interfere with the total amount of money on earth. My envisioned sytem would
have a fixed total amount of money. But each money unit (say virtual coin)
is divisable indefinitely. So a kind of deflation would replace inflation.
The total value of the money in the world would be a fixed number. It poses
no problem for liquidity, because the currency can be divided anytime.
However maybe people will not spend their money much, because it's value
will increase often. Other problems raise in the areas of security,
malicious use, and how to come towards such system from current systems?
These are just ideas, I like to hear comments or about net resources on this
subject.
Someone replied: What you don't understant is how money gets its value. It gets its value by
having a stck of some metal, ore, etc. i.e. if you have a $1 bill, it
represents one dollar worth of gold, silver, of whatever. If what you are
saying is to come, than the world would be overcome with inflation, which is
a misrepresentation of how much of the metal, ore, etc. a country actually
has. Reply to that: um, no. this hasn't been true of us currency since, what, 1890 maybe?
originally us currency was backed by gold, now it is not. the only
reason us currency is worth anything is because people believe it is. And then someone called "Miner" says: Maybe the community can bypass the old powers (countries and governments).
It wouldn't be a revolution, but rather evolution. Slowly a new p2p system
might take over. The current monetary systems were mainly backed with gold
(not anymore now, to my knowledge). Maybe the underlying values of a virtual
peer to peer system could be other scarce resources, relatively easy to
exchange via internet. Examples are: computer processing power, bandwith and
data storage. These resources would make a limited peer to peer money
exchange system possible. Limited to the total real life value of all these
resources. However from that point other resources could back up the virtual
currency... Date of these messages: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:05:31 It's pretty interesting to find old posts of someone talking about the Bitcoin idea many years before it got released. If someone can find more post them there. Source of these messages: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.finance/-Ko72tv170I/HVEGdpavKmYJ |
|
|
|
|
Some people say the production cost of 1 BTC is around $5500-ish and miners will not let it fall below that price range. It's pretty hard to estimate the correct production cost since it depends on a lot of variables, but even if it's not exactly true, if enough people think that price is a key point in which there is bullish miners waiting to pump it back up, it may become a solid resistance. We will find out soon enough, I don't believe in quadruple bottoms but who knows, this is bitcoin after all.
|
|
|
|
The Tether issuances since the arse fell out of the market have had little to no effect on the direction of things. They've been few and far between but whatever theory people had about pumping has been pooed on.
It's possible all that Tether was rolled out to pump to fill the hole in BFX's accounts. Now they've made it all back with fees and just in time to roll out their 1-1 announcement. No more need to pump if that was the reason.
And has it not occurred to people that more tether is needed when more people want it to get out of Bitcoin or alts?
Good theory, but a proper audition would be able to find that they generated non 1:1 tethers at some point in time? Or they would be able to get away with it because the tether generation didn't leave any logs? Are they supposed to keep logs of tether printing in case authorities asks? what would authorities do if they ask for tether generation logs and said logs do not exists? These questions will some day be answered and if everything doesn't add up, we may have a tethering. |
|
|
|
I don't understand what the point of that intermediate step of converting your fiat into a fiat pegged crypto is for, other than avoiding price fluctuation during the process, but then again, price is frozen at time of buy so that is not an issue. The problem with p2p exchanges like localbitcoins and bisq is that you have to wait for someone to buy or sell at the price you're looking to buy or sell at, you can't day trade and take advantage of the fluctuations like you can on a centralized exchange. P2P is good for getting money in or money out of BTC but it's not a good trading platform.
It doesn't solve the main problem: using a bank. When you use a bank, it is trackable. If you are trying to use the intermediate step for anonymity it's also pointless. In the bank it will show you sent X amount of money at Y time and they can ask for that.
There is no anonymity outside of:
-physical cash to crypto
-crypto to crypto
-doing a job in exchange of physical cash
-doing a job in exchange of crypto
if you find someone weird enough, he may pay you in metals
bank transfer to crypto will never be anonymous or decentralized.
