 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
It's not a 51% attack, but you do need a sizable fraction of the hash rate in order to be successful. According to the algorithm the longest block chain wins. No need to publish it immediately.
1. Find a successful hash but do not publish it.
2. Start working on the next block. While your pool is working on the next block, everybody else is still wasting time working on the previous block.
3. Find the next hash and publish (or not and try for three ...). Even if your second hash comes after someone else finds another hash to the previous block, your block chain is a block longer than theirs. You win. If you're ahead two blocks (which would not be rare if you have 25+% of the hash rate) then you have even more time to game the system.
It's basically doubling down. You won't win all the time, or perhaps not even most of the time, but if you have 25%+ of the hash capacity you increase your odds greater than your share of the total hash capacity on average.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a "fail" it's an algorithm which, averaged over time, boosts your odds greater than your share of the hash rate. Of course, if other people are doing it too it could lead to a lot of block chain instability leading to a longer settling time.
-B
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a 51% attack, but you do need a sizable fraction of the hash rate in order to be successful. According to the algorithm the longest block chain wins.
1. Find a successful hash but do not publish it.
2. Start working on the next block. While your pool is working on the next block, everybody else is still wasting time working on the previous block.
3. Find the next hash and publish. Even if your second hash comes after someone else finds another hash to the previous block, your block chain is a block longer than theirs. You win.
It's basically doubling down.
|
|
|
|
For those that thought that the "guidance" from FinCEN was a prelude to enforcement, you win:
If you pay close attention, all psychotics send a tell before they act. From Mencius Moldbug's lastest blog post on Bitcoin Matonis does not include the most telling parts of the Bradley Jensen interview (my transcript). Around 17:30:
Jensen: "I have heard through the grapevine that FinCEN has prosecutions in the works for Bitcoin broadly speaking. My guess, based on the timing of the guidance, and what I had heard previously from the rumor mill about the prosecutions, is that FinCEN put out the guidance sort of ex post facto to justify the prosecutions that they're about to launch."
Interviewer: "So you expect this to happen within in the next couple of months..."
Jensen: "Again, I've heard different rumors, it's difficult to predict, but yeah. We knew that the prosecutions were in the works, and then later the guidance came out, it seems like a sort of CYA approach to how they're doing it." |
|
|
|
|
It would seem to me that one way of reducing block chain spam is to enforce a minimum transaction amount (not resolution), and/or a maximum transaction size (unless extra fees are paid). Since bitcoin has a built-in measure of it's own value in the form of average transaction fees people are willing to pay, this minimum amount could be dynamically adjusted similarly to the way the "difficulty" is adjusted. This measure of it's own value could also be used in calibrating what is and is not "bit dust" for any future consolidation.
-B
|
|
|
|
|
Can you believe this guy won a Nobel prize? Well, given that Obama won one, maybe it's not that surprising. Only the hard science Nobels, physics, chemistry, medicine, seem to have any credibility left.
|
|
|
|
I think it's a GREAT segway tool,
Did you mean segue? Segway is a scooter.  |
|
|
|
Is there an article to read, or are you making an announcement?
There have been a few over the last week. They are not too hard to find. It's hard to copy links on a smart phone. Just go to the site and click on the "donate" link. B |
|
|
|
|
I noticed in LRC's latest "please donate to us" blog post that they now accept bitcoins, and they have a donate link.
|
|
|
|
|
I think bitcoin could be useful in preventing war. Hard commodity money such as gold and silver can be seen by the enemy as booty to be looted. Bitcoin cannot be looted.
CW
|
|
|
|
|
The current Romney tax return hostage news has me wondering how well Bitcoin would withstand politically a "Lindbergh baby" style ransom event. No running across town to different telephone booths. No jumping out of the tail of airplanes over the Pacific Northwest, ... Heck there might even be factions evil enough to do it just to discredit Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this to the general discussion board, but it seems more appropriate here.
----------------
No, the purpose is not to let governemt transfer your funds to themselves, but to protect your assets if you lose your keys or die.
Algorithm is a follows.
