Bitcoin Forum
January 30, 2023, 04:41:52 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 24.0.1 [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 »
361  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Transaction disappeared in the void... on: July 29, 2010, 02:20:44 PM
Brre: Your client will relentlessly broadcast that transaction into infinity until it's accepted.  It's VERY persistent.

A block just probably hasn't been solved in two hours.  The difficulty's up there, I know that.
362  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 29, 2010, 02:18:42 PM
An example is google as the default search engine in most browsers.How many people never change their default search engine even though something else might be better?Its because google was the first to do what they do best and people had a need for it.Once you fulfill  a need as a merchant customers are extremely loyal.

Poor example, because there IS nothing better. Wink
363  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Network-wide self-corecting mechanisms on: July 29, 2010, 12:38:13 PM
The 21 million is a hard cap that we'll eventually reach.  The number of bitcoins in circulation for 2010 is (roughly) 2620800 coins.

Each block generates 50 coins.
In 2 weeks, 2016 blocks (should) be generated.
In a year, there are 26 "2weeks".
50*2016*26 = 2620800

The idea of increasing the supply of money relative to time span, population, transactions, etc. has  been discussed at length.
364  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Transaction disappeared in the void... on: July 29, 2010, 12:33:43 PM
The transaction will be accepted into a solved block if the person who solves said block chooses to incorporate your transaction into his solution.  That means it needs to propagate across the network.  Is your "Connections" greater than 0?
365  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 29, 2010, 12:30:37 PM
The fact of the matter is, by throughput's reasoning, there will ALWAYS be a central authority, because he's twisting and bending the term "decentralized" to unreasonable extents.  Eventually, you reach the point of "Well, I'm trading with someone else, aren't they the central authority of my transaction?  Aren't I the central authority of my own funds?  Isn't the people who exchange bitcoins for USD a central authority?"

Sorry, no, you completely misunderstood my topic.
I'm trying to point out, that instead of just screening themself from hard security problems, that come from the fact of
them being a central authority, developer community would better analyse the threats and protect the project from them.
Right now, whitepaper says, that there is NO such authority, so you may conclude, that the project is totally free from such threats.
1. That is not true. It is obvious to everyone here, I hope.
2. I'd like to read in whitepaper, why those threats are low risk. For me that are threats to my money.
3. I'd like to see the list of known threats with their risk rating and their consequences OPEN and well discussed,
not just brave wording about invulnerabilities of the BitCoin compared to others.

PS: Having a paranoia does not release you from under surveillance, I hope you got the joke.

The whitepaper refers to no central authority in the system.  The algorithm and protocol set forth by the whitepaper DO have no central authority, as anyone can write a client for the bitcoin network.  The fact that there's only one community of developers right now is not a flaw in bitcoin which makes it "only partially decentralized", but a flaw in the breadth and scope of it's current community.

For example, let's suppose some common technology or product hadn't been invented yet, say, telephones.  If they were invented tomorrow, and someone started selling them, there would be only one company producing and selling them.  By your arguments put forward, you would classify this as a monopoly.  While in the strictest sense of the word it is, when taken in context it is not, because there's been no CHANCE for competition to be established.  Soon, more companies will start selling phones, and more people will start buying them.  Some providers might change the underlying technology of the phone to, for example, be encrypted, or transmit data wirelessly.  They're still phones, but the original company has no more "centralized control" over them than satoshi will have over bitcoin, should it take root.

If you want to see a list of known threats and their risks, read the forums.  There's plenty of discussion about 50% attacks, cracking the hashing problem, the factoring problem, DDOS attacks, etc.
366  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 28, 2010, 06:23:10 PM
The "They" in that sentence was those who wrote the tests.

The fact of the matter is, by throughput's reasoning, there will ALWAYS be a central authority, because he's twisting and bending the term "decentralized" to unreasonable extents.  Eventually, you reach the point of "Well, I'm trading with someone else, aren't they the central authority of my transaction?  Aren't I the central authority of my own funds?  Isn't the people who exchange bitcoins for USD a central authority?"
367  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 28, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
...
This is useful, but there is a need to add to this with two very important things:

  • Protocol Documentation - ...
  • Alternative Implementations - ...


I have to add to this list of the very important things a set of software tests, that will validate any implementation
and tell us, whether or not it comply with the protocol specification and with the rules currently active and whether it is "honest" or not, etc.
That set of tests together with a complete protocol specification should produce sooner or later
some alternative implementations.
A lot of alternative implementations, and they will be as good at interoperating with the others, as good
are the tests and the specification.

