Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 11:51:11 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 »
1  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] Safe JavaScript Bitcoin address/private key on: November 21, 2016, 12:18:17 AM
I got a quick question. Doing cold storage for the first time and wondering if I generate a private key will I have issues such as this individual

He apparently created some wallet and sent BTC to it but was never able to actually spend it due to some bug.

Whatever method you use, you need to practice with tiny amounts of bitcoin until you are satisfied you have a good system. Only then create a new wallet and move your other coins into it.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: "Peerless Monetary Framework" as competitor to Bitcoin? on: November 20, 2016, 03:18:44 AM
"By encapsulating ownership, Peerless dispenses with all such third-party registries. This is a huge advantage to Peerless, anticipated to some degree by Bitcoin and the blockchain technology, but with the promise here of being carried to fruition. Peerless removes the need to rely on third parties because the individual can handle the task of reassigning ownership directly without their help."

You dispense with third party registries but you do not show how an individual is kept from double spending.  Since things can be anonymous (good thing), there is no way to even know if a double spend occurred (very bad thing).
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is your bitcoin safe in cold wallet? on: December 14, 2015, 06:40:17 PM
Do you think your bitcoin in cold wallet is protected by law of mathematics and also the most powerful computer network in the world? Think again

The recent proposal by Pieter Wuille revealed that core devs can push in a soft fork change that pretty much changes every way bitcoin works, thus hackers can spend your money without your consent

How is that possible? Because bitcoin is essentially an agreement (protocol) among nodes, if majority of the nodes around you agree that your bitcoin is gone, then it is gone! It does not matter how strong ECDSA is, all it takes is a group of nodes around you changed their rules (or so called sybil attack)

Somebody might wonder: Aren't miners suppose to be the honest nodes and stop all this? Unfortunately, in this case, miners or so called most powerful computer network in the world can not do anything about it

Why? Because everything in bitcoin is decided by its agreement among nodes. If the nodes changed their way of calculate blocks, then all the miners will be dropped from the new network, and all those ASICs in large mining farms will just become paperweight

This becomes a real threat when mining has become too centralized, e.g. only a few large pools are doing mining. So, even they are running the original version of bitcoin, if large group of nodes have upgraded to a different version, these miners will just be ignored as minority (new version can easily change the way that miner works). Of course without hash power the new version will worth nothing later on, but I guess the thieves only need to sell their stolen coins before others realize the problem

The critical point that have real financial impact are exchanges and web wallet services. If one of these nodes together with a group of malicious nodes changed their protocol, then they could easily take others' coin, sell on exchange and profit. If you are really paranoid and assume that every exchange might be a potential malicious actor like MTGOX, then they have many ways to profit unethically through a protocol change

As opposed to what?  A single bank deciding you shouldn't have access to your account with them for some crazy reason and freezing you out?

Bitcoin is much more secure than that. The vulnerability you describe is just the probability that all the major players in bitcoin accept a software version that blows up their wealth. Not likely.
4  Economy / Economics / Re: Look at inflation and stop talking taper on: May 19, 2015, 09:49:06 PM

In the end, the problem is that people don't, actually, need more money.  There doesn't seem to be sufficient demand for money, even cheap money, so as to print enough of it to cause inflation.  We come to a point where assets are preferred over money.  QE tries to seduce asset possessors to give them a nice bonus to trade it for (inflating) money.  

You got this wrong. There is too much demand for money, i.e. keeping cash reserves, not too little. The central bank is successfully selling the money (Buying assets) but the recipients are just keeping the cash, not spending it.

Maybe you meant people don't, actually, need more debt. They are not going to banks for more debt and then investing for a positive return. The reason is they look at growth and see none. No one wants to borrow and invest if the economy is stagnant.
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Observations about Bitcoin Lightning Network on: May 12, 2015, 09:27:15 PM
I have a couple of observations on the Lightning Network.

