gmaxwell was talking about colored coins in IRC recently. They are potentially interesting in the context of distributed bonds, which I am currently pursuing with pybond. Here is the problem I am trying to solve, does the crowd have an answer? 1. Alice transfers a 1-satoshi colored coin to Bob. 2. Bob transfers 100 BTC to Alice. May be restricted to 1 txout, if that eases implementation details. 3. Steps #1 and #2 happen as a logically atomic unit, all-or-none. 4. Alice and Bob must both approve this atomic transfer of coins, with appropriate signatures. Is this possible within the current bitcoin system? As far as I can see, the answer is "no" but maybe I'm missing something. My best guess to the answer is "possible, but requires a new SIGHASH_* type"? It seems like atomic coin swapping has great potential. Edit: thanks, crowd  See below. |
|
|
|
I am trying to understand BIP0034 and I'm confused (this is normal)
Is the "version" referenced in the specs the version of the tx Message type? Is this version different from the version in the Block Header?
Transactions and blocks both have version fields. In the specification, rule #1 refers to transaction versions ("transactions with a version [...]") and the other rules refer to block versions. Is the "scriptSig" referenced in the BIP the "signature script" field referenced in the TxIn data type?
Yes. I assume that adding the block number to the coinbase transaction sig doesn't inhibit using the transaction sig as an extra nounce?
Correct. extra-nonce and block-height are both components of the coinbase transaction's script. The script may have any type of data added via OP_PUSHDATA* |
|
|
|
Just posted an offer in that thread. Whether or not debt resale occurs, a recommendation: An order of restitution should be clearly defined, e.g. "by account number of original debtholder, in numerical order" (random/fair) or "by account, sorted in descending order by size of debt" (big first, encouraging sale of this debt) or "smallest debt first" (help the little guy) or "by account creation time" (reward early adopters) This is necessary and prudent if the debt repayment will occur over time, rather than all at once. Necessarily, reality dictates that some must wait longer than ones for repayment. EDIT Nevermind, I see you posted something on G+ about this (" if 5% of the funds are available for repayment then 5% of your original pre-theft balance will be unheld") |
|
|
|
Shtylman, Any thoughts on creating a secondary market where "on hold" BTC can be bought/sold? I'd be willing to purchase some "on hold" BTC from those who might be in a hurry to cash out if I could get them at an exchange rate that is slightly more favorable than the current rate for BTC that are not "on hold". If you could create a way for these BTC to be identified and traded, then you would allow those customers of yours who have fears or are in urgent need to cash out to transfer the BTC to those who are just hoarding and have no immediate need. This would significantly improve customer satisfaction. I'd even guess that buyers of "on hold" BTC would be willing to pay a transaction fee to the exchange in the form of "on hold" BTC (which would remove those BTC from the pool of BTC that the exchange would need to repay). (perhaps I should send this question in an email to ensure Shtylman sees it). That is an excellent suggestion. Various forms of debt are sold, with varying risks as to whether or not that debt will be repaid. It has value. |
|
|
|
Neither, it just simply can't scale and gets behind and eventually fails completely.
Do you have any more technical details? Does this apply with the 0.7 bitcoind upstream, with vastly revamped RPC? |
|
|
|
How do people stop DDOS attacks anyway? Is it like a separate box or proxy laid down in the chain of connected stuff that auto-ignores requests from any IP sending way too many requests at a much faster speed than the server could or something?
A lot of little strategies, rather than one big obvious fix. DDoS typically involves flooding of some type of traffic. A simple DDoS might be a flood of TCP/IP open-a-new-connection packets, designed to confuse and overload OS kernel networking software. Other DDoS's are simply a massive amount of valid traffic, i.e. sending HTTP requests to compute-intensive script on the web server, over and over again, hundreds of thousands of requests per second. Each DDoS is different. The traffic sources may come from different parts of the world, originate from different ISPs. They may originate from a criminal DDoS black market, where armies of "zombie" machines may be rented by the hour to perform DDoS attacks. One thing is certain, though: there is very little economic reason to pay DDoS ransoms, as that simply serves as a clear economic signal that you are a mark, and can possibly be taken for even more money. Paying ransoms encourages further DDoS. Criminal parasites don't need your business to be profitable and sustainable. Typically a business will take unspecified technical steps themselves, or hire a security firm or DDoS-proof hosting firm to do it for them. Sometimes it is possible wait out a DDoS, but that's not realistic for most web businesses/services. It could take weeks or months, as the cost of zombies is probably below the several-thousand-bitcoin payout that other thieves have seen in the bitcoin press headlines. |
|
|
|
I wish bitcoin companies would start making their announcements on their platforms, and stop using this forum as the primary means of communications with users.
