Bitcoin Forum
April 28, 2015, 02:05:10 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 [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 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... 367 »
341  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I am pretty confident we are the new wealthy elite, gentlemen. on: December 10, 2013, 11:31:51 PM
So, I just watched this years Nobel price ceremony on TV, and it struck me that if Bitcoin becomes the revolution some of us think. And if the person(s) behind the name Satoshi Nakamoto can be identified, He/she/they will most likely be awarded the Nobel prize in economics.

Edit: Witch would be rather ironic since that prize was added in 1968 by the Swedish national bank.

Which would be the reason that this is never going to happen.
342  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 10, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
But I think if Satoshi is DPR then Ulbricht is a patsy, and the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm pretty well convienced that Ulbricht was a patsy anyway, and wasn't ever the true DPR anyway.  I've seen no evidence to convince me that Ulbricht was more than a hired administrator.
343  Other / Politics & Society / Re: US health care mandate (Obamacare) on: December 10, 2013, 11:26:46 PM
I don't know, since the US has done this pretty much consistly for 100 years, but we don't have a 'right' to healthcare.
If you pay taxes, why wouldn't you have a right to healthcare?

Taxes are supposed to be for infrastructure and defense, not individual needs.  Do you have a right to food?  Would food insurance, subsidized by your taxes, be a good idea?

Surely a decent health system is infrastructure? 

Verily, however heath care is distinct from health insurance.  The health care system in the United States is, undeniablely, first rate.  The great debate is not about quality of care, or even access to said care, but who gets to pay for that care.  I don't contest that the way this was/is done in (generally) in the United States prior to Obamacare was unjust, unfair and generally 'un-American'; but that doesn't mean that greater socialism (in a society that prizes individual responsibility and merit) is a path to improvement.  Quite the contrary, I would argue that most of that afore mentioned un-American distribution of heath care funding was largely due to the decades of government intrusion into the health care market since WWII.  If you think that single-payer style heath insurance, as can be found in many other former colonies of the British Empire, is somehow more eifficient, more "fair" or more advanced; you are free to believe such things, and free to move there if it matters that much to you.  But the facts don't support your position.
344  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why OFF-CHAIN transactions are not the solution on: December 10, 2013, 11:13:15 PM
The point is that users have a choice; to either manage the security and costs themselves, or contract out to another party.  Currently, consumers using fiat currencies don't have this choice.  Not really, anyway; as all real banks are part of the particular central banking system that they must adhere to.  If it's your central bank that is untrustworthy, it's a real competition among banks that is desired.  Bitcoin can offer that, but it does not garrantee it.
345  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 10, 2013, 04:58:07 AM
what about this scenario? the admins from p2pfoundation where satoshi talks in 2008 1st time about bitcoin. they can check his profile and get the logs-history and get possibles ip.. i am sure for that time satoshi not was thinking in dissapear and he use his REAL ip. so those things can give a IDEA from wich country he connect. city.. etc.... i think that he is only 1 guy not a group. and HE just kill satoshi identity and have another. or severals user on this forum.. and he is already multi millonarie

Nope.  Satoshi was planning on hiding from the get go.  We know this now, for no one is that good at not being found on the Internet without prior planning.
346  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Buying bitcoin is a pain. on: December 10, 2013, 02:12:44 AM
Head over to localbitcoins.
I promise you that you will surely not be disappointed.

That's not a promise that you can make.  The experience with localbitcoins vendors is likely to vary significantly between regions and vendors.
347  Other / Politics & Society / Re: US health care mandate (Obamacare) on: December 10, 2013, 02:10:04 AM
I don't know, since the US has done this pretty much consistly for 100 years, but we don't have a 'right' to healthcare.
If you pay taxes, why wouldn't you have a right to healthcare?

Taxes are supposed to be for infrastructure and defense, not individual needs.  Do you have a right to food?  Would food insurance, subsidized by your taxes, be a good idea?
348  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is anybody working on pruning on the main client? on: December 09, 2013, 09:32:25 PM
What is on the agenda here, forcing most of the nodes to switch into SPV mode - this is an indirect attack on the decentralization, which is an extremely important property of this currency and a major factor in its market value.

You can pretend having a good intentions, but your objective is clearly hostile.

Bitcoin was never intended to run on every user's machine.  Absolute decentralization isn't a requirement, and it's long been expected that Bitcoin will scale as much as it needs to scale, and will naturally centralize as much as it needs to do accomplish that scaling.  That said, SPV mode & pruning are both among the early plans to reduce the need for this as much as is reasonable.  There is no doubt that the whole blockchain will persist somewhere, and that this is more likely to be done by an institution for many reasons. 
349  Other / Politics & Society / Re: US health care mandate (Obamacare) on: December 09, 2013, 09:23:23 PM
lol what sort of fucked up country doesn't provide healthcare for the poor and sick?

