|
Created the topic in Alt coins but cannot delete it here.
|
|
|
|
This is a blockchain that hides the transaction graph from Blockchain Analyzers. The design is based on the realization that the block creator can be restricted to the task of ensuring no double spends while the task of actually verifying transaction balances really belongs to the receiver. The transaction can thus be encrypted in such a manner that only the receiver can decrypt and examine it while the miner can prevent double spends. https://github.com/elwailly/Sword.git |
|
|
|
This is a blockchain design that hides the transaction graph from Blockchain Analyzers. The design is based on the realization that the block creator can be restricted to the task of ensuring no double spends while the task of actually verifying transaction balances really belongs to the receiver. The transaction can thus be encrypted in such a manner that only the receiver can decrypt and examine it. https://github.com/elwailly/Sword.git |
|
|
|
...
Crypto is wholly antithetical to all leftist values.
...
What I don't understand is why you conservatives like bitcoin. It has the potential to hamper the government's ability to monitor citizens like a good big brother. There is little accountability resulting in single citizens not paying their taxes, forcing the higher taxation of big businesses and the wealthy who own those businesses. How could you like this? Why are you here? Why don't you just keep supporting the US dollar or other fiat currencies since it enables the existence of the military industrial complex? //end sarcasm You have no idea what leftist values are. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'm ever going to see an unbiased poll on this forum. Every single one is from people who are too stuck up to actually gauge the public opinion. It's actually really annoying.
You won't have to pay $100 to open a channel. It requires one onchain transaction. Send a SegWit transaction (which will have lower fees than a current one, current transaction fees being about $1 if you use a median size transaction at the lowest fee that could get confirmed), and then you can send an unlimited number of times.
If you do the transactions with your coffee shop each day, receive funds from faucets or signature campaigns or other relatively small payments, your fees will reach less than 1% very quickly.
The difference is that LN makes the transactions happen instantly without the possibility of double spends. It's like comparing a credit card with wire transfers - one happens quickly and easily but is less secure, and one takes longer but is more secure. In everyday life you need both.
With a 1 mb block size, in the case that bitcoin become mainstream, traditional bitcoin transactions will not be mega colapsed ?  Should be  |
|
|
|
Recently, i often see discussion about Bitcoin Bank. More and more people come here and ask about bitcoin bank & surprisingly i see few user agree with this idea.
So, i would like to find out the percentage of user who agreed with this idea.
Honestly, i think this idea is stupid and worst idea that i've seen in my life. What do you think?
p.s. we don't talk about bitcoin debit card OR any centralized service which only ask name and email address.
I can't figure out the output of having a bitcoin bank.Is it similar from the fiat currency system? I just wonder if how really it works.
Banks make loans. They are very good at transforming an ability to generate money over time (a job) into a loan (a mortgage to buy a home). They have capital and they take risks. That's what they do. There is no market for this service in bitcoin because no one in his right mind will take out a loan in bitcoin. Bitcoin appreciates too much. So, no. No bitcoin banks any time soon. |
|
|
|
I keep seeing people say things like "I don't understand why you would put your bitcoin in a bank". I think you are misunderstanding what a bank can do for people.
Most people HAVE NO BITCOIN. Most people do have collateral. A bank is able to judge the credit worthiness of people with collateral and loan them bitcoin. It would be a way to buy a house and have a mortgage denominated in bitcoin.