1. The random value R used for Hashed Timelock Contracts can be replaced by something selected by the sender.
   a. Alice is sending to Dave through Bob and Carol
   b. Alice has her own secret key, a, and public key, Pa, and looks up Daveís public key, Pd.
   c. Alice uses Diffie Hellman to produce a shared secret, s = H(a[Pd])
   d. Alice generates the public side of the lock, Px = s[Pd], and timelocks the contract
   e. Later Dave (and only Dave) can generate the private side of the lock, x = s*d, where d is Daveís secret and * is the product modulo the order of the curve.
   f. In this variant Px corresponds to H(R) and x corresponds to R, but Dave is NOT involved until he wants to be (to receive the money).
   g. Note that in reality you want s to be unique for each transaction so s = H(a[Pd],m) where m is unique to the transaction. For example the block height.

2. They show transaction graphs with funds being pulled by receiver back up the chain all the way to the sender. A philosophical improvement is to have a protocol that creates a NEW SUB-CHANNEL based on value already locked in the existing channels.
   a. Alice is sending to Dave through Bob and Carol
   b. The first transaction sets up a sub-channel between Alice and Dave UNDER the values in the channels between Alice and Bob, Bob and Carol, and Carol and Dave.
   c. Alice and Dave can now use this sub-channel to transact between themselves (without bothering Bob and Carol) until they decide to close the books and reconcile through the Bob-Carol channels.
   d. In the same way normal channels lock value on the main blockchain to enable the channels, sub-channels lock value in channels to enable the sub-channels to transfer value in a trustless manner.

3. I didnít see any analysis of the limits on total available liquidity that would limit the Lightning Network.
   a. Every Bitcoin channel locks up real liquidity. This is unlike modern credit instruments that create liquidity to match demand.
   b. With 21 million bitcoins, if every user wanted to create a 1 bitcoin channel, we would be limited to 21 million users. Nowhere near the 7 billion shown on the charts.
   c. The only way liquidity can increase is if the value of bitcoin increases, convincing users to lower the values locked in their channels. For example if each channel only locked 3 milli-bits then we could have 7 billion channels.
   d. Iím not sure what the implication to the Bitcoin network would be if most bitcoins were locked in channels.

Interesting stuff to think about.
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i got a strange payment today, i dunno what from. on: May 12, 2015, 04:48:15 PM
It ties your one address (the one receiving these BTC) to some of your other addresses. This happens when your wallet bundles amounts from your various addresses into one total amount you happen to send.  Transactions with many inputs to form a larger output give whoever wants to look assurance that the same person owns all the input keys.

Like dust sprinkled to make a light beam easier to see, this is just dust sprinkled randomly to make block-chain key ownership analysis easier.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Proposed New Bitcoin System (Without the hashing) on: May 07, 2015, 06:17:17 PM
How is the VDDB immune to a malicious user that runs 10000000 threads pretending to be 10000000 users with a consensus that is false? He could easily drown out the valid copies of the VDDB.
8  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Mycelium for iOS not working on: May 01, 2015, 09:42:43 PM
Mycelium on the Apple App Store today. Seems to work fine now. I was able to send my coins.

Thanks guys!
9  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Mycelium for iOS not working on: April 23, 2015, 07:50:27 PM
Restart didn't work for me either.

iPhone 6 and Mycelium v1.1
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Best Bitcoin Android apps and widgets on: April 16, 2015, 05:40:25 PM
Yes I know it's an altcoin app but you can hold and send BTC as easy as a text message to your contacts, what other app does that?

Wiper Messenger on the App Store does that for the iPhone. Bitcoin only.

11  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: April 03, 2015, 02:02:49 AM
Mycelium wallet not currently available on iOS.  Huh
Why do you have an Iphone?
It came with a hug and a kiss from my wife..  Cheesy
12  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: April 02, 2015, 04:35:54 PM
The argument for deflation has always been that the holders of cash should be able to claim a fixed fraction of economic output even if that output grows.

