Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 04:53:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 [295] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 800 »
5881  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin? on: June 25, 2013, 04:37:38 PM
do i have to say this in every fucking thread? without litecoin and other altcoins, bitcoin mining would cease to be profitable. alt coins are necessary evils because they spread the hashing power out accross multiple networks, allowing everyone to profit in some way shape or form. without litecoin and altcoins. you could multiply the difficlut by 5 and decrease your profit by 50 percent. those are just guestimates of course.

So we should make 1,000,000 altcoins and end poverty.  You don't really believe what you wrote do you?
5882  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Difficulty, Hashing Power, and redistribution of wealth? on: June 25, 2013, 04:33:58 PM
i doubt you disagree that the limited # of ASICs right now *increases the chance (edited to reflect what I said).  do you disagree with the asicminer comment?

argh.  less asics = higher chance.

No I don't agree.  It is important to distinguish an economic attack vs a non-economic one.

There is no profit in AISCminer performing an economic attack.  They are in a position to profit massively by just supporting the network.  The probability of a non-economic attack decreases with the size of the network (and thus the cost to perform it).
5883  Other / Meta / Re: forum policy on LTC, Ripple and other crypto currencies? question to mods on: June 25, 2013, 03:37:18 PM
We already have 'Alternate cryptocurrencies' - people seem to be making out it's a huge leap to add a sub-forum for Litecoin or any other currency that warrants it. It's really not.
It is actually, because it's an official endorsement unless there are 400 subforums added for any coin.

In a community this size, especially a religious one with people being fanboys of their favorite cryptocoin they were early adopters of, you will piss people off if you set a criteria. The better solution would be to not set it in the first place, and again, this is bitcointalk, not cryptocurrencytalk.
By that logic, having 'Alternate cryptocurrencies' is already an endorsement.

Would you like to see the subforum removed completely since, as you say, "this is bitcointalk, not cryptocurrencytalk"?



The altcoin fourm is a compromise much like "off topic" is.  Really neither is necessary however without them some people simply don't follow the rules and that makes the jobs of the mods difficult. 
5884  Other / Meta / Re: forum policy on LTC, Ripple and other crypto currencies? question to mods on: June 25, 2013, 03:36:05 PM
We already have 'Alternate cryptocurrencies' - people seem to be making out it's a huge leap to add a sub-forum for Litecoin or any other currency that warrants it. It's really not.
It is actually, because it's an official endorsement unless there are 400 subforums added for any coin.

In a community this size, especially a religious one with people being fanboys of their favorite cryptocoin they were early adopters of, you will piss people off if you set a criteria. The better solution would be to not set it in the first place, and again, this is bitcointalk, not cryptocurrencytalk.

So what if you piss people off? Not doing anything, or banning alt coin talk, is going to piss more people off.

Why would rational people be pissed that BITCOINtalk.org is about BITCOIN.  IF another currency becomes large enough to be a "real boy" per whatever arbitrary definitions you see fit wouldn't it be large enough to support an independent forum "xyzcointalk.org"?

5885  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Difficulty, Hashing Power, and redistribution of wealth? on: June 25, 2013, 09:12:14 AM
Technically there is a max difficulty but it is so high that it can be considered infinite for all intents and purposes.  At the highest difficulty (2^224), the target would be "1" and thus there would only be one valid hash in the range of possible hashes which would make the odds of solving a block 1 in 2^256.  Our star system wouldn't last long enough to even have a 50% chance of success assuming one could build a perfect super computer.

Simple version:
There is no realistic max difficulty, however it will be constrained by the economics of ASICS and the exchange rate much like the exchange rate and difficulty worked together to keep the daily earnings in USD per GH/s relatively stable over the past couple years.  However that equilibrium point is much, much, much higher due to the higher efficiency of ASICs so difficulty will keep rising until we get there.
5886  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Difficulty, Hashing Power, and redistribution of wealth? on: June 25, 2013, 09:07:35 AM
It just seems that with asics coming on line and hash rates increasing, that its overall a redistribution of bitcoin mining.  So the network is really no better off than we were mining with 5770s last year... and the last block to be mined will still be around the same time it was predicted to be mathematically.  We've just tipped the same tables in favor of the few who have large amounts of asic hash power.