1. Publish/broadcast an escheat enabling transaction, specifying your source bitcoin address, timeout period and receiver bitcoin address, to the block chain, signing with your private key, etc. Nothing actually happens at this point other than the transaction being logged in the block chain.
a. "timeout period" is measured from the last time the source bitcoin address was involved in a transaction, including an escheat enabling transaction.
2. After the timeout period, still nothing automatically happens, but now the owner of the receiver bitcoin address is enabled, after this point, to transfer the funds from the source address to the receiver address, at his leasure using his private key, etc.
In order to escheat your funds the escheat receiver looks for
a. relevant escheat enabling transaction
b. looks up the timeout period.
c. looks up the time elapsed since the last transaction
d. If c > b then the receiver publishes/broadcasts a "pull" transaction to grab the funds into the receiver bitcoin address.
It should be noted that an escheat is not automatic. The receiver needs to pull the funds. This is to prevent unintentional escheats after the fact and possibly losing your funds through escheat.
The intent of this is so you can set up an escheat receiver address and keep it separate, or leave ownership of it with an agent or recovery agency, etc. If you lose access to your funds, after a certain amount of time you can use your recovery address (or your agent can) to recover your funds. If you touch your funds regulary, any hired agent has no access to them unless and until the timeout period has elapsed.
-Cloudswrest
|
|
|
|
|
No, the purpose is not to let governemt transfer your funds to themselves, but to protect your assets if you lose your keys or die.
Algorithm is a follows.
1. Publish/broadcast an escheat enabling transaction, specifying your source bitcoin address, timeout period and receiver bitcoin address, to the block chain, signing with your private key, etc. Nothing actually happens at this point other than the transaction being logged in the block chain.
a. "timeout period" is measured from the last time the source bitcoin address was involved in a transaction, including an escheat enabling transaction.
2. After the timeout period, still nothing automatically happens, but now the owner of the receiver bitcoin address is enabled, after this point, to transfer the funds from the source address to the receiver address, at his leasure using his private key, etc.
In order to escheat your funds the escheat receiver looks for
a. relevant escheat enabling transaction
b. looks up the timeout period.
c. looks up the time elapsed since the last transaction
d. If c > b then the receiver publishes/broadcasts a "pull" transaction to grab the funds into the receiver bitcoin address.
It should be noted that an escheat is not automatic. The receiver needs to pull the funds. This is to prevent unintentional escheats after the fact and possibly losing your funds through escheat.
The intent of this is so you can set up an escheat receiver address and keep it separate, or leave ownership of it with an agent or recovery agency, etc. If you lose access to your funds, after a certain amount of time you can use your recovery address (or your agent can) to recover your funds. If you touch your funds regulary, any hired agent has no access to them unless and until the timeout period has elapsed.
-Cloudswrest
|
|
|
|
or will encrypting my wallet now, make their copy useless?
wat do?
new wallet.dat?
i only have 0.005 in the old one (from a faucet no less)
No, encrypting your wallet now won't protect it. You need to create a new wallet with new addresses and spend your coins to it. -B |
|
|
|
so this is for transactions as well? ok, thats alot more limiting.
so your client could just tell you to backup every 100 actions?
cosmetic interface, i know, but best instafix for the current system & lazy/forgetful (like me)
By default when you make a payment the change is sent to a new address in your wallet. -B |
|
|
|
also for backup purpose, say my old wallet has 3 addresses in it
then i make a new address, but lose that wallet - is that new address & content permanently lost or is it recoverable (linked) to my other addresses?
Your wallet is always front loaded/buffered with 100 spare addresses. If you make more than 100 transfers and/or new addresses between your back up and restore, the latest info will be lost/inaccessible. -B |
|
|
|
...or die without telling others' how to access your bitcoins...
It's you who first raised the issue of the user passing away Providing others with information on how to access your bitcoins defeats one of the benefits of bitcoin. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead." What's needed is a "dead man switch" that you ping periodically (i.e. issue a send), and if a timely ping is not forthcoming, specified action is taken. I remember reading about a proposed encrypted will service where you ping it periodically, and if a timely ping is not forthcoming, your will is published to specified parties. -B |
|
|
|
|