I don't know, since the US has done this pretty much consistly for 100 years, but we don't have a 'right' to healthcare.
350  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin "bumper sticker" mottos on: December 09, 2013, 03:31:31 PM
Oooh, I love this. Hope nobody minds if I do make a sticker or two out of these.

Dude, that is literally the point.
351  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 09, 2013, 02:51:05 PM
Who is John Galt?

An electrical engineer, reportedly.
352  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 08, 2013, 02:19:42 PM

Interesting. That IP address wouldn't be 192.168.0.1 per chance?

No, its not that one.

It was a trick question, the entire set of addresses that start with 192.168.x.x are part of a reserved block of addresses for a class C intranet.  There are no Internet providers that use that subnet.
353  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin decentrilization myth on: December 08, 2013, 02:11:22 PM
There is no minimum amount of hashes that one needs to produce to contribute to Bitcoin mining. It's totally parallelizable.

Nobody is going to run a machine for a few cents or dollars, or run at a lose of electricity cost. Even if they run a small unit just to sort the network,  their 10gh is nothing compared to THs and PHs large miners will deploy so end of the day, your small miner becomes smaller and smaller share of the network.



I'm doing it right now, because I need heat in my basement anyway, and electric service is 7.5 cents per KWH where I live.  That's about the same as the cost of propane, which is my other choice.  So why not, since I have the rig?

Can't compare us to the rest of the population, who will never run a miner.


We don't need everyone to run miners.

Quote
Secondly you running that 1 rig doesnt matter. As the network grows your share of the network decreases for people to keep it decentralized they need to keep adding hash as the network grows. The big guys will keep getting bigger while the small will get smaller.


So?  Do you think that wasn't foreseen?

EDIT: When we say that Bitcoin is decentralized, we mean that the network has no 'center'.  There is no node with more authority than others.  Massive mining centers could be shut down by fedco, but so what?
354  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin decentrilization myth on: December 08, 2013, 05:43:22 AM
There is no minimum amount of hashes that one needs to produce to contribute to Bitcoin mining. It's totally parallelizable.

Nobody is going to run a machine for a few cents or dollars, or run at a lose of electricity cost. Even if they run a small unit just to sort the network,  their 10gh is nothing compared to THs and PHs large miners will deploy so end of the day, your small miner becomes smaller and smaller share of the network.



I'm doing it right now, because I need heat in my basement anyway, and electric service is 7.5 cents per KWH where I live.  That's about the same as the cost of propane, which is my other choice.  So why not, since I have the rig?
355  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 08, 2013, 05:38:37 AM

Cryptocurrency and its derivatives are out of the bag now. First nation state to claim the lion's share in its control will benefit handsomely, just as those who took the lion's share in taming and keeping tabs on good part of the internet has profited from that venture.


Then it's China, because the US government doesn't stand to benefit regardless, since it will lose the trade advantages that come with being the one entity that can issue the international reserve currency.
356  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 08, 2013, 03:39:03 AM
Satoshi is from the UK and I think I know where he lives, here are the reasons why:

The first American settlers stuck two fingers up at the British establishment by removing silent letters from perfectly good words. So I still have to keep changing the default spell check language in Word from American English to British English. Microsoft have no incentive for fixing this problem, so it's something you have to get used to doing every now and then.

That's what got me thinking about Satoshi's country of origin. His/Her/Their 2009 paper uses the word 'favour' and not 'fovor'.

The original p2p network, now the internet, well that was Sir Tim Berners Lee, another Brit. So p2p at the game changing level is something of a national sport.

But then there are the actors in the software scenario testing and development - Alice and Bob. Typical British names, but we are still light years away from a smoking gun. But who in Japan uses Alice and Bob when trying to figure out the bad actors out there and how they might try and attack Bitcoin code? That strikes a blow for Japan being the mother of bitcoin invention.

Then there is the first IP address used to send a bitcoin transaction. Yes BTC was first seen as involving the movement of value over IP.

Alice was sent 9.95 of something at 11.45pm on 3 January 2009 (American's use January 3, 2009, so not a Yank) by Bob for order #12345. Her IP address started with 192.168........ I could tell you the rest, but then I would have to kill you. It seems that this early use IP address is still in use somewhere in England (i.e. Not Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), but this time by a little chap who likes gaming and has created a server for his friends with this address.

Now the IP address could indeed be random. But if you are alpha testing, you might want to check that transactions are working, so would you use a random address, in a system originally designed to use IP addresses as well as block codes? Was the advent of anonymity a later step in the original development process?

Or, did Satoshi have a little kid who is now a teenage gaming geek? Maybe, the property with this IP address is owned by a different family.

Either way, my bet is that Satoshi is English, as many others have pointed out based on times of posts and use of grammar.

This would indeed make sense, all the great inventors are from the UK (let the abuse begin Grin), its something to do with the water.


Interesting. That IP address wouldn't be 192.168.0.1 per chance?  Because that is the default internal address mask number for almost every wifi router in the world, and just means that Satoshi was testing out the Send-to-IP function on an internal network, or even within his own GNU/Linux machine. 
357  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? on: December 07, 2013, 07:40:00 AM
Go to mtgox and you will find Nakamoto.