Of course, many people do not have time to check a bazillion different websites for news on every bitcoin business, either. That's the reason the concept of a community bulletin board has existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years. |
|
|
|
|
A bitcoin is a crypto-signed message.
The blockchain is an archive of signed messages.
|
|
|
|
This suggests that a large fraction of 2009 coins are not being hoarded, but have been lost. What is it that leads you to that conclusion? the fact that the proportion of unspent coins is higher for 2009. Many were mined by satoshi, who probably isn't out spending them ;p |
|
|
|
|
Surprising that mining has not yet moved away from difficulty-1 mining.
|
|
|
|
It would be very simple for someone to make an alternate "testnet"
To repeat, for the cheap seats: testnet-in-a-box http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/testnet-in-a-box/testnet-in-a-box is a simple setup that provides a two-node network suitable for fully validated, off-network testing. testnet-in-a-box testing is fully private, and will not disrupt mainnet and or testnet. Further, note that testnet has special rules just in case a miner blasts the difficulty through the roof, then disappears: // If the new block's timestamp is more than 2* 10 minutes
// then allow mining of a min-difficulty block.
For BFL, testnet-in-a-box would provide validity testing without disrupting any public network. |
|
|
|
I have always been amazed by the resiliency of IRC.
IRC ops, you mean. IRC itself is easy to DoS. DDoS on networks is handled manually. Most ISPs refuse to host IRC servers. etc. |
|
|
|
Do not you dare test a difficulty changing amount of hashing power on mainnet.
THIS IS WHAT TEST NET IS FOR.
More like testnet-in-a-box. |
|
|
|
|
It's not a waste of time.
1) It raises the bar, deterring simple bots. Even a bot with access to a mechanical turk will likely have to pay for said access.
2) It reads books, doing a better job than OCR.
|
|
|
|
Was 0.7 the announcement?
No. I can't find anything "major" about it. Am I missing something or is the announcement still pending?
Still pending. |
|
|
|
hmmm, it sounds like there may be an OSX-specific problem.
What is the previous known working version?
Was that an official OSX build from Gavin, your own build, or a third party build?
Thanks.
0.6.3 also works fine here. 0.7 was the official build from bitcoin.org. That last question was asking who built the previous, working version? Who built 0.6.3? Gavin, you, or other? |
|
|
|
Wow, I personally expected more to come out of someone in college.
The forum and glbse is pretty informal, but if this is a college level project, where is a college level prospectus?
The prospectus is not due until the project must be presented in class on October 1st. This listing was not going to go live until September 30th. I am glad I did not put more time into this now as it seems all my efforts in securing funds up to this point have been a total waste. I am beyond irritated with the way this has gone. Shame on Nefario for his actions. You were asking for ~US$120,000. Most people put a lot more effort in for that kind of cash. |
|
|
|
Blocks 199462-199465 were all created within a minute of each other, sequentially. Is that a function of how busy the network is or is it a decrease in difficulty?
Random chance. Sometimes miners find a new block within seconds of the previous block. Sometimes miners find the next block an hour or two after the previous one. 10 minutes is only the average target. Miners choose which transactions to include in a block.
A valid choice is "no transactions" [besides the required coinbase transaction]. I now grok the no transactions flag. Thanks. Not sure what you mean by "flag" but ok |
|
|
|
KickStarter has shown upfront financing can be highly effective.
Sure, there are flame-outs. That does not detract from the successes.
Kickstarter's good for certain types of projects, although the fees are a bit steep. Pre-ordering's not really a good way to fund things which have significant development costs. Well... * This is bitcoin, meaning the fees would not be anywhere near as steep. * KickStarter is not the same as pre-ordering. Some rewards are equivalent to pre-orders, others are not. Those types of projects are better financed by debt or equity.
That sounds like a direct quote from a brick-and-mortar investment banker, trying to steer you away from KickStarter and other JOBS Act innovations. Dust off the inbred assumptions about funding... we are reinventing finance here |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