Anonymity is not the point (though try to track someone's localbitcoins purchase back to them). The main problem to solve is the centralization of exchanges who hold a shit-ton of bitcoins and fiat which can be over-regulated, hacked, held ransom, etc. (ie: btc-e, MtGox, poloniex, etc.). These centralized exchanges use centralized bank accounts which subjects them to the whims of those banks. Having thousands of bank accounts across the country owned by individuals selling small amounts of crypto is harder to stop than a single bank account. Even in Germany where they essentially outlawed exchanges (it is legal but in order to be compliant it's essentially impossible) it is still perfectly legal for an individual to sell their private asset to another individual (like selling your car online). Even if it becomes illegal it just goes underground like in places like Venezuela. It doesn't solve the fact that without physical cash, there is no way to do it. You can have the decentralized infraestructure at the exchange level, but then so what, the ins and outs of fiat are pegged to the legacy banking system (centralized) outside of physical cash. If it became illegal, you would still need physical cash, which is to be removed in the next decades when governments find it's the right time to do it. There is no way to solve this, because of the interaction with the legacy system which is out of programmer's controls. |
|
|
|
Jamie Dimon is the CEO of one of the world's largest banks and he clearly knows that Bitcoin's rising price is a big threat to banks. Jamie Dimon called Bitcoin a fraud and recommended people to stop investing in Bitcoin because he wanted to drop the price of Bitcoin and the same happened.Then he buyed large number of Bitcoins at a very low rate and made J.P. Morgan the biggest buyer of Bitcoin. It was a really smart move by him.
Perhaps he will not buy bitcoins. His interests lie in another. He wants to bitcoin died. People do not want to keep money in banks. It is profitable to buy bitcoins. Perhaps the banks are already beginning to feel the shortage of deposits. Without this they cannot exist. Bitcoin is the collapse of the existing banking system. That's why all the bankers against bitcoin. We really don't know what his intentions are but its clearly manipulation on his end. Whether his friends or company are benefiting remains to be seen. But one things for sure, banking institution really wants bitcoin to fail but attacking it with all sorts of negative sentiments. Funny thing is, bitcoin price continuously and exponentially growing so they should think of another strategy to attack their enemy. But bitcoin is so resilient that I thought that no one can really stop bitcoin, specially today the price is really going up by the day. I don't believe there is a conspiracy with Jamie Dimon, neither I believe he is scared of it and he is saying that to deter potential buyers. He really thinks it is a fraud and will go nowhere. He moves trillions worth of USD daily, so he looks at Bitcoin as an irrelevant joke for nerds. Don't get me wrong, he may be using his influence to crash the price and buy the dip, but I honestly think he doesn't care, he thinks the USD is unbeatable and he is high in the USD mountain, he sees no value outside of government backed money and never will. He thinks BTC can never take USD's spot as reserve currency, from his PoV, he just doesn't care, and if you were him, you would not bother as well and call it a fraud. |
|
|
|
I'll make a counter prediction.
By 2028 Bitcoin will be dead, buried and illegal superseded by government/central bank issued crypto.
When governments remove all physical cash from circulation, people will seek for alternatives in which they can continue saving funds out of the 1984 nightmare. That would only speed up research in how to make cryptos anonymous, fast and cheaper to use. Also the wealthy is not going to magically start paying taxes on closed source government tokens, these guy hate paying taxes even more than the small average guy which actually sees their pockets emptied at the end of the month (the rich would still be living like kings after paying big taxes, unlike us average joes), so they will move to Bitcoin. People holding some now will benefit from that as price goes higher. Big gov bans can damage the price a lot temporarily but not indefinitely. |
|
|
|
The recovery of SegWit donations doesn’t require a 50+% attack. That you continue to repeat that nonsense exemplifies either your dishonesty or incompetence or both.
When the Satoshi miners start spending the anyonecanspend SegWit donations to themselves in blocks that they win, the Core protocol will fork off and not accept those blocks.
There will be two chains. So the Satoshi chain doesn’t need 50+% of the Core chain’s hashrate. The Satoshi protocol chain only needs enough hashrate to get the snowball rolling and then miners will jumping for joy to go anonymously join in the bonanza.
If your proposed fork can't even get a majority hashrate, then everyone currently using Bitcoin will experience it as just the latest minority fork. That's no different to any other Bitcoin hardfork, with the attractive property that the miners following it will be exclusively composed of thieves. No-one will realistically trust those miners to not steal coins again in another hard fork. Hence your "Satoshi" fork will actually be ThiefCoin, that zero users or businesses will follow. Price crashes, not even worth trying to sell the ThiefCoin airdrop. You have a genius' 165 IQ, yet this is the best scare story you can summon up? Whatever test you took, ask for your money back IMO You can't never know if the hashrate supporting the SegWit-friendly fork is going to be honest in the future, you can't even know if they were part of the thieft. Attempting to cartel-up on legacy addresses doesn't take the same resources as moving SegWit addresses. If/After SegWit gets expossed, I fail to understand why anyone would ever trust a SegWit-supporting fork? Anonymint
If you know Satoshi's protocol, you would know that ANYONECANPAY has existed since the very early days, and was always intended as a feature to upgrade script types such that old nodes didn't experience the new scripts as a hard fork, no doubt ANYONECANSPEND was used for the introduction of multisig addresses too (yet you're leaving those out of your TheftCoin idea for no reason at all). So you can keep pretending that the developers have deliberately created a vulnerable new spend type all you like, you're not fooling anyone (except apparently cellard, and your alter ego friend from trilemma.com).
