Bitcoin Forum
September 01, 2015, 10:07:30 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 368 »
141  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws) on: February 20, 2014, 02:47:52 AM

Appears the number of Bitcoin users is still below 1 million.


Funny how no one metions that you referenced your own opinions about the numbers of users.  Coinbase alone has almost 1 million accounts, not addresses.  Truthfully, we can't know how many users there are, which is kinda the point.
142  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Mass Obamacare Exchange Chief Breaks Down In Tears Describing Train Wreck ... on: February 19, 2014, 11:22:18 PM

Are you even going to try to substantiate that claim? Stop being so fundamentalist - both socialism and (classic) capitalism are political philosophies designed to increase people's quality of life.

This is provablely not true.  Karl Marx is credited with inventing the term "capitalism" and providing the basic definition, "Private ownership of the means of production".  While this traditional form of property rights trends towards a particular line of political thought, even Marx didn't mark capitalism as a political philosophy.  That was one of the core problems with it that he stated, as it wasn't really a political plan, and instead simply a default state of a society.  He viewed this default state to be less than optimal, and that applying some social enginnering to the economic system would result in reduced poverty.  However, Karl Marx was far from an economic theorist, and completely missed the most important issues.  First off, defining capitalism and socialism as he did doesn't alter the nature of the society; for there were publicly owned corporations within England during the Industrial Revolution (the society that he based his observations upon) and we've seen that private possession (the more important distinction) of the means of production (capital) cannot be designed out of any society, even an ideal socialist one.  A corporation is, by design, a socialist business hierarchy, since the means of production is owned collectively by the shareholders, yet the shareholders do not have possession of the means of production, the employees of the corporation do.  While the shareholders can also be employees, even being a member of both 'classes' of people does not entitle an individual to make any business decision alone about any particular piece of corporate property.  The root meaning of "ownership" is that the "owner" of that property gets to decide what is done with said property; be it land plowed up to plant corn or built upon, a car that can be rented out or not, or a toy that can be thrown away; whoever can make that decision is the owner.  In practice, a corporation has no owner, and only the regulation that pertains to that industry has the ultimate say about what becomes of the corporate property.  So in the end, corporations, as products of the state, are also owned by the state.  Rail against the corporate "capitalism" that you see all around you, but the fact is that what you see isn't capitalism even as Karl Marx defined it, it's just another accidental form of socialism.
143  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 19, 2014, 10:53:13 PM
What would be the expected use cases ? To be able to transmit transactions in areas where you cannot get any cell signal ?
Like buying some goods from a traveler in remote mountains ?

That would be a use case, but certainly not the only one.

Quote
Let's say I want to pay with bitcoins, I build the transaction and broadcast it to the network using my portable CB.
How will a node acknowledge and prove to me the transaction has been correctly transmitted to the Bitcoin network ?

That would require a back channel, if you needed to know.  Such a back channel could be a datacast stream from a DRM station (if you're patient) or an alternative service, such as Iridium Burst.

Quote
Without non taintable proof, I cannot finish the transaction and take the good.

Not with a full client, no.  The white paper does describe a 'light' style client with a reduced security model that could do offline transactions with limitations.  For example, the device would need to be able to communicate with the other light client, which is one use case of my proposal.  Additionally, the light client would need occasional access to a gateway node, in order to update it's wallet.dat; otherwise it would eventually run out of spendable inputs.

Quote

I like very much the idea of backup channels, to be able to use cryptos even if govt shut down the cell towers etc.

It's not really intended as a 'fallback' method.  It's intended as a primary communications method between portable, hardware based light clients; i.e. the kind that are not simply an app on a smartphone.  Additionally, it's intended as an efficient & mostly automatic digital communications mode.  Imagine if you had a device that could send and receive texts to/from people that you have already met IRL to a distance of 5+ miles radius in a single hop, but could also use multi-hop methods to cross a moderate sized city.  Without any kind of ongoing licesnsing or service fees.  A pocket sized device that is a cross between a texting FRS radio and a hardware wallet, that may or may not have a cell service data plan of it's own.  There are other use cases for a 'slow mesh' as well.
144  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 19, 2014, 10:08:38 PM
The filing isn't quite done, but I have the frequency allocation proposal finished.  It's filling number with the FCC is 0158-EX-PL-2014, if anyone is interested.  I filed it as an experimental license application, because there really wasn't a better method.  The FCC doesn't have a method for suggesting completely new ideas.

