|
881
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Speculation (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation
|
on: March 03, 2015, 11:33:52 PM
|
I can't stop thinking about Monero. I am going to keep on buying XMR no matter what.
i really love your username combined with that statement  btw obsession never helps... but i know how you feel Gonna have to make a new profile to 0nlyXMR  well... thats what i did ... onemorebtc -> onemorexmr |
|
|
|
|
883
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - 0.8.8.6
|
on: March 03, 2015, 09:28:50 PM
|
I sent an email to the Tails developers, on the news they are including Bitcoin in the distro, I ask them to give a look at Monero since its the best crypto for privacy, I have not thought before that it was really a problem but we do need an official repo for Monero someday:  the only way to add a software in Tails is to make sure there is an official debian package, well maintened, and it doesn't seems to be the case for monero...
cheers. Electrum isn't a Debian package and is just a simple Python package afaik. Does Monero have a very lightweight web wallet that can be generated with a deterministic seed only. Until such a time it won't fit within the minimal TAILS distro. The whole TAILS ISO is only 951.8 MB in size. And needs to be able to run completely from permanente media like DVD-R's. Correct me if im wrong, but I think you just described mymonero.com from the rest of his post i think he wants a mymonero package which can be installed in a tails distro. maybe he has a small home server and wants to run mymonero.com on hits own? the idea has merit...lets see  |
|
|
|
|
884
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 07:36:11 PM
|
later a miner must still cover his costs. if this is not the case he has two choices: quitting or raising fees (lets assume they are all honest and nice for simplicity reasons).
Reality shows us that a lot of miners will mine at a present loss and speculate on future value. We should not assume that miners are "nice", or "honest", it's a much safer bet to assume that they are greedy. by nice and honest i referred to that he wont DDOS other pools or such things. but you are right: we must assume they are greedy (its there right to be...they are a businness) if he is "allowed" to make bigger blocks he has a third choice: invest in bandwith and make bigger blocks.
If blocks are bigger he won't have a "choice", he'll *have* to create bigger blocks by including whatever comes his way that carries a fee. The miner won't be held back by block propagation time since it's to become O(1) with the introduction of IBLT. In other words, the marginal cost of including a transaction in a non-full block will be so low for the miner that includes it, that he will have no economic incentive to not include it. And by doing so he will push the storage cost to the network as a whole, it's a "privatized gain, socialized cost" situation if you will. more transactions in a block means that small changes in fee have a bigger impact on the miner.
By saying that, you make the implicit statement that someone, somewhere will be able to set a minimum fee, which is not the case, the whole isStandard() band aid is a joke in this regard. If people can send small transactions with tiny fees to miners, the miners will have an economic incentive to include them as long as the fee is > 0. 1BLT does change the fact that bigger blocks raises orphan risk for a miner - thank you: didnt think of that until now. thats right, but who said that if we raise blocksizes the system is more valuable?
it has the possibility to get more valuable.
The system doesn't need low value actors to increase its overall value, on the contrary, including those creates the risk that the system will crumble under its own weight. well thats a point where we disagree and i have the feeling we will never find an agreement about it. it starts with howto define value... IMHO there are many types of transaction without a big monetary but a huge value for society (or just personnel). i'd say the only way to make this fair is to not exclude anyone. If you're able to describe an alternative where some system has all the advantages of bitcoin without none of its drawbacks, then very well, go ahead, I'm listening.
This system will either be inferior, or suffer from the same issues.
And if such a magical system actually exists, then very well, it deserves to win anyway.
in the end people will use what they can use and brings them the biggest benefit. if there is bitcoin-clone without blocksize, mined by three farms (and nobody except them is running a node) many people will use it. i dont see it as superior or that it deserves to win. its just how people work. |
|
|
|
|
885
|
Economy / Marketplace / Re: Dark Markets are Dark no more
|
on: March 03, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
|
anyhow: i wish you luck; but i think the only place to get good blackhat stuff are conferences. maybe we'll meet us there someday Thanks I'll for sure need it.About what kind of conferences are we talking about? About hacking only which are probably private(I doubt that there are any open ones) or about programming/social engineering related conferences which are almost always open.Both of them are paid of course. alternating with: http://events.ccc.de/camp/2011/Fahrplan/index.en.htmlhttps://www.blackhat.com/us-14/ (only was there once... i dont really enjoy travelling in the usa any more) there are many more; i do only visit ccc conferences and camps regulary (learned lockpicking there ) i like the ccc ones because they dont have a specific focus. network security; writing kernel modules; ipv6; hacking xbox all in one location for you to pick what you want to see - and wonderful people! a few stories from there... - hacked (nay...lets call it overrun) the congress wlan with a friend to replace picture from spiegel.de (a news page) with others - sat next to a guy who need to ran away as the police comes... it turned out he changed the website of our police seniors to something funny - lockpicking contests are fun |
|
|
|
|
886
|
Economy / Marketplace / Re: Dark Markets are Dark no more
|
on: March 03, 2015, 03:36:51 PM
|
Again mods I do not encourage illegal stuff and this was only made for knowledge only.Please don't remove this.