Wrong, I have always questioned if Bitcoin could survive a post-SegWit attack scenario and still do, miners would need to consider if it's worth it because if it ends up killing Bitcoin they would be left with massive amounts of useless gear they cannot use again to milk from transactions since trust in crypto as a whole would be lost. I don't believe this will happen 100% guaranteed but you can't claim it will not happen 100% guaranteed (and if you do, it's a mistake), therefore it's only sane to move your funds in 1addresses, I don't lose anything by doing so. |
|
|
|
Are you sure that all changes involving signatures lead to a change in the address format?
Im not sure if Schnorr neither BLS would require a new format address to benefit from the positives or not, I was asking about that This is not a credible attack. Or at least no more credible than any other unilateral hard fork is. If a majority of hashpower imposes new rules on Bitcoin to steal Segwit addresses, why stop there?
It may not be credible for you, but it is credible for other people, hence why it was controversial. It doesn't even need to be practical in it's execution, if the theory says it's possible, it will be controversial. Miners could gather in a cartel and anonymously steal funds without no consequences for their reputation. They could send these coins back to legacy addresses and wait for confirmations to secure them eventually, so they increase their Bitcoin stacks without actually killing Bitcoin, they are miners and have a tons of gear, it's in their incentive to not do so, so that's why they stop there. Of course some may argue if Bitcoin would survive a post-SegWit attack scenario, that is not clear to me, but it just takes enough people thinking "this may be the opportunity of a lifetime" to start going up again. Anyone that invests after such thing happening is probably going to be someone that knows what's going on because I predict massive amounts of FUD about Bitcoin being dead, broken, unsafe etc (which was never the case assuming the hashrate is still strong by then). |
|
|
|
I thought patent retrictions were the only issue with Schnorr sigs. What are these issues, and how are BLS sigs different that they are better?
ECDSA signatures are ok. They do their job and do it well, but nothing more. We can’t combine signatures or keys and every signature has to be verified independently. With multisig transactions it becomes especially annoying. We have to check all the signatures and the corresponding public keys one by one, waste a lot of space in a block and pay large fees.
Schnorr signatures are awesome — if we do it right we can combine all signatures and public keys in the transaction to a single key and a signature and nobody will find out that they correspond to multiple keys. Also block validation can be faster — we can validate all signatures at once. There are a few issues though:
Multisig scheme requires two communication rounds. This can be very annoying with cold storage.
With signature aggregation we have to rely on random number generator — we can’t choose random point R deterministically like we do in ECDSA
m-of-n multisig scheme is tricky — we need to make a merkle tree of public keys that can get pretty large for large m and n.
We can‘t combine all signatures in the block to a single signature. See full article here: https://medium.com/@snigirev.stepan/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716Apparently this could be deployed via soft-fork. Supposedly a soft fork can be done to allow Schnorr sigs. What's controversial about address formats? Or the Segwit address format? Never heard that said before.
Yes Schnorrs can be deployed via soft-fork. The immediate problem of a different address format is of course adoption of said address format: It is a mess at first, takes time for users and merchants to set it up. The controversy with SegWit is due the anyonecanspend/mining cartel vector attack. Read posts by user anunymint. Anything that adds new angles to attack Bitcoin is always going to be controversial. |
|
|
|
I have been working on a decentralized fiat exchange but would like to know if any other work is being put forth toward this.
I know of bisq but that is p2p which is not what I'm looking for.