However, I still doubt, that such alternative implementations will be functional, interoperable and secure and still will be independent of
any central authority.  Tongue
Somebody still have to decide on specification and tests. It just cannot self-organize out of thin air.
Do you get my point? You have to have some Working Group/Consortium/Standards Committee/Development Center/Whatever you name it to be recognized as an authoritative source of decisions on specifications and validity tests for BitCoin implementations.
It is obvious, that it is required for future interoperability, but still nobody recognizes himself as such an authority.


So who develops the tests?  Wouldn't they become some central authority?
368  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Quantum computer? on: July 28, 2010, 03:40:14 PM
Classical computers work linearly, executing a specific set of instructions.  Quantum computing works by setting up a "situation", and then letting it evolve naturally in a quantum physical way, exploring multiple solutions at once.

Think of it like this:  A classical computer acts like a plinko machine.  You put a ball at the top in one of the possible positions, and it clunks down each step until it gets to the bottom.  A quantum computer puts a ball at the top in EVERY position, and lets it fall, until it finds the best one.

The trouble is setting up the situation in a very careful way, such that the interferences between different particles is used to your advantage in the calculation.
369  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Watchdog - run unstable builds unsupervised on: July 28, 2010, 01:41:27 PM
Here's me showing my age  Embarrassed

I created a batch file and put it in the same folder at BitCoin.exe

Just create a file, like bitcoin.bat

Edit the file and paste in
Code:
echo off
:10
echo Starting BitCoin Crazy Unstable But Oh So Fast!
start /wait bitcoin.exe
date /t
time /t
ping -n 1 -w 5000 1.1.1.1
goto 10

Save the file and use it to start BitCoin. If the program crashes, it will log to console when and restart the client. This only works in the Windows Client GUI, won't work for services.

I figured I would add this if it's helpful to anyone.

Very similar to the one I've been using, actually

Code:
echo off
cd "C:\Program Files (x86)\Bitcoin"
echo Bitcoin Instability Manager
:loop
start /wait Bitcoin.exe
ping -n 1 -w 5000 1.1.1.1 >NUL
date /t
date /t >> log.txt
time /t
time /t >> log.txt
echo Bitcoin crashed, restarting it.
echo Bitcoin crashed, restarting it. >> log.txt
echo. >> log.txt
goto loop

Then you have to run it as administrator (Win7 anyway) so that it can write to the log file.
I also had to follow this: http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/08/12/disable-program-has-stopped-working-error-dialog-in-windows-server-2008/ (ignore the first command) to get it to work, as when it would crash, that dialog would pop up and prevent the program from fully closing (thus not allowing the batch file to continue).
370  Economy / Marketplace / Re: FREE Microlotto / BingoLotto on: July 28, 2010, 01:19:53 PM
Woops, didn't check the forums for 2 days >_>

Also, if I were to run an actual microlotto, this would all be automated, so you'd know if you won or not right away ( which would make it a bit more addictive, me thinks Wink )
371  Economy / Marketplace / Re: Pick 3 Lotto - Jackpot (339 BTC) - Evening Drawing 7/27/2010 **Winning No 217 ** on: July 28, 2010, 01:17:37 PM
\o/ I made 2.9 bitcoins Cheesy
372  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 28, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
There is absolutely no threat from a breaking change, unless someone cracks the factoring problem and can solve the hashing problem instantaneously, in which case we have bigger issues to worry about.
1) Solving the hashing problem (finding a message with SHA256 hash lower than given threshold) has nothing to do with factoring. It's RSA encryption that breaks if the factoring problem is solved. Bitcoin does use RSA and will break if the factoring problem is solved, but in completely other way.

We definitely should have economical and mathematical FAQs, because mathematical or economical nonsense appears now and then on the forum and scares new users.

2)  So you message should read "unless someone can solve the hashing problem instantaneously, in which case we have bigger issues to worry about"

These "bigger issues" were already discussed somewhere at the forum, and nothing catastrophic would happen if the cryptographic functions Bitcoin depends on are broken. This again should be a FAQ.