With a fixed number of Bitcoins each coin represents 1/21millionths of the whole economy and as the economy grows the holder of 1 Bitcoin still has claim to 1/21millionths of the larger economy. If a home is dropping in value (priced in bitcoin) then this just means it represents a smaller and smaller fraction of the total economy. So maybe it should fall in price in terms of Bitcoin. Same Bitcoin balance buys more.

Some think that's wrong.

This other side of the argument is that a holder of 1 Bitcoin should be able to buy a fixed amount of goods. A crate of apples for example. If the economy grows by 10% and the fraction of value of the total economy that the crate of apples represents falls 10% then so be it. He is still able to buy the crate with his Bitcoin. The economy as a whole requires more Bitcoin over time to account for the extra 10% for this stability in purchasing power to happen.

If one wants his own purchasing power to rise with the economy he should loan his money (and take risk) under an agreement that accounts for inflation, positive or negative. He should not expect to hoard his cash under a mattress and get more goods for them in the future.

In the end we can all agree that instability in Inflation/Deflation is bad. However, absolute inflation vs. zero inflation or deflation, even if stable, is really a choice between a fixed value for your unit of money in the future vs. a fixed fraction of economic output for your money as the economy grows.
13  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: April 02, 2015, 04:15:07 PM
Which is a HUGE part of the economy!!!

It is a huge parasite on the economy, yes.  Their true added value is essentially zilch, and they can appropriate them a lot of production, through seigniorage that goes with monetary inflation.

Umm,  production requires credit if you are big business.  Without finance production would massively slow down.

In a mildly deflationary enviroment cost of borrowing is too expensive. People wont afford to buy big ticket things like houses or cars if they had to pay cash.

Yes. You need loans to move the money to the people with the opportunities, the ideas, the drive, the vision. Only in very rare cases do these people have money of their own.

Now with loans the important factor is the stability of the trend. Inflation or deflation that is constant for many years can be accounted for in loan agreements. However, shocks causing inflation or deflation to change can be disruptive, even ruining these people.

14  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: April 02, 2015, 01:33:30 PM
And they all go down the same % point, so this relative decline makes you at status quo, and you didnt lost anything after all.


And the same for the consumer, yes his wages go down, but the prices of the stuff around him also goes down, so its only an illusion that you lose money , when infact you didnt gain nor loose anything.

Where is the story of sticky wages in this? The one main reason for loss of real output and increase in unemployment during an economic shock and it doesn't show up anywhere in your narrative.

It's never "the same % point" and salaries never drop as fast as they need to, not for the currently employed, so they lose their jobs.
15  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: April 01, 2015, 08:54:23 PM
Does the iOS version read BIP38 protected keys? It seemed to not recognize mine when I was trying trying to spend from cold storage.
16  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Price - Going where ? on: March 18, 2015, 09:42:59 PM
17  Economy / Economics / Re: Will negative interest rate be a boon to Bitcoin? on: March 08, 2015, 07:59:20 AM
Again, this deflation is caused by a lacking of demand, which printing more money will just make it worse long term wise. All new money is added in a form of debt, and raise the debt repayment cost later on. That large amount of debt repayment will decrease everyone but bank's spending power, but what they spend for? To buy more bonds (loan them out to trap more people in)

Creating more money is the way to increase demand. What is your solution to "lacking of demand"?
Business debt produces more prosperity than the value of the debt. Businesses pay off debt and yet show profits all the time. Otherwise businesses would not borrow. Also, the reason central banks buy debt to increase the money supply is so they can have assets they can sell later to reduce the money supply when economic conditions change.

There is only one exit for this endless slavery, that is give up using fiat money as a transaction medium, but few realizes this

No. Slavery isn't what fiat is producing. There may be better ideas around on how to regulate the current money supply other than using a central bank, but your ideas are not among them.