I'm thinking of calling it a "slow mesh" until I have a better name for it.  Any ideas?
145  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [Stratum] Overlay network protocol over Bitcoin on: February 18, 2014, 07:37:19 PM
They expect us to reverse engineer python source code

Consider it a trial by fire.  If you can't figure it out, they don't want your help.
146  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: February 18, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
Yes it is, but there is really nothing you can do about that, I can't stop a war or overthrow a government.
When the war stops or the government stops the mismanagement these countries will get on their feet more or less automatically.


Automaticly, but not immediately.
147  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 18, 2014, 07:54:56 AM
bump
148  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: February 17, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
You belong to the wealthy elite as long as the bitcoin price stays at these levels but have you considered the fact that the system has techinical problems and therefore cannot be used for currency.

That's a strange statement, since I've been using as currency for four years.
149  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: February 17, 2014, 03:44:08 PM


When all that is destroyed, BTC can perhaps store 25% of value, which is 100T at current prices and would be 8M per bitcoin in purchasing power. (I would use 5 million to be on the safe side)

There is also a significant difference in the practical maximum amount of velocity between the current credit based financial systems and what Bitcoin can maintain.  Assuming that the transaction volume issues can be solved or worked around, bitcoin can turn over it's entire currency base every hour.  The US dollar credit system, for example; while transactions can be completed nearly instantly (like Visa) the final settlement of those transactions still require weeks on average.  Furhermore, velocity is limited in the private realm as well, since there is a delay of about a week from the time an employee earns his wages to the time he can receive, deposit and cancel his paycheck.  The net effect of higher velocity is similar to inflation, so not as much bitcoin would be required to service the world's transaction needs as is present in the fiat currency totals.  Keep in mind, that although the employee is unlikely to get paid more often than weekly, if Walmart was accepting bitcoins at the registers and paying their employees as well, it's entirely plausible that the employee who gets paid in bitcoin today for last week's work will still be getting paid out of bitcoins spent at the register the same day as his payday, gathered up automaticly from registers across the world.
150  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws) on: February 16, 2014, 03:40:05 AM
From private message (I do speak behind the scenes with those who disagree with me):

Quote
And besides all of that, I have long ago pointed out that Bitcoin is modular by nature.  If any of the alt coins come up with a superior system, Bitcoin could simply adapt to that new feature if there is a general consensus that said feature was truly superior.  Bitcoin isn't static, in short, and your analysis of problems all assume that there isn't an intellectual response by the userbase.  Perhaps it comes down to faith, but if you don't have any, why are you trying so hard?  Peter Schiff has no faith in Bitcoin, but nor is he here.

In the Adam Beck interview he says that drastic changes can not be made to Bitcoin until they've been heavily tested by an altcoin, because the risk to Bitcoin of an error is far too great. But by the time they've been heavily tested in altcoin, it is very possible for that altcoin to have established itself.


Addressing only this point.  This is Adam Beck's perspective on this only.  He is likely correct, but if the alt-coin killer feature is obvious after implementation, Bitcoiners will quickly choose to either migrate to the new coin (selling their stake in Bitcoin, and therefore losing interest in the outcome) or advocate for the change to be completed quickly.  Or both at the same time.  In the long run, it doesn't really matter which is true, or whether or not Bitcoin remains the cryptocurrency of choice.
151  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [Stratum] Overlay network protocol over Bitcoin on: February 16, 2014, 03:27:55 AM

Guys,

Nice work on Stratum. A note that I hope you will take to heart --- this problem is already solved by open protocol standards (at least in TCP point to point cases). The rest of the financial world is already using it so for the purpose of easing future integration, it's best to leverage that instead of re-invent the wheel.

The FIX (Financial Information Exchange) protocol already covers all the requirements listed in Stratums spec and has been used for over 15 years in the financial world for relaying messages for trading, market data, request for quotes, and others. A recent open source implementation in C++ allows you to easily define new schema (xml, json) to extend the protocol.

http://fix8.org/

The protocol supports replay through sequence numbering, etc.
There are open source implementations in C++, Python, and Java, and possibly others. Oanda's FX trading system uses it:
http://fxtrade.oanda.com/images/FixSpecifications2.pdf

What you want is this to be adapted to the web server/client model.