its a shame we all live in a world where we even have to state such - though i understand why you wrote it (and i'd probably would write the same). anyhow: i wish you luck; but i think the only place to get good blackhat stuff are conferences. maybe we'll meet us there someday |
|
|
|
|
887
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 02:38:37 PM
|
thank you! i picked some quotes which i found interesting in the hope we could discuss them more in-depth. The fundamental pain point here, is that Gavin insists on everyone being able to get in, instead of allowing a sane transaction fee market to emerge, by letting the blocks actually fill-up.
<davout> if tx fees are to replace the block reward the blocks *have* to be full
i dont agree. atm we can ignore this problem as the block reward is too high (i think we agree on this?) later a miner must still cover his costs. if this is not the case he has two choices: quitting or raising fees (lets assume they are all honest and nice for simplicity reasons). if he is "allowed" to make bigger blocks he has a third choice: invest in bandwith and make bigger blocks. more transactions in a block means that small changes in fee have a bigger impact on the miner. <davout> it's up to you to demonstrate it's necessary, not the other way around, how does that not make sense?
the problem is, that the same argument goes the other way around, because satoshi did not demonstrate its necessarity when he did the change - so we could argue it is reverting a hotfix (but - thats just rhetorical) <davout> just because going from 1tx/10min to 7tx/s makes the system more valuable, doesn't mean you get to extrapolate linearly
thats right, but who said that if we raise blocksizes the system is more valuable? it has the possibility to get more valuable. <davout> you can not develop a healthy market for transaction fees without blocks being full and space being scarce
i dont think so. miners control the resource (blocksize) and the price (fee): they compete regardless of blocksize or transaction count. <davout> the fees are not important today, but that's not because of the subsidy being here, that's because of the blocks not being full
you really think miners would compete for fees if the 1mb limit is used? the subsidy is 25btc right now fees are about 0.5 btc/block ( http://charts.bconomy.com/) <davout> [...] convenience has never been the point of bitcoin... [...] the point of bitcoin is "i own my shit, get your hands off of it"
i absolutely agree. i'd even go so far to say bitcoin should only be used by tech-savy people (at least as long as things like trezor or heating-miners for personal use are not availble everywhere) <davout> if tx fees are 11$ per transaction and bitcoin transactions routinely move millions and millions of dollars in each block i say make an altcoin, call it poorcoin, starbuckscoin or whatever you want, but don't try to shoehorn it into bitcoin because somehow you got married to that particular idea
if that would be the case i would move my hole wealth to that altcoin, because i dont think bitcoin will survive if there is an obviously better alternative (btw what is your opinion about sidechains for micropayments? thats what i am unsure about...) btw i still want to know your superior Visa/Mastercard alternative based on Bitcoin. maybe lightning network - not sure 1MB is enough room for their settlements, or something like inputs.io (they actually tried to be such a thing)? |
|
|
|
|
888
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 01:25:03 PM
|
i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago
So why do you have a 24h old account? flower1024 -> onemorebtc -> onemorexmr if you really want to know my history... anyway: i really want to discuss blocksize limit and to understand YOU! i know you dont care... but please? |
|
|
|
|
889
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 12:07:30 PM
|
what is superior over the currents ones?
Noobs are to do their homework, not address their betters without being talked to. you are better than me? best joke i heard in a long time... but as i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago i dont really care what you think of me... BUT: i still want to understand your point about bitcoin... so please enlighten me which superior alternatives based on bitcoin are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
890
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Stupid unconfirmed micro transactions. can't move any funds.
|
on: March 03, 2015, 12:01:24 PM
|
you cannot spend unconfirmed transactions at all. if you want to send your funds without the unconfirmed transactions it think you have to use coin control in bitcoin-core to send only the confirmed coins
But if we receive bt in blockchain , we can send it further w/o waiting for a confirmation Correct, you can send unconfirmed transaction. However, the newly created transaction will not confirm until the inputs are confirmed(at least 1 confirmation). If the service requires at least 1 confirmation to credit, you still have to wait. if miners are smart they can detect that there is a following transaction. if it has a big fee they would likely put both transactions in the same block (yes it is possible to use an output from the same block) its been a little since i used blockchain.info. but i never had any problem with sending unconfirmed funds (and liked that feature very much) |
|
|
|
|
891
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A provisional simplified transaction system for Bitcoin
|
on: March 03, 2015, 11:01:30 AM
|
but still: why not just use SPV proofs as DnD said?