My apologies, I meant "unless someone cracks the factoring problem OR can solve the hashing problem instantaneously".  I can see where my comment might have been misleading.
373  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Stealing Coins on: July 25, 2010, 06:09:40 PM
Once it's fixed or proven not to work, could you post the details here?  I'm very curious. =)
374  Economy / Economics / Re: Mises' Regression Theorem. on: July 25, 2010, 03:01:16 PM
Red: That's the whole point of the multiple addresses.  You can send from any of them, thus they can't be linked together.  Having everyone know about every transaction is required of the algorithm to keep everything secure.
375  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin x64 for Windows on: July 25, 2010, 02:59:03 PM
I absolutely hate Ubuntu, mostly because of the community surrounding it.  I much prefer gentoo, Debian, etc.
376  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: I can't get any coins on: July 25, 2010, 04:27:11 AM
I agree in that The largest benefit is obviously solving a block.  That adds X value to the system.  But simply running it (providing not only "potential solutions", making a hacker work harder to increase his possibility of getting the block, but also providing a stronger communication mesh for the distributed propagation of blocks/transactions/etc.) adds .001 * X to the system.  It's small, but it's SOMETHING.
377  Economy / Economics / Re: Mises' Regression Theorem. on: July 24, 2010, 05:23:38 PM
Of course they arose out of barter.  Bitcoins were traded for their novelty, and value as a decentralized system.  People thought "Oh hey, this is a cool idea, lets try it out."  "Oh hey, send me 5 bitcoins so I can check it out." etc.  Then, as it became more widespread, merchants began providing goods and services for it.

Granted, the evolution of Bitcoins is quite unique compared to other currencies, but I still say misers theorem holds here.

No, it's not. You guys switched from the crucial point - an existing pre-monetary value of the thing that becomes money, to the secondary one - the process (barter) by which this thing emerges as a universally accepted medium of exchange. It is like declaring that water is good for fire extinguishing because people tried different liquids for the task, and water proofed itself the best one. It doesn't follow, however, that water properties have nothing to do with the matter.

This is the weakest spot of Bitcoin. In "Human Action" Mises said that valuation of money (true money) always includes two components -  valuations of its monetary and non-monetary properties (F = M + N). What does this mean for gold, for example? It means that if, suppose, some nerd, having been hoarding a huge pile of gold, suddenly releases it on the market, he, theoretically, can destroy the M component. Suppose even people would think that gold is not a good means of exchange anymore. But he never can destroy the N component, because it resides in the properties of gold that have nothing to do with the exchange process. Gold is needed as a consumable material for jewelry, medicine, electronics etc. So immediately after the intervention stops, the N component, so to say, kick-starts the process of imputing the monetary value to gold. The question is: where is non-monetary component of Bitcoin? There is none. That's why Bitcoin is vulnerable to all kinds of "loss-of-confidence" attacks. I think that this is precisely what Nenolod is doing right now.

And if we find a far cheaper substitute for gold, which accomplishes all those aspects of N?  It's N value would disappear, leaving only a small amount of value for "purists" who only deal with gold, etc.

Bitcoins are a novelty.  People want them because "Hey, this is a cool concept".  They want them because of it's decentralized, non-fiat, non-fractional reserve nature.  That would be non-monetary value.
378  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: I can't get any coins on: July 24, 2010, 05:16:20 PM
He verified other's blocks and passed on transaction info, right?
Each client verifies the authenticity of hashed blocks itself, so he didn't do that for others. He did pass on transaction information and if his port was open he provide connectivity to a closed port client, but all of the above happens regardless of whether he's hashing.

Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.
No, that's not true. Each time he SUCCEEDS at verifying a block, "it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack."

No, even trying adds more CPU power to the system.  Even if someone never solves a block, they're still trying.  That means they have the potential to solve the block, and a potential attacker has to put more resources in order to make sure he solves it first.  Again, it's not much, but it's still a minor factor.
379  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it supposed to take this long to generate some "phat coin"? on: July 24, 2010, 05:11:56 PM
Did he put enough CPU into the system to disrupt the difficulty process, which has yet to adjust back downward? Yes.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here that should be obvious to me, but why would the difficulty adjust downward? Block generation has been averaging around 9 blocks per hour for a few days now, so won't the next adjustment be upward?

Oh, right, hadn't realized it was at 10/min.  Still, it's a whole lot slower than when I started generating, so yea, it's supposed to be this hard. =P
380  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: I can't get any coins on: July 24, 2010, 08:31:30 AM
Likewise, if he TRIES to verify blocks, it adds just that much CPU to the system, and puts us one small step further away from a 51% CPU attack.  It's small, but it's the aggregate difficulty that matters.
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 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!