The top bitcoin exchanger is in Japan and a japanese man created bitcoin

Go there and you will find him

You, literally, have no idea of what you speak.
358  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is anybody working on pruning on the main client? on: December 07, 2013, 02:03:20 AM
Other than that supposedly bitcoind already can prune, but it is not really exposed out of fear that there might be too many people actually doing it which would hurt chain distribution.

Can you point me to more details about this?  I'm having trouble finding it with the search functions.
359  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why OFF-CHAIN transactions are not the solution on: December 07, 2013, 01:31:53 AM

But wait, isn't that exactly the same as Paypal? Where are the benefits then? What is the difference?



One difference is that there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of bitcoin services to choose from.  Consumer choice is never a bad thing.  Another difference is that we all have the choice to run our own node if it means that much to us.

Quote
Furthermore, Off-chain transaction also means that these private companies will be able to change ther rules.

No it would not.

Quote
Finally, what would happen if one of those services gets hacked and all their funds stolen. What would this say about the security of Bitcoin?


That already happened, to Mybitcoin.com.  Fortunes were lost, but it was an inditment against Mybitcoin.com's security model, not Bitcoin's.
Quote
Paypal uses Fiat and they can't be robbed because they are insured and whatever bank would reverse the thief's transaction. But this is not possible with Bitcoin, which would eventually mean that using a Bitcoin Payment processor is considerably more dangerous than using Fiat payment processors. And since Offchain transactions would be the norm, we would be forced to use them.

No we would not.  The only reason that such wallet services would even be viable businesses is if it's generally cheaper to use such services than pay a normal network transaction fee.  But there would be any number of ways to avoid such fees, not just the paypal-like bitcoin walet service model.  Another that I think would be viable is a Ripple-like overlay network.  Another woudl be something similar to what Electrum does with their Stratum overlay network.

Quote
I seriously don't see this proposed solution doing any good.

What alternatives do we have?

The Bitcoin community is made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world. Are you really telling me that we can't find a solution to compress the information on the ledger enough so that a healhy amount of full-nodes always exists?


Of course we can, more than one in fact.  But the economic drivers for users to favor services has less to do with the size of the blockchain, and more to do with expected future transaction costs.  Currently, transaction fees are being heavily subsidized by block rewards, but future network congestion is bound to force that fee up.  The developers are still working on methods of streamlining the network, but at some transaction volume in the future, fees are going to have to total $25K per block to maintain the current level of security.  Ideally, we can improve the netowrk's throughput so that the costs are spread across many feee paying transactions, but Visa's average throughput is about 2K TPS, or about 1.2 Million transactions per block, which put the cost per transaction at less than 3 cents each.  But if we can't get there, something is going to have to give, because users aren't going to suddenly start paying GAvin's Cost (about 3.3 millibiitcoins per kilobyte) if they can avoid it, and they can avoid it if some portion of their transactions can be done off-network.
Quote
Bitcoin is based on consensus, which also means that we can change the code on consensus and even change the way the Blockchain is stored, making it smaller and allowing for increased scalability. We could even tell the software to read / write the blockchain in one way before block X and in a different compressed way after block X.


Compression of the blockchain is impossible, but there is another solution....
Quote
1. Pruning the Blockchain

I don't know exactly how pruning works and if it will solve this problem, because I've also read that some full-full nodes would be necessary with pruning. But still, that seems to be a better option than off-chain transactions.


Completely full nodes without pruning of any kind will not be neccessary per se, but I'd expect that some institutions would want to do it.  As for bootstrapping a new client after pruning is the default state, the client could simply be programmed to download the block headers (which are persistant data tha must exist anyway) up until some known block number, and so long as that known block number has a hash that matches the hash that the node has been programmed to expect, and that the whole set of block headers have  a single hash that the node has been programmed to expect, that client could treat that special block number as it's own genesis block from that point.  After all, users normally create a new wallet'dat file at that point, and it would be strange to need the blocks that existed prior to that point unless you were mining.

Quote

2. Creating a Masterblock

Bitcoin works on consensus. If on consensus we can decide the size of the blockchain and the transaction fee, on consensus we could certainly also decide that Block X with hash X is to become the new Origin block.


This is similar to what I described above, but no network consensus about which block is required.  That special block can be updated with each realease of a client, and be differant for each indepenantly maintained client.

Quote

We take all unspent inputs previous to a certain date and collect them in a Masterblock which is to become the new origin. Aftewards let the blockchain grow considerably longer so that the masterblock is stuck in between the regular chain and impossible to change even with an incredibly large amount of hashing power. Then, after a certain update, we decide on consensus that everything prior to the Masterblock does not need to be downloaded.


Unnecessary.
360  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Is anybody working on pruning on the main client? on: December 07, 2013, 12:48:37 AM
Just curious, because I've been getting a lot more questions about the resident size of the blockchain.
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 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... 367 »
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!