The network is now safer because the entry cost is higher for someone who would want to perform a 51% attack (let's say Obama lol). It is / it is going to be impossible to do that with GPUs and a limited availability of ASICs further helps to diminish the chances of someone being able to purchase enough hardware for a 51% attack.

Or, is there a ceiling limitation to difficulty?  And once we hit that, we can mine the block chain faster than originally though possible?

No.

the 1st part is BS

the main benefit is that there will (presumably) be less cpu bot miners

it gets tiresome hearing this 51% attack over and over, but that whole statement is just wrong.   the specialized equipment = less people mining = more chance for one entity to gain a majority of hashing power.  the limited # of ASICs doesnt help diminish the chances at all, it increases it.  if asicminer wanted to, they probably could have done a 51% attack, simply by using all the junk they have been selling... but why would you do such a thing and undermine your own profit?

the only offsetting factor would be that setting up large GPU farms required some bit of computer knowledge and technical expertise (not to mention setting up the mining software, etc), thus limiting the # of people that could mine somewhat.    ASICs : bitcoins :: AOL : internet

You aren't seeing the big picture.  ASICs always existed.  If the "good miners" aren't using them it doesn't result in a gentlemans agreement where attackers won't use them either.  At one point it would have taken $20M to $40M worth of GPUs to attack the Bitcoin network ... one problem with that.  No serious attacker would have spent $20M on GPUs.  They would have spent $1M and produced enough ASICs to 99.9999999999% the network.  The threat always existed.   The "good guys" using ASICs removes that cheat card.  Sure an attacker can still use ASICs but the hashrate will be much higher and they are going to need to pay more.  If they pay enough they can win but it is going to be a brute force fight not one where they win with a token investment into superior technology.

You seem to think of only the "economic 51% attack" where an attacker looks to directly benefit from their hashing power by reversing transactions.  That has probably never been a threat even a $1M investment would be significantly larger than any potential revenue from such a scheme.  However the "non-economic 51% attack" where an attacker sees the cost as simply the price to destroy Bitcoin isn't subject to limits of "showing a profit".  IF (and it remains an if) over the next couple years the usage, exchange rate, and hashing power all grow the cost to attack the network will rise significantly.  In theory someday it may requires hundreds of millions of dollars or possibly even billions of dollars worth of single purpose hardware.  That limits the number of potential attackers to only the largest of nation states.  All (non POS) alt-coins on the other hand could be 51% attacked by the Central Bank of Somolia.

5887  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin? on: June 25, 2013, 08:57:22 AM
As BTC diff keeps going up some of the time between blocks is getting ridiculous. I've seen over three hours between blocks. It's ridiculous. I like transacting in litecoin. Confirmations happen quickly, and I've yet to have that stressful moment where you send someone money and 6 hours later there's still no confirmation.

Also, I'm able to mine scrypt coins much more profitably on my measly 4.5mh scrypt GPU farm.

Learn how difficulty works and why what you wrote was just silly.
5888  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: License for entering the business of money transmission on: June 25, 2013, 03:27:47 AM
sending money to another account, making a payment, etc is NOT money transmission.  You seem to think that anytime money moves it is money transmission.  By that logic every consumer and business is a money transmitter.

Money transmitters move money for SOMEONE ELSE.  If you are moving your OWN MONEY by definition you are not a money transmitter.

I don't need a coffee, what I need is for you to stop making up nonsense and passing it off as fact.  You are negligently incorrect in every statement you have made in this thread.  If you want to be ignorant then go ahead but when you try to spread that ignorance I am going to correct you.
5889  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca on: June 25, 2013, 03:11:39 AM
I disagree with how much it matters what it is called.  In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".

Your missing the point.  Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is.  They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply.  So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law.  Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy".  They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.

I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.

Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by.  The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence.  They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply.  If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.   Once they TELL you then you can decide if you want to play or work around that.

That's interesting cause if the regulators want to bring things to court, there should be at least a slight hint of ambiguity in the legal definition of currency, but there isn't, it looks almost as if the original legislators were so concerned that they can not be clear enough about what's currency, that they go to great length to elaborate, repetitively, exhaustively, that it must be something issued by a government.