Well if it's not p2p, how else would you claim to be able to have a decentralized fiat exchange? There's no other way to do it but to meet with individual parties wanting to exchange fiat in exchange of BTC in person, in exchange of cash. If there are banks involved, then it is no longer decentralized. As soon as physical cash is finally banned, I wonder what will be left for people that want to buy BTC without bank transfers involved. Something where you do a p2p exchange of fiat to a fiat pegged crypto (on something like bisq) and then trade the pegged crypto for BTC in the same way you do on an exchange (on something like Bancor). I don't understand what the point of that intermediate step of converting your fiat into a fiat pegged crypto is for, other than avoiding price fluctuation during the process, but then again, price is frozen at time of buy so that is not an issue. It doesn't solve the main problem: using a bank. When you use a bank, it is trackable. If you are trying to use the intermediate step for anonymity it's also pointless. In the bank it will show you sent X amount of money at Y time and they can ask for that. There is no anonymity outside of: -physical cash to crypto -crypto to crypto -doing a job in exchange of physical cash -doing a job in exchange of crypto if you find someone weird enough, he may pay you in metals bank transfer to crypto will never be anonymous or decentralized. |
|
|
|
I have been working on a decentralized fiat exchange but would like to know if any other work is being put forth toward this.
I know of bisq but that is p2p which is not what I'm looking for.
Well if it's not p2p, how else would you claim to be able to have a decentralized fiat exchange? There's no other way to do it but to meet with individual parties wanting to exchange fiat in exchange of BTC in person, in exchange of cash. If there are banks involved, then it is no longer decentralized. As soon as physical cash is finally banned, I wonder what will be left for people that want to buy BTC without bank transfers involved. |
|
|
|
|
Recently I've learned about BLS (Boneh-Lynn-Shacham) signatures and it sounds all great. Fixes the problems Schnorr brought to the table.
My questions are: Is this to be deployed with a hard-fork or soft-fork?
If it's a soft-fork, when can we expect it to happen? Since it would be a new address format if im not mistaken, would it be controversial like SegWit was? Also could we bypass Schnorr and just go BLS?
|
|
|
|
Kua Maria also claims ownership of many domains of BCH related websites, such as thesatoshinakamoto.com, bitcoincopyrights.com, bitcoincashcopyright.com, bchcopyright.com, and others.
On these websites, however, visitors are redirected to the URL of the Kua Maria website, rkm.world, which offers “free basic plans”.
How about your opinion of Ronald Keala Kua Maria.
Domain name squatters are as old as the internet itself. As far as domain names are "first come first serve", then there's really nothing you can do about that. The fact that he claims to be satoshi doesn't give him special access to register anything above anyone else. He is just a troll. I recently read how someone in uk registered the Bitcoin trademark and this would be a problem to sell merchandise with the bitcoin logo in there and so on. http://bitcoinist.com/uk-based-company-secures-bitcoin-trademark-serves-etsy-seller-with-cease-and-desist/This is pretty ridiculous but such is the trademark and copyrights world. |
|
|
|
Many people think that debit and credit cards are the future. The only problem with them is that we have only 2 payment processors which are centralised and can be easily overloaded. Bitcoin is way different than them since it is decentralised and provides even faster and independent transactions (lightning network). Give people some time to learn about Bitcoin and how to use it.
Bitcoin if legalized, will help cashless society. Even if Bitcoin is not legalized under a cashless scenario, it WILL thrive and it will be adopted by tons of people as a way to circumvent the Orwellian government control on money, since cash is the only way left to have some privacy in your life. It will happen out of necessity, and the price will go REALLY high that day, it doesn't matter what the government has to say about it. I can't wait for governments to ban all physical cash, that can only help Bitcoin. People is not going to magically give up to off-the-radar business because governments ban cash, they will look for alternatives and Bitcoin will be the most liquid one. |
|
|
|
He’s also not one to hold back on controversial opinions, recently sharing how he strongly believes ‘powerful forces’ are trying to derail the progress of the cryptocurrency revolution, declaring there is a “war” going on between cryptocurrencies and the people in power.
I would have to agree with him, banks are scared of cryptocurrencies. Its like when vhs movie rental stores existed, redbox, netflix, and smart tvs killed the movie rental business such as Blockbuster.
Well in a way Trump is like that too, he talks a lot of shit that would be uncalled for in a pre-Trump era. I mean, who would have thought we would have the president of the most powerful place on earth to go in a twitter beef against Kim Yung Un calling him "little rocket man"? We live in strange times, and I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like McAfee got enough support from the millennial generation because millennial are getting really interested in Bitcoin and they see McAfee as "The Trump of crypto". The price of Bitcoin would go to $1million easily with him as a president constantly saying on twitter how Bitcoin is awesome and so on. I wouldn't never fully trust the guy tho. He could get bribed into supporting a Bitcoin fork or something like that and that would be a problem. He has already shilled BCash and other scams. Overall he is a fun and polarizing figure and brings attention to crypto so im ok with that, kinda like Kim Dotcom. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