your idea is a less secure solution where we already have a better on (SPV-Clients)
Honestly? I'm not up on SPV, if you can point me to a good decent write up on it then I'll happily read it. If they can be used in the above way, so that the client merely needs to keep a copy of the private key only - for authorising the transaction, then great. It would make the whole online process of paying for things in bitcoin far far simpler. paragraph 8 or look in libs like bitcoinj which implements it... electrum and multibit are functional spv-clients. edit: paragraph 8 instead of page 8 SPV doesn't seem to contain the transaction information however, such as the vouts and txins for unspent transactions? Just the block headers to see if the transaction is in the POW... or am I missing something? look into bitcoinj which implements it. |
|
|
|
|
892
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 10:24:05 AM
|
It'll always be possible to build superior visas, and western unions on top of teleportable gold.
As for the opposite...
"superior visa" on bitcoin = instant.io / mybitcoin and so on... what is superior over the currents ones? |
|
|
|
|
893
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A provisional simplified transaction system for Bitcoin
|
on: March 03, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
|
but still: why not just use SPV proofs as DnD said?
your idea is a less secure solution where we already have a better on (SPV-Clients)
Honestly? I'm not up on SPV, if you can point me to a good decent write up on it then I'll happily read it. If they can be used in the above way, so that the client merely needs to keep a copy of the private key only - for authorising the transaction, then great. It would make the whole online process of paying for things in bitcoin far far simpler. paragraph 8 or look in libs like bitcoinj which implements it... electrum and multibit are functional spv-clients. edit: paragraph 8 instead of page 8 |
|
|
|
|
894
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 03, 2015, 12:45:37 AM
|
An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).
I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...
although i am pro bigger blocks, they have some valid points. (atleast the ones willing to discuss something) and dont forget for what they are fighting: a decentralized, trustable bitcoin. this is something we all want. we just dont (yet?) have a consensus how to archive this in the best possible way. what do you define as community? who is that? i have the same feeling here in the forum but i dont know what the people think that really counts (miners, pool owners) because in the end: its their decision. they are influenced and incentivized through money of course... thats why i'd like to know what they'll do...luckily they are forced to announce it through the blockchain if they want bigger blocks so everybody has enough time to update. |
|
|
|
|
895
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A provisional simplified transaction system for Bitcoin
|
on: March 02, 2015, 09:36:25 PM
|
What is there that needs to be verified? You as the client know how much you need to spend, also you can see the value of the transaction that is passed to you to sign.
The value of the outputs you are "spending". What happens if an UTXO server lies and says your output worth 10 BTC is worth 1 BTC. Oops you just lost 9 BTC is sign that without spending. You mean because the unspent parts would go to fees in the blockchain? Valid point. You could validate this by confirming the balance/transaction with any other nodes. You could also imagine the concept of trusted/untrusted nodes then, and a system whereby uxtos servers are incentivised to show the correct balances - because after all, losing 9BTC to the blockchain is just malicious, and doesn't benefit that particular UXTO node at all - with such verification it could be overcome. How can you "confirm" the value with other full nodes? The only way is to verify that an output is correct without a complete copy of the blockchain is to verify that the transaction exists in a block sufficiently deep in the longest chain. To accomplish that without a full copy of the blockchain you need: 1) the txn containing the unspent output 2) The merkle branch to the transaction to compute the merkle root hash and verify it is in a block 3) Copy of the block headers to verify that block is sufficiently deep and on the main chain. So yes if you have all that you can verify the output is accurate. If you have all that you are an SPV client and don't need a "UTXO server" as any full node on the network is a "UTXO server". > How can you "confirm" the value with other full nodes? Well, unless all of these other UXTO nodes are working to circumvent the same transaction outputs (ie they are all wrong, and all in the same way) - chances are that one of the nodes checked would show this as incorrect. Again, there is no incentive for a node to do wrong - as it would just quickly get banned for showing different values for the same txid as compared with other nodes. but still: why not just use SPV proofs as DnD said? your idea is a less secure solution where we already have a better on (SPV-Clients) |
|
|
|
|
896
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: DRK vs XMR warez
|
on: March 02, 2015, 09:22:05 PM
|
About monero i will not say anything, i have my personal opinion and dont want to be called an fanboy
i have no such issues one of the main reasons i have so much faith in xmr is the core-team. i simple cant trust somebody without a deep cryptographic background to invent an anonymous system coding experience is simply not enough if you do want to implement / invent new crypto stuff. |
|
|
|
|
897
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 02, 2015, 08:47:37 PM
|
ever heard about blockchain pruning?
it certainly IS possible.