Paraphrasing. FinCEN has said virtual currencies are not "real currencies" under the law.  Lucky for them (and not so lucky for everyone else) the law is very broad based and gives them the authority to regulate a lot of "non-currencies" too.

Quote
FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency

...

FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means."

...

The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies. Accepting and transmitting anything of value that substitutes for currency makes a person a money transmitter under the regulations implementing the BSA.

http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

Simple version like I said names don't matter.  FinCEN is saying virtual currencies, or virtual commodities, or virtual holy carrots are "other value that substitutes for currency".  If you disagree well FinCEN is laying out their legal case here so you can expect to eventually see them in court.

Personally I believe their analysis is a little weak but I am not going to risk my livelihood and freedom on their ability to convince a judge they are right.  The point is no matter what you call it FinCEN believes Bitcoin is a "substitute for currency".  Unless you convince a judge they are incorrect it meets they have the ability to regulate Bitcoin exchangers.
5890  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin? on: June 25, 2013, 02:34:24 AM
What I'm considering is it's usability as a currency. Obviously if you're making a large transaction, you want to wait a significant amount of time/confirmations. However, if, say, you want to go buy coffee with bitcoins and your local coffee shop, if I were the merchant I would need to wait at least till that transaction had been included in a block. Since the amount used will be pretty small, (like 1-5$) numerous confirmations would generally not be necessary. But if the blocks are at times 40+ minutes apart, who's going to wait that long just to get their coffee? Not me!

The same merchants isn't going to wait up to 10 minutes (and 5% chance of longer) either would they?  They would either accept 0-confirm or use off blockchain transactions.
5891  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca on: June 25, 2013, 02:15:16 AM
I disagree with how much it matters what it is called.  In the legal landscape what you call it is everything and in terms of regulatory requirements, the difference between a "commodity" and a "currency" can be a pretty large stack of paperwork and a pretty big list of "can's and cannot's".

Your missing the point.  Regulators don't ask YOU what your product is.  They will TELL YOU and then those list of choices above apply.  So if the Bitcoin Foundation called Bitcoins commodities, or virtual property, or holy carrots it would have absolutely no value under the law.  Regulators would say "Bitcoin is monetary value and subject to xzy".  They don't take what you chose to name it into consideration.

I mean do you also think that if you sold gambling products under a different name, say "true random number commodity contracts" it would magically be exempt from regulations/prohibitions on gambling.

Start calling Bitcoins "magical carrots" if you helps you sleep better at night, it won't exempt Bitcoin from anything the state says it is regulated by, and it wouldn't even if you did it from day one.  If Bitcoin was NOT designed to be a currency, say it was designed to "fight spam" however defacto people realized it made a good currency and started using it as such the same regs would apply.  The state is the one with the guns and monopoly on violence.  They TELL (not ASK) you what laws apply.  If you are lucky they don't do it in a carpicious or retroactive fashion.
5892  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: License for entering the business of money transmission on: June 25, 2013, 02:04:59 AM
None of that has anything to do with money transmitter or a license.  

Your are simply 100% wrong in your statement that large transfers require a money transmitter license.  You also are wrong in stating you know the reason for the C&D and you are wrong in claiming a MY license in needed in all 50 states. There is no way to fudge that.   This are false statements. 


Banks are required to file SARs and CTRs and may close accounts if they deem them high risk.  None of that has ANYTHING to do with Money Transmitter laws or licensing.  Banks routinely close non Money Transmitters for being high risk. 

Quote
especially if its over $1000 in one go.
99%+ of B2B commerce is >$1000.  Not sure what kind of childhood lemonade stands you have been running but hopefully $1000 is insufficient for weekly payroll much less inventory purchases.  Of course none of that has anything to do with Money Transmitter laws.  If you are a Money Transmitter you must be licensed to transmit even a single penny.  If you are not a Money Transmitter there is no special "I buy lots of stuff license" even when making seven figure deals.   One does not get a MT license simply because they make large purchases/payments.  One ONLY gets a Money Transmitter license if they are a Money Transmitter.  You are simply throwing stuff against the law and trying to see what sticks.

5893  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin? on: June 25, 2013, 02:01:55 AM
Why wait an hour then?  You are accepting less security just starting accepting Bitcoin with 2 confirmations.  Tada 66% faster.

