|
We have people here who review the code for differences each time an update is released. I have begun doing this as of the last release.
There are two types of changes that such an impersonator could make:
1) Non-breaking change. A change can only be non-breaking if it cooperates with existing clients. It can only do this if it follows the mathematics of the system, because anything which changes the mathematics will be rejected by the other clients. 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.
2) Breaking change. This changes the protocol or mathematics of the way the client operates. Thus, other clients will refuse to work with newer clients. This raises huge red flags. This is the only kind of change which could potentially allow said power to compromise the system. If someone releases a breaking change, I'm sure as hell going to read the code in order to find out what changed. I'm sure there are many others who would do so as well. Through open communication, word would spread of this, and releases from said power would no longer be trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
Hepatzion: Still, even if 50% of the clients took on a new system, the old clients could maintain their own sub-economy if they so choose. A merchant can refuse to sell/buy from "version 9" clients, and only deal with people earlier. While this would cause the economy to be fractured, it'd still prevent a complete dictatorial takeover of the system. Those who didn't like the changes in the new code COULD, by choice, choose to not use it, and maintain the current economy. There's no central authority who will arrest/enforce you to switch to the new system.
|
|
|
|
The rules must become public, static and standard.
actually they are. the rules of "creating bitcoins" doesnt change, its fixed, static and public too, same goes for transactions and the way they'r saved, in blocks, that's what the whole generating-process is all about, also static, also public. what else do you need? i dont get your point. Why do people ask to change the rules? Like changing the thasaction fee value? Isn't it fixed in the static rules already? So why do we still discuss things like that? Only because Satoshi may change that at any moment, or after some delay when he decides to do that. Or he can't already? Correct me, please. Why do people discuss the deflation feature, isn't it already a part of the fixed rules? People propose to change the block generation period, after which the difficulty changes to accomodate to the overall CPU power. Like changing it to 100 blocks, instead of ~2014 (I don't remember exactly, sorry). Isn't it the part of the static rules yet? Someone still have the power to change it? Someone proposing to change the 50 BTC award for "winning a block  ", why don't anyone reacts with "Sorry, it is too late to change now" ? Is there some other rules, that still discussed and may be changed in the future? Am I wrong? Is Bitcoin really a final standard? Will it become a final standard? Until then, Satoshi is the central authoritative provider of the rules of the system. It is lie to say, that there is nothing like that in Bitcoin. I do never said anything about Satoshi is going to do evil things with his power. But he has the power. You cannot disprove that. The very fact that we discuss the rules disproves you. If satoshi was the "central athoritative provider", what point would there be discussing? We simply ask satoshi to implement it, because he's most familiar with the code and because he's willing to do so. We're the ones with the power to change the system, as WE'RE the ones who choose which client to run. Case in point, Olipro wrote his own code to change the system that many of us are now using, converting it to 64 bit calculations. Is he, also, in control of "all the power"? Stop with your doomsaying and incoherent nonsense, and put forth an actual argument that ISN'T filled with vague generalities and disconnected sentences. |
|
|
|
|
The only "centralized authority" is the mathematics behind it.
It's the mathematics that makes it secure, not the "single source". It just so happens that he's providing the source code, but anyone can write their own client which adheres to mathematics, and have it work on the network.
|
|
|
|
... This post sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid nut-job, and reads like many conversations I've had with people under the influence of drugs ("The man", "The authority" etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, it chooses some random connections to connect to from the IRC bootstrapper, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
If it got to that point, then everyone would stop generating blocks, as it would be unprofitable, and the system would collapse.
That's not how it works. If fewer people generate, then generating will be more profitable because the difficulty will relax. Not to mention the people who generate because they like to have anonymous easy money, or have substantial Bitcoin savings and want the system to keep working. Yea, I was oversimplifying and taking it to the extremes. Here's how it would REALLY work: Low value of bitcoins + Difficult target = Pressure to leave the generation business Low value of bitcoins + easy target = Pressure to enter the generation business So, this will equalize at some point. However, the lower the value of bitcoins, the lower the "equalization point". The lower the equalization point, the lower investment needed to override the system. (If it settles around 100 computers, you only need 100 cores to start duping legitimate people, potentially in the thousands, of your trades. Obviously numbers will vary, this was just an example). Thus, transactions fees are introduced to keep this number high enough to make the system reliable. I hope this helps clarify my point. =) |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Er, by "thought experiment", I meant "proof of concept". Satoshi seems to be pretty intelligent, and I don't think he was naive enough to think he would come up with the final specifications for the algorithm in the first go. In ANY project, there's always new things that crop up, and a well designed system is not one that accounts for every possibility, it's one that can adapt and change cleanly.
|
|
|
|
as it was designed to be completely distributed and not controlled by a central party.
A list of 10 to 20 hard coded in to the client gets it going to start with.
... wat? |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that's how public keys work. You can't arbitrarily choose a public key, it has to be generated in a very specific way, paired in a very specific way with a very carefully chosen private key.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiat of the code. It's the code that's king, not any central ruling body. Satoshi wrote the code, and published it (not just the compiled mysterious binaries, but the entire code base, which several people have successfully compiled), so you're more than welcome to read said code and understand the rules. Also, it's unreasonable to assume that satoshi has more than half the nodes, consider a) someone had 1000 cores running at some point, meaning satoshi would have had to have 1001 at least. Not to mention all the people here who have nodes, and all the lurkers.
This post sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid nut-job, and reads like many conversations I've had with people under the influence of drugs ("The man", "The authority" etc.). If you are seriously concerned, I appologize for making the comparison, but you're more than welcome to verify the behavior of the network yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
*shrug* Who says he isn't some rich snob willing to waste money? =P
|
|
|
|
|
Or he might have been using Amazon Cloud services (Or microsofts, or IBM's for that matter).
Or, his employer might give him a bunch of virtual machines to work/experiment with (thus, 1000 cores isn't that big of a claim, considering you can have a bunch of low-quality cores).
|
|
|
|
|
He claims he isn't using his employers resources, but *shrug*.
|
|
|
|
|
Thereby is the issue.
So, if all we're looking for is a single connection, why overcomplicate it? Why not just keep the IRC bootstrapping?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone know when the next block that difficulty will be reevaluated at will be?
|
|
|
|
|
is pool.ntp.org run from a central authority, or is it somehow a distributed network? I'm not sure how you'd maintain that list of "stable" IP's without some central authority that lists them.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep it coming, the jackpot's only growing. =)
The cool thing about this system is it can continue in perpetuity. Since 19% of the coins are kept in the jackpot to convince people to keep playing.
|
|
|
|
|
Kiba: Indeed. *Cracks whip*
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