I heard about it when I read the whitepaper around 5 years ago. Since my first reaction upon grasping the basic concepts of Bitcoin was 'this thing won't scale', the idea of pruning was a 'selling point', but not a huge one because... Of course since I don't believe in magic and voodoo, I knew that pruning could only go so far and that accounting had to be done. Giving this little hiccup a technical sounding name ('UTXO') was sufficient to get most of the ecosystem participants (or 'marks' if you will) to neglect any deeper analysis of this topic. This was fortunate because it made it possible to say that Bitcoin is nearly infinitely divisible while at the same time defining unspendable outputs (to small but way way over the current one satoshi theoretical limit) to resolve the problem. And, of course, the 'principle scientist' can spout off about the ability to make 1 BTC even more divisible with a little coding. All that said (and I'm a natural skeptic) I had enough confidence...or something...in Bitcoin to take a decent sized position, a majority of which I hold today. I anticipated subordinate chains as the most tenable scaling mechanism from a very early time in my involvement, and with 'sidechains' that looks to be within grasp. If they can be available and leveraged before those who wish to 'embrace, extend, and extinguish' Bitcoin then there is still hope for the solution.
real problem is bandwith anyway - you cant escape that
True that, but with some significant nuances. In my analysis at least. thank you for your well-thought and detailed response. pruning: i believe pruning is possible, because i can (on a theoretical level without diving deep into crypto or the protocol) imagine how bitcoin can work if a client which runs from day one only uses the UTXO and parses new blocks (and forgets them after that). i think this narrows the problem down to bootstrapping. as any client is able to verify the blockchain itself it is safe to download it from anywhere - as it WILL be checked - and could be thrown away afterwards. there are many details to consider and of course it does add complexity. but i dont see any real showstopper. sidechains: i cant really comment on them as i dont know enough. but i am very skeptic there, because of mining: - merged mining: needs an incentive, because pool will have a higher orphan rate - pos: hmm maybe for micropayments but i wouldnt use it for anything else |
|
|
|
|
898
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Do you think Buffett was right?
|
on: March 02, 2015, 05:18:02 PM
|
I expect more technologies like that to come out the next few years.
ripple requires trust as i need a gateway to get my usd into the system. for me its the same as walking to my bank, deposit to my bank account and use ebanking to transmit it. why should i use ripple? my bank even handles currency conversions for me. you may even compare it with paypal if you reduce ripple to the money transmitting aspect - you dont have the usd. you have just an IOU. |
|
|
|
|
899
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork
|
on: March 02, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
|
The Bitcoin wallets getting to big people. And downloading it go to slow, It took me 3 days to download. (I have 200MB up and Down INTERNET connection)
If you keep Bitcoin 1MB block limit, people will be forced to use other altcoins as well, so you basically have to download all blockchains anyway because not everyone is going to accept Bitcoin, so you save nothing from this point. Exactly, why don't people understand this? So making the blocks bigger will fix this? No. What I (and cambda, hopefully) am trying to say, is that you will need a whole lot of disk space, no matter what solution is chosen. There's no way to escape that. This is on acceptable, this will let bitcoin fail in the long run. I suggest some super-nodes or something els.. luckily there is already a solution called pruning. just not implemented atm. btw. the current blockchain is around 30gb. do you really think this is a problem? even 1tb disk space is no problem with current hardware. problem is bandwith... |
|
|
|
|
900
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Do you think Buffett was right?
|
on: March 02, 2015, 04:52:02 PM
|
bitcoin needs two things to really be a money transmitter:
- liquid market
- enough security for my current transfer (miners need an incentive to secure the network - and they are paid in btc)
- a price high enough that i am able to buy the amount of btc i want to transfer
If there is a technology that allows the transfer of fiat currencies through a distributed ledger network (that doesn't need a cryptocurrency to secure it) the need to use bitcoin as a "check" to transmit value vanishes, same for your 3 requirements. at first: as we talk specifically about bitcoin my points stand. if you talk about something like XUSD (NXT) or BitUSD (bitshares) i dont think you are right. try "buying" 100Million bitusd, transmit them and sell them back. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