I've recently (in the past few days) seen BTC often have over 40 minutes between blocks. LTC rarely approaches 10 minutes. If that's not an advantage, I don't know what is.

So using your numbers 2 blocks of Bitcoin = ~80 minutes max (95% of time) and 8 blocks of LTC is ~80 minutes (95% of time).  Why are you assumming security in Bitcoin for X blocks = X blocks for Litecoin given the second network is much smaller, and more vulnerable to low cost botnet attack.  You should be waiting significantly more blocks and if you aren't you are simply holding them to unequal standards "look I don't know why people buy expensive safes, that expensive safe only has 1 lock but my cardboard box has TWO locks and it is faster to unlock".

There is no free lunch.  BTC & LTC blocks are relatively small now however in time they will be much larger and when they are the propogation delay will be larger a higher % of hashpower/security will be lost due to orphans.  The orphan rate for LTC will grow significantly higher, significantly faster given the same transaction volume.
5894  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: eCommerce disposable keys on: June 25, 2013, 01:57:22 AM
There's a serious problem with using deterministic on an e-commerce site with the keys generated on the e-commerce site.

If a hacker gets access, they can off-line monitor every sale you ever do and that kind of info can be gold.
So people using that algorythm, I still would suggest doing it in a way that the addresses are generated elsewhere and uploaded to the server, and that the server not have the data necessary to generate them itself.

Just change the public master key periodically.

In your system you are planning to upload X public keys correct?  Then the attack has knowledge of the next X public keys if the server is compromised.  Use a deterministic public key seed and increment the master public key every x keys.
5895  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why is litecoin hyped so much when it doesn't add any value over bitcoin? on: June 25, 2013, 01:53:36 AM
My main reason for prefer litecoin (or a faster coin) over bitcoin is simply the confirmation time. When I have to wait over an hour after a transaction is initiated in order to use that amount, it's simply impractical and completely unnecessary. litecoin takes much less time. (though something like worldcoin would be more ideal).

Why wait an hour then?  You are accepting less security just starting accepting Bitcoin with 2 confirmations.  Tada 66% faster.
5896  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: License for entering the business of money transmission on: June 25, 2013, 12:56:29 AM
each state has different rules but heres an attempt to merge all the rules into simple guidelines:
1) any bank money movement over $1,000 per other party in a day is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $15,000 per other party in a year is classed as potential business transaction
1) any bank money movement over $100,000 from your account in a year is classed as potential business transaction
any one of these can flag up your bank account being investigated. so if it is personal use only ensure your bank knows before hand. if you are running a business. ensure you have a licence.

This is false.  Money transmission is money transmission regardless of the dollar amount.  One doesn't need any kind of license to pay $50,000 or $300,000 or $50,000,0000 worth of goods of services.   One needs license if engaged in money transmission of any amount, even $1.99.

Quote
Do all states require such a license, or only California?
all states.

False.


Quote
california only sent the letter due to the spending / transmission of money for the hiring of the convention hall

This is your dubious claim you keep passing off as fact.  Then again given the non stop material innacuracies it isn't really surprising.  You do realize your false information could result in another person suffering legal harm, if they foolishly assume you are knowledgable. You should stop as you clearly lack a willingesss to say "I don't know" when you lack the facts.

Quote
if your website is linked to selling products only to residents (delivery address) of delaware. and your own business bank account is delaware based. then you only need a delaware licence. but if you are sending and receiving money in different states then stock up on pain killers and expect some headaches and cramped wrists. form filling x50

False. Selling goods and services isn't money transmission.  Money transmission is money transmission.  Payments are payments.

Quote
this is all i will say on the matter

I doubt it but pretty much all of it was incorrect, your opinion passed of as fact, or glosses over material details.
5897  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-06-23 Forbes - Bitcoin Foundation Receives Cease And Desist Order From Ca on: June 25, 2013, 12:19:47 AM
Generalizations like "acts/used/properties like a currency" can apply to any commodity.  What does not apply to any commodity are the things that make a currency a Currency.  Per the Australian legal system, that'd be something tangible backing it.  Per most legal definitions I've come across, (synonym: banknote) that'd be a government's central bank.

It is up to each country.  In the US, FinCEN laid their rational on how the regs that give them oversight over monetary value cover Bitcoin.  Now you can disagree but simply not calling Bitcoin a currency doesn't really have any merit.

