Are there some services for software protection using the blockchain ?
I think it can be an interesting alternative to the "serial code" and to the usage of an expensive cloud service.
It seem strange to me there is nothing to solve this problem.
I know ethereum but it seem to me not well suited to solve the problem for desktop application.
Anyone know a service or an altcoin for software protection?
At a very fundamental level "Software protection" or DRM attempts to do the impossible, short of an Orwellian's style telescreen model where only "authorized trusted persons" or "big brother" can install software. This is why every DRM method has been cracked. It ultimately comes down to finding "big brother"'s private key that has been hidden somewhere among an individual's personal property. Edit: DRM is a multi billion dollar industry based for the most part on fraud. |
|
|
|
I think Zcash introduces a new technology that can even be a subsitute for the bitcoin protocol
It requires a base coin in order to work. In this case the base coin is essentially a Bitcoin clone, so it is not a substitute for the Bitcoin protocol. |
|
|
|
...
Thanks. That means it's not solved at all (which is ashame of course, but good for Monero).
I do like they dont have a tail emission (I hate that in Monero, smells like Keynsianism, just secure the chain with fees).
The tail emission of Monero places the inflation rate of Monero below the historical inflation rate of gold which after all is the "gold standard" of hard money of Austrian school economists. If anyone has a solution to both secure the chain only with fees and at the same time allow for an adaptive blocksize limit there are many in the Bitcoin community that would love to see this solution. This is after all the real issue behind the blocksize debate in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-zooko-wilcox-ceo-of-the-zcash-company-ask-me-anything-t5413.htmlHello Zooko, I'm interested in reading your goals and motivations for taking on anonymity in general or anonymous digital cash specifically as your priority project? Haven't you seen the new laws coming (eventually in all Five Eyes countries I've heard from reliable sources) that will ban end-to-end encryption? To that end do you expect to support a viewkey or other way that users individually or a global backdoor, so that Zcash can be compliant with the lurch towards a 666 NWO which seems to be rapidly taking form now (and I assert will accelerate with the full global contagion sovereign debt collapse 2017 -2020)? I am all for the ideology, but I am also pragmatic. We as society may have to fight with social networking and the political-economic revolution of a DIY economy, e.g. self-publishing, 3D printing, etc.. I have been looking at the concept of a decentralized social network. Any comments? Sincerely, TPTB_need_war AnonyMint Shelby Moore III Bold my emphasis. The proposed legislation in the United Kingdom does not ban end to end encryption. What it does however is to require those companies that provide proprietary encryption products to retain a back door key and make this back door key available to law enforcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-communications-under-new-laws.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1446482200 There is a critical difference here in that FLOSS end to end encryption tools remain perfectly legal and secure while proprietary end to end encryption tools would have a back door. This is not unlike the FinCEN guidance in the United States https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html where proprietary development funding models for crypto currency (using the emission to fund development) will likely lead to a legal requirement for MSB registration while FLOSS development funding models can retain their decentralized virtual currency designation and avoid the MSB registration requirement. In Canada there was a proposed law that did not pass that required providers of email servers to retain records for law enforcement with an exception for those who ran their own mail server from their own homes.. A more relevant question to ask would have been: Given that you plan to use a portion of the emission over the next 4 years to fund your company, have you registered as an MSB with FinCEN or have you obtained guidance from FinCEN that MSB registration is not required in your case? The pattern here is starting to become apparent. Click I agree on some company's terms for the use of proprietary software and become a slave, click I do not agree and use FLOSS tools instead and remain free. |
|
|
|
OK, a little bit improved for those confused with cash and digital. Dollar bills are symbols of fiat currency. I was trying to keep it simple as much as possible, not overcomplicate.  Dollar bills and Credit / Debit cards are very different when to come to privacy / fungiblility vs being digital. With fiat one has a choice either privacy and fungiblility (cash) or digital payments (credit / debit) but not both. So I would put the dollar bills only in the privacy area and the credit / debit cards only in the digital area. Edit: ... and replace Private with Private and Fungible |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the logo on the stripper bikini is? It looks like the Dash logo but it is very blurry.
|
|
|
|
...
Good point about the potential negative health impacts of too much soda. However, it is worth noting that since dashndrink is "in a unique position to not be affiliated with a particular supplier" they could stock their backyard/garage vending machines with water or juice and drink that instead.
Fruit juice contrary to popular belief is not that healthy, and leads to weight gain, obesity etc. It is not the health benefit of eating the actual fruit. As for bottled water the issue here is social and environmental. Municipal water is in most cases just as healthy or even better (leached plastic) and be run through a filter if chlorine or fluoride is a concern. Bottled water is also a huge scam. Take a look at what these corporations pay for water http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/water_rental_rates/cabinet/F-R_fees_Table-Feb4_Final.pdf. The wholesale rate is measured in millions of cube meters of water per year while the retail rate is measured in milliliters. Talk about a truly obscene mark up with huge negative environmental consequences. Edit: Sports drinks are also very unhealthy. Way too much sugar for starters. |
|
|
|
|
Soft drinks regardless of whether they are sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners cause all sorts of health problems including but not limited to obesity, diabetics, heart problems, cancers etc.