I don't think you really understand what problem Stratum addresses.
152  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 14, 2014, 01:37:49 AM

Now, doing this in a lower band might work, but would take more RF power than Part 15 gear.


Yes, it would take more power than a Part 15 device is permitted.  My suggested power limits are way over  Part 15 limits, which is why I need to have a proposal at all.  If I could use Part 15 power limits and make it work, I wouldn't need the blessing of the FCC.  This was the root problem of a great many of the mesh networks that have been tried before, Part 15 device power levels just can't get any useful distance.  Combined with the fact that 2.45 GHz is an awful band for range anyway, and 900 Mhz isn't a whole lot better.  There is a corrolary between interference and range; because (generally speaking) the lower the frequency, the lower the attenuation rate of the ground wave.  This is why a legal limit CB transceiver can communicate over the visible horizon, and anything over 30 Mhz generally cannot.  Since such bands can travel farther via groundwave, you are more likely to experience manmade interference regardless of the current reflectivity of the ionosphere.

BTW, the first 6 channels of the 2.45 Ghz wifi band overlaps a ham radio band, and some hams use Part 95 power limit rules to make some truely awesome mesh networks from commercial gear.

http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/
153  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 13, 2014, 03:23:01 PM
Please copy the U.S. Post Office research department. Those ponies will need some beacons for the ride.

If you are calling my idea a throwback, that's part of the point.  Using less desirable spectrum in a novel manner is more likely to get approved than to attempt the same thing in the UHF or microwave bands.  As to the issue about interference from overpowered CB's, that's part of the reason for choosing very narrow bandwidths and phase shift keying has proven itself to be a very noise resilient mode on the shortwave ham bands.  PSK is so very different than AM or SSB spatter noise that it's often distingishable even in an otherwise noisy environment.  A quarter watt is a lot for PSK31 when your groundwave only has an expected radio horizen of about 10 miles.
154  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BTC - Transaction Volume in the Network on: February 12, 2014, 09:45:24 PM
There are several parrallel projects that I know of, none of which addresses transaction volume rates per se, but both of which contribute to the capacity.

The first one of note is the "naked block" change to the protocol that is forthcoming.  The point of it is that, because of the p2p style of propagation of bitcoin network objects, the actual transactions don't need to be part of a published block for miners to confirm that they are correct; because miner's almost certainly already have those transactions.  So broadcasting blocks complete represents a double broadcasting of those transactions.  The "naked block" change will permit miners to publish their blocks using only the block headers and the myrkle tree, which will reduce the actual data size of the published blocks.  This will help thoughput because the block size limit doesn't need to be increased in order to fit many more actual transactions.

Another is the development of 'overlay' processing networks, which are expected to take most of the burden of small value transactions using a reduced trust model.  The big one pursuing this line of inquriy is the Electrum client via their Stratum network.  What will happen is variations on the trust model of bitcoin will be employed to permit users within a particular overlay network to send arbitrary values to one another without using the blockchain at all, or only using the blockchain to settle up values periodicly or if a value limit has been crossed.  Online wallet services use a similar trick to permit users to send another member bitcoins without creating a transaction that must be processed immediately or individually.  The wallet services function similar to Paypal in this context, keeping the accounting in house; while the overlay networks can be expected to function similar to Ripple.  The end result is the same, many transactions between users cancel one another out, reducing (but not eliminating) the necessity to create bitcoin transactions.  Another reduction that overlay networks could employ is to use send-to-many transactions to gather up the individual transactions that users produce over a time period into one huge transaction with numerous inputs and outputs, expecting that the portions of those transactions related to various senders will be properly signed by their overlay network connected nodes in a timely fashion.  The economic force that can be expected to drive the development of such overlay networks are rising transaction fees.

Still another reduction in transaction volumes, also related to the send-to-many transaction, would be large institutions that gather up numerous payments to themselves to pay out to numerous creditors at once.  Think along the lines of Wal-Mart paying all of their employees their weekly payroll in a single transaction, or an individual paying all of their monthly bills at once.  While those actual send-to-many transactions would be quite large, the 'naked block' protocol results in Wal-Mart's weekly payroll transaction having no more of a footprint inside a broadcast block than another's simple Satoshi Dice payout.