If the state believes your activity is regulated (regardless of if you call Bitcoin "virtual carrots") you can:
a) ignore them and hope you can avoid legal action
b) ignore them and intentionally try to cause legal action to force a precedent
c) bypass them (write off the united state and focus on non-US clients)
d) comply

My point it ultimately what matters is what the STATE (each state independently) defines Bitcoin as.  You can call them anything you want but FinCEN (and other states) is regulated based on what Bitcoin DOES not what you NAME it. 

TL/DR: If Bitcoin is used "as monetary value", FinCEN intends to regulate it, regardless of what you call it.  Their authority (or lack thereof) comes from what Bitcoin DOES not what it is CALLED.
5898  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: POLL: Allow dust transactions in Bitcoin? (5430 satoshis or less) on: June 25, 2013, 12:04:01 AM
Well then the 0.8.2 doesn't solve any problem. If you don't make the fees scale with the costs, things make no sense. Anybody may include garbage and take a fee or not for that and for all eternity people have to deal with this extra data. We should just assume to have full blocks and miners should include transactions based on the fee in relation to the costs for the network and not in relation to some assumed economic value of that particular transaction.

Well do.  MOST miners and nodes are NOT going to relay uneconomical garbage.  The reason is the UXTO is the critical resource it can't be pruned and to perform high speed validation it should be in memory (or as much in memory as possible).  The creation of outputs that likely will never be spent bloats the UXTO and that makes the entire network less efficient.  Miners pay a perpetual cost that can't be pruned away.  If they are rational they won't include spammy garbage.
5899  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: License for entering the business of money transmission on: June 25, 2013, 12:00:21 AM
here we go again. spit for spat both trying to correct each other based on the limited information available to both of us. but here goes the scenario i am reading

names are used are for examples for explanation. not fact.

<snipped>


Thank you for admitting this is just a scenario constructed in your mind.   The state has indicated nothing of the sort and payments to vendors are just that payments not a money transfer business.

I never claimed to know why CA launched the C&D.  There are lots of potential reasons (including ignorance by the regulator) however whatever the reason it is clear you are simply ASSUMING this has something to do with the conference.    That is quite a leap but to pass it off as fact is just downright shady.
5900  Economy / Speculation / Re: 512-qubit Quantum Computer on: June 24, 2013, 10:47:33 PM
the last part is relatively simple assurance.  Don't reuse an address. Smiley
Mm, no good.

See, when you spend from the address, your public key is exposed, but the spend isn't yet committed to the ledger. An attacker will have about a 5-minute window to crack your public key and double-spend your coins (and if they make the window, they're more likely to get into the ledger than you, because they can afford to lose most of the money in transaction fees - you're the one footing the bill, after all). What's worse, they have the ability to attempt a double-spend against every such transaction - against every unconfirmed transaction on the network.

Only way around it is if miners stopped taking transactions from the network, and instead switched to a model where you submit your spends to your favorite (trusted!) pools directly.

And just like that, Bitcoin loses its trust-free property - which was the whole point from the beginning.

Your assumption is that you can break a 256 bit key in 5 minutes, can do so economically even with relatively small sums.  If possible (and that certainly is not certain) a limited trust model could be used only transitionally.

Say one has a large sum of Bitcoins at addresses with an unknown (to the attacker) public keys.  The protocol could be expanded to include new address types which are resistant to QC.  However how does one transfer to the new address. 

Well it could be:
a) ultra paranoid - mine a transaction myself in secret or under contract.
b) send directly to a miner I trust
c) send as multiple transactions each emptying a single address under the assumption that it is not possible or economical to break a 256 bit key in the time to create the next block.*


* On c if one has 10,000 BTC at a single address it may warrant a real-time attack.  However if one has 10,000 BTC spread across 1,000 addresses one could transfer funds more securely one transaction at a time.  An attacker would reveal their intent AND capabilities irrevocably at a loss of only 0.1% of total value.

Nobody said lack of reuse was a magical bullet but combined with the limited attack opportunity, the cost of an attack, and the ability to design more secure addresses NOT reusing an address at least gives one the option to transfer the funds securely or control the risk of a transfer.

Pages: « 1 ... 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 [295] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!