I voted for Ring Confidential Transactions. The health impact of this is to stimulate the brain while learning how they work, with all sorts of beneficial health results.
|
|
|
|
When the Winklevoss decided to acquire 1% of Bitcoin in the early days, it sent the price skyrocketing, right?
I need to try to find the speculation threads of when that was happening. I'm sure early fans were freaking out and discussing technicals and all manner of irrelevant signals. Meanwhile what was actually happening was some whale had decided to acquire a huge stake and the market felt it.
Also, perhaps a meteoric rise is actually possible, since I am one of the biggest bulls out there and even I think a rise to .005 would be ridiculous by summer. It's when no one expects it that price goes to Alpha Centauri.
This is my perspective from the point of view of someone who was there at the time. The XBT/USD exchange rate from mid 2011 to the end of 2013 was influenced to a significant degree by the rise and collapse of two massive XBT naked short positions. These were pirateat40 who at its peak led the market to believe he was good on around 800,000 XBT and MTGox who also at its peak led the market to believe it was good for around 800,000 XBT. To put things into perspective the total number of XBT during the same period of time ranged from about 6.7 million to 12 million. These means we are talking of naked short positions in the neighborhood of over 10% of all XBT. The influence of massive naked short short positions on any market is very predictable. First there is falling and then stable prices as the short positions are built up. Then when the market starts to rise on its own accord the shorts are squeezed to the wall causing a meteoric rise in prices and after the dust settles the market ends up at significantly higher price levels. The Winklevoss were among many smart money investors both large and small who played the classic naked short squeeze: 1) Buy 2) Take Delivery 3) Wait 4) Profit. The situation with Monero is actually very different since there are no massive naked short positions waiting to be squeezed. The fundamentals are very strong but in a different way. |
|
|
|
|
SMS verification is the fairest. It is essentially one vote per mobile phone number. One vote per IP is the simplest but can be easily gamed in all sorts of ways including by using a dial up modem connection. Social media accounts is by far the worst. Why are you making providing all your personal information to the NSA a condition of voting on altcoins? Seriously.
I voted for SMS verification.
|
|
|
|
...
By then the XMR tail emission will have been reached so there will be some real world data. Good plan.
I would not be surprised the adverse impact of the lack of a tail emission in a Cryptonote coin will manifest itself in Bytecoin before Monero reaches its tail emission. The premine/ninjamine in Bytecoin will provide some very useful data here. Edit: The onset of the tail emission in Monero would also be delayed due to fluctuation in the Monero blocksize. This is due to the impact of the Cryptnote penalty function on the emission when the blocksize grows. |
|
|
|
Just done block chain synchronization from the beginning. It took 2 days because it got slower and slower. However, the interesting part is that the block chain database file is reduced to 8,100,100 KB from 10,600,000 KB
what kind of machine was this? sounds terrible slow. is the hd 5400 rpm or what could it make this slow? Even a slow HD like that should not make it that slow. I run old hardware (2009 era xeons, DDR2, 5400 rpm hard drives, etc). a full sync from scratch can take 2 days even on a 50 MB/s down / 5 MB/s up cnxn. Limit settings were at default. The hard drive is the bottleneck especially if it was small for its day, say 100 - 300 GB. I get like 2 - 4 hours on a system from 2008 with a 2 year old 2 TB 7200 rpm hard drive. |
|
|
|
There was nothing on-topic ("Improvement Technical Discussion") in your last post, thus no need for any further response. Please stay on topic.