18  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: March 06, 2015, 03:37:34 PM
So, the claim of deflation's negative impact is just based on a stubbornly hold belief that currency is a benchmark of value. In fact the whole modern monetary theory is constructed on this blind belief

By this argument inflation is irrelevant since inflation's "negative impact is just based on a stubbornly held belief that currency is a benchmark of value".

By this argument all the "benefits" of deflation are an illusion.

The observable fact is that the adjustment from mild inflation to mild deflation is painful. People lose jobs because both employees and employers do not reduce salaries fast enough and loans are paid off in fixed amounts and end up sucking more resources than expected to pay off and therefore reducing investment.

The ironic thing is you are right that, theoretically, the value of money does not matter and is quite arbitrary. It's the unforeseen changes in the rate of change of money value that causes problems. Steady is best. You can write contracts (loans and employment contracts) that take a steady %2 inflation or a %2 deflation into account.

So, given that we were at %2 inflation, why not just leave it there since contracts already take that into account? Why call for unneeded pain by calling for switching to a currency with deflation when the benefits are an illusion?
19  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: March 04, 2015, 09:01:01 PM

If you worked for a living and your wages were in Bitcoin and Bitcoin deflated (i.e. its value went up) say from $200 to $400, you would be fired. If you claim you'd agree to a wage drop then you're really saying your salary is not valued in Bitcoin. It's valued in bananas or something and only paid in the equivalent Bitcoin.

You clearly don't understand how inflation and deflation works, you're forgetting that because the prices will lower due to the currency becoming more valuable that it will make costs cheaper for employers as well when it comes to materials and other expenses.

Stop trying to exclude one or the other to suit your arguments and agenda.

Sorry, but some costs for employers will not fall. His debts will remain the same and so will your salary.
20  Economy / Economics / Re: Is deflation truly that bad for an economy? on: March 04, 2015, 04:21:35 PM
Wow the neo-keynesian trolls have certainly gone to town here already, I should point out there are those who believe it's a bad thing because of falling prices, what they fail to grasp, is that's only a bad thing for people who rely on high prices in order to make money, such as speculators and people holding various assets, who these neo-keynesian economists are on the side of.

For the rest of us like you and me, deflation is absolutely fantastic, it makes everything easier to afford and allows you to build up savings, you aren't being forced to work twice as hard for half as much and it protects you against market manipulation of the money supply which is what causes these price swings neo-keynesian economists are so afraid of. Another thing to bear in mind of course is that for some baffling reason particularly on this forum the words inflation/deflation have been twisted in their definition to suit the neo-keynesian viewpoint, when I talk about inflation/deflation I am talking about the currency supply, when you print currency and increase the supply that's inflation, when you keep things the same or in fact reduce the amount of currency supply in circulation that's deflation and it causes the exchange rate of that currency to rise against others which is what's happening with Bitcoin and the dollar.

Yes, you're actually recognising that the idea of falling prices being a bad thing is a load of shit, I am building my investments right now and the rising price of Bitcoin is helping me a lot and is a perfect example of why deflation is a good thing, the idea that inflation helps people is a joke because while it may make a short term rise happen as is what's happening in the stock markets right now everything is going to collapse and be a catastrophe. The central banks are advocating the printing of money to keep things going, it isn't out of any benign purpose but it is to keep all these prices we're seeing artificially high, eventually it is all going to collapse in on itself, the only question is how long they'll keep things going, all inflation is, is a very sophisticated form of market manipulation.

Don't fall into the trap of arguing in a debate with people who use made up definitions for words or alternate realities in order to help them win, inflation/deflation is to do with currency supply, it isn't anything to do with prices, prices falling and rising are a result of inflation and deflation they aren't actually the process itself, people who argue using these terms are trying to sweep the issue of currency supply under the rug.

If you worked for a living and your wages were in Bitcoin and Bitcoin deflated (i.e. its value went up) say from $200 to $400, you would be fired. If you claim you'd agree to a wage drop then you're really saying your salary is not valued in Bitcoin. It's valued in bananas or something and only paid in the equivalent Bitcoin.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »
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!