So, while the main bitcoin network isn't really designed to handle huge transaction volumes (thinkof it more like the banks' ATM network, they don't handle all transactions, but they do handle those that require great security over distances) it doesn't really need to, and it can handle more volume than is commonly expected.
155  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 12, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
Bump.

Still looking for commentary from the radio geeks.
156  Economy / Speculation / Re: What would happen to Bitcoin if another US stock crash like 1929 occurred? on: February 12, 2014, 03:29:19 AM
The trade price in US dollars would likely go down as the buying power of the dollar increased, but the actual buying power of those same bitcoins wouldn't likely be significantly effected in the same way.  Keep in mind that a major stock crash, like the one in 1929 is highly deflationary; as is the destruction of debt.  (Debts that turn bad are written off as uncollectable, or discharged in bankruptcy; both events result in the effective reduction of available liquidity, which is deflationary by defintion)

Of course you are correct, but this is not 1929 and the U.S. is no longer on the gold standard. We almost know for certain what would happen because it already happened in 2008. The Fed (central bank) will create trillions of dollars out of nothing and go on a buying spree, the government will make massive bail-outs, Keynesian economists will provide cover for the whole operation and prices of everything (including bitcoin) will go up.

It's not speculation. It's history. The fact that they got away with it is what guarantees that they will do it again.

There was plenty of printing of unbacked paper money during the great depression as well.  This is what lead to the confiscation of private gold stocks followed by the revaluation of the gold standard from $22 to $35 per ounce in 1933.  Leaving the gold standard just makes all this crap somewhat less of a fraud than pretending that we actually operated as if we were on a gold standard.

In short, we are both correct.  The deflationary events can, and have so far since 2008, outpace the rate at which the Federal Reserve bank is willing to debase the dollar despite tehir willingess to do quite a bit of it.  Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve serves the member banks, not the US government nor particular politcos.  If they debase too fast, the public will lose trust in the value of the US dollar, and then a hyperinflationary death of the currrency will bring a rapid end to their 100 year long con game.  The bankers will never do this unless forced into it by politics, because hyperinflation is always and everywhere triggered by a political event.
157  Economy / Speculation / Re: What would happen to Bitcoin if another US stock crash like 1929 occurred? on: February 12, 2014, 02:59:15 AM
The trade price in US dollars would likely go down as the buying power of the dollar increased, but the actual buying power of those same bitcoins wouldn't likely be significantly effected in the same way.  Keep in mind that a major stock crash, like the one in 1929 is highly deflationary; as is the destruction of debt.  (Debts that turn bad are written off as uncollectable, or discharged in bankruptcy; both events result in the effective reduction of available liquidity, which is deflationary by defintion)
158  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 11, 2014, 10:26:04 PM
I chose a total bandwidth of 12 Khtz wide, even though the space is probably 20 KHtz wide, because 12KHtz is the common passband of generic computer soundcards.  This would permit a station using consumer grade computer gear to listen to the entire band at the same time, while still being able to distingish between individual datagrams with overlapping broadcast times.  Better soundcards can listen to wider slices of spectrum, but I'm shooting for cheap here.
159  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Digital CB "band" for cryptosystems, i.e. offline bitcoin transactions on: February 11, 2014, 10:12:32 PM
Notablely, there is a 4.8 Mhtz wide gap of useful spectrum in the GRMS/FRS band, situated between the simplex channels and the paired repeater input channels.  Between 462.7250 Mhtz (channel 22) and 467.5500 Mhtz.  And the channel spacing between the GRMS center frequencies are 125 Khtz wide but the channel is only permitted a 25 Khtz FM signal; which leaves at least 50Khtz of useful spectrum between each channel.  I don't know what these gaps are there for, but I'd wager that the 4.8 Mhtz gap is already allocated for something, I just don't know what.
160  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BREAKING NEWS: Multiple Exchanges Affected - Possible Global Shutdown on: February 11, 2014, 09:31:12 PM
This is one reason why I don't store my bitcoins on exchanges or in other hosted wallets. I am completely unaffected. Hopefully this event will knock some sense into some people.

And while I'm on the subject ... sometime in the next few months, the wallet of some major site will be hacked and a bunch of people are going to lose all of there bitcoins. You heard it here first.

Wait, What?  Did something important happen?  I didn't notice.  My client says everything is fine.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 368 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!