Yeah I didn't want to delete things because I just figured this would run its course eventually so might as well. Are we done? So five pages ago I posted this So I was reading this http://www.scribd.com/doc/273443462/A-Transaction-Fee-Market-Exists-Without-a-Block-Size-Limit#scribdand my thoughts started to drift when I encountered the concept that orphanization is one of the impediments to picking what to mine and the whole block size fee market debate etc... Is there any work in this space regarding what could be called sister blocks, or fusion blocks? Basically, the way I understand it (and granted, my assumptions could be flawed) is that there exists a set of transactions in the mempool. We'll just use 5 here Trans1 Trans2 Trans3 Trans4 Trans5 If miner A decides to put 1,2,3 in his block (block A), and miner B decides to put 3,4,5 in his block (block B), they are both technically valid blocks (they both have the previous block's hash and contain valid transactions from the mempool). However, due to the nature of satoshi consensus, if block A makes it into the chain first, block B becomes orphan - even though it is entirely valid. It's even easier to understand the inefficiency of satoshi consensus if block A has 1,2,3 and block B has 4,5. In this case, there's really no reason both blocks aren't valid. I see now as I continue to think about this the problem lies in the transaction fees associated with each transaction, for if they exist in two blocks, which block finder gets the reward? But this isn't an intractable problem. Essentially what I'm thinking is that you can imagine these two blocks existing as blebs on the chain. . ._._._._._._._._._./ \, each dot is a block, and the comma indicates a sister block in current protocol, this would happen ._._._ ._._._._._._._._._./ \,_, And eventually one chain would grow longer (which is ultimately influenced by bandwidth) and the entire sister chain would be dropped, and if your node was on that chain you'd experience a reorg (right?). why couldn't something be implemented where the above fork turns into a bleb . ._._._._._._._._._./\. \,/ which is eventually resolved to a fusion block ._._._._._._._._._._!_._ where the ! indicates a fusion block. When encountering a potential orphan scenario (daemon receives two blocks in close proximity, or already has added a block but then receives a similar block for the same block height) instead of the daemon rejecting one as orphan, it scans the sister block as a candidate for fusion. There would be some parameters (X% of transactions overlap, only concurrent block height are candidates (this is effectively the time window)). As part of this, the system would somehow need to be able to send transaction fees to different blockfinders, but again this seems tractable (though I await to be schooled as to why its not possible). In addition, the block reward itself would need to be apportioned. Or is this what a reorg does? The way I understand reorgs, this is different than a reorg. Though upon creation of the fusion block a reorganization would have to occur. So at the cost of overall bandwidth we provide a countermeasure for the loss of economic incentive for large blocks. And one problem to address is that you would need a new block header for the fusion block, but this could really just be the hash of the two sister blocks. Both sisters are valid, therefore the hash of those valid blocks is valid. Ok back to work. Is the above possible or am I crazy? Edited to add: I will be enforcing the moderation again. Please talk technical improvements to monero. First here is a link to Peter R's paper without all the marketing clutter generated by Scribd http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/downloads/feemarket.pdf. My take is that the solution to this issue is to mitigate it by creating a proper fee market in Monero. This is something I am actually very interested in working on. In such a scenario the blocks in the memory pool would have an order of fees per KB and a rational miner would prioritize blocks in order of return while the sender would pay a fee depending on the priority desired for a transaction. The existing penalty function for oversize blocks in Monero provides a start but it and the fee structure will likely, have to be optimized in such a way that minimizes the cost to legitimate users while maximizing the cost of spam and attacks. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_Coin was recently gored by a GNU.
|
|
|
|
Surprised the rally tapered so fast, well looks like I gets me some more on the cheap.  Some brave fellow is borrowing my coins in order to sell them to you at a nice discount. Have I mentioned how much I love Polo's lending market?  Shorting XMR in this market can very easily get very ugly very fast. |
|
|
|
...
I am imagining that the type of people designing such a technology would do better than generate a masterkey on Windows et al. I'm actually imagining purpose-built, auditable software and maybe even hardware.
Auditable by whom? It comes down to Free Software vs Proprietary software. The same is true for the hardware. There is a reason why my question is being avoided here. By the attendees of said masterkey-generation ceremony. Actually by anyone who uses the currency. The role of the attendees is to verify that all the software has not changed between what was used and what is released to the public. Edit: The minute one tries to protect "intellectual property" at any level the trust is gone. |
|
|
|
...
I am imagining that the type of people designing such a technology would do better than generate a masterkey on Windows et al. I'm actually imagining purpose-built, auditable software and maybe even hardware.
Auditable by whom? It comes down to Free Software vs Proprietary software. The same is true for the hardware. There is a reason why my question is being avoided here. |
|
|
|
...
No closed source. The key would be produced publicly at a ceremony.
...
Using what operating system and firmware? Of course they will need to convince the public the master key is sound. Or use my idea above of having multiple mixers and timing them out. I believe there is a solution, yet I will agree the current organization of their plans seems legally and structurally flawed. That is why I say we can transition and beat them. But the technology is real anonymity. If you want real anonymity, you have to find a way to use their technology. Period. (and I have been studying this for a long time) This does not answer my question which is cut and dry and goes to the heart of the trust issue. If you apply that line of thinking, then every anonymity is insecure because operating systems and computers are never 100% secure. I already proposed how to spread the risk out and make it non-systemic. Note that Monero (Cryptonote one-time rings and every other kind of anonymity technology) also has systemic risk due to combinatorial analysis cascade as more and more users are unmasked with meta-data and overlapping mixes. Proprietary software solutions have by their very nature a centralized systemic risk that Free Libre Open Source software solutions do not. The type of risks you describe in Monero are trivial compared to the risk of the DRM in the operating system used to generate master key in a centralized proprietary solution such as the one you propose. Furthermore I still do not have an answer to what is a straight forward yes or no question. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