The value of banks is this ability to judge credit worthiness and give people who have no bitcoin access to bitcoin. The banks are willing to assume the risk. They are willing to pay interest to people who trust them and deposit bitcoin in banks Obviously, you failed to account for something Something which will render the whole idea of lending bitcoins unrealistic as of now. And it is not Bitcoin depreciation like what you mean with fiat that will make this idea fail. It is the exact opposite of that. I mean possible Bitcoin appreciation. i.e. its price rising. Let's assume a bank offers Bitcoin deposits at 1% and loans bitcoins at 5% interest rates annually. Now it takes collateral at, say, 120% dollar worth of the current Bitcoin price. Someone takes a loan from the bank and provides real collateral (let it be his house). Then Bitcoin price surges a few times within a year, and the borrower happily defaults on his loan buying a better house instead of his collateralized one and still having some bitcoins left in his pockets. But the bank can sell the house only for a part of the bitcoins it loaned out while it still has to pay interest on Bitcoin deposits it attracted, right? And from where will it get the bitcoins outstanding? Actually, I completely agree with you. I can't see anyone borrowing in bitcoins any time soon, so the whole point of bitcoin banks is moot. Still, I think the common sentiment should be 'we wish there were bitcoin banks that make loans to any trustworthy person who needs bitcoin' and of course carry the risk. By the way, the technical side in a volatile market from the bank's point of view is clear. In case of default, the bank would repossess the collateral and sell it for bitcoin, of course. And just like the current system with home values that go up or down, banks would require the owner to hold plenty of equity in his collateral. Banks could make a business of this. But, as you said, no one in his right mind would take on a bitcoin loan if his salary is in fiat and bitcoin is on a rising curve. No banks here. Nothing to see. Move along please. |
|
|
|
|
I keep seeing people say things like "I don't understand why you would put your bitcoin in a bank". I think you are misunderstanding what a bank can do for people.
Most people HAVE NO BITCOIN. Most people do have collateral. A bank is able to judge the credit worthiness of people with collateral and loan them bitcoin. It would be a way to buy a house and have a mortgage denominated in bitcoin.
The value of banks is this ability to judge credit worthiness and give people who have no bitcoin access to bitcoin. The banks are willing to assume the risk. They are willing to pay interest to people who trust them and deposit bitcoin in banks.
Now banks are risky, but that is balanced by enormous value. Consider the biggest risk with banks based on fiat. It is that the central bank will print enough hard currency to debase your money. This can't happen with bitcoin. Each bitcoin bank has to manage its own risks without the expectation of a bailout from the central bank. I bet bitcoin banks will be much more conservative and trustworthy than fiat banks.
I would think the bitcoin community would welcome banks. They would enormously increase the worldwide use of bitcoin and bitcoin value would rise accordingly.
|
|
|
|
I strongly disagree with what the expert says. We still need bank because business borrow money from them as well as ordinary people to purchase their home or even a car. Bitcoin would only be a type of currency that we use to buy.
I completely agree. Everyone seems to forget that the most important thing a bank does is convert one valuable thing, an ability to generate income over time (ex. a company with good products or a man with a good job), into another valuable thing, money, by giving them loans (new money with fractional reserve banking). Bitcoin alone cannot do this. We need banks to judge the credibility of the business or the men that want this new money. By the way, banks can do this with Bitcoin using fractional reserve banking as well. We'd get checking accounts denominated in Bitcoin. This is exactly the same as a Spanish bank in Spain allowing you to open a checking account denominated in dollars. With many such accounts, they would only keep a fraction of their liability in dollars. Fractional reserve banking again. |
|
|
|
I don't believe the banks can be completely wiped out in a moment but I foresee the banks rather investing in bitcoins and gradually replacing them (their fiat) with bitcoins in the future.
They don't need to invest much in Bitcoin. They issue loans nominally in Bitcoin and hand out checkbooks. They don't have to hold the full amount of the checking accounts in Bitcoins, just a fractional reserve. And their loans get paid back in real Bitcoins. Pretty soon they have a lot of Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never make banks disappear. That is impossible. There are only 21 million of bitcoins in the future. That is the maximum amount possible if i am correctly informeted. So if everyone in the world should be paying with bitcoins, we should all have very very very small amounts of bitcoin. That is impossible. I Believe in bitcoin as another value with which you will be able to pay all over the world, as you do with doller, yen, pound, euro or so. All the values will have there own life as now, and nothing is going to disappear.
While I agree that bitcoin is not going to make banks disappear I don't see how the 21 million limit of coins is any problem, does that means the users are going to have very small number of coins? Yes, but bitcoin can be fractioned very easily, after all, it was not long ago someone bought a pizza with tens of thousands of bitcoins. 21 million btc can be broken down into mbtc or satoshi. And if there is a need, it can even be further broken down to meet the rising demand. Trouble is, as of now, too few people hold most Bitcoin. To have Bitcoin increase in value to the point where it can be broken down sufficiently to be used by most of humanity, we would be giving these few initial holders of Bitcoin most of the wealth of the planet. Just won't happen. |
|
|
|
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 https://github.com/keepkey/multibit/issues/661He 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. |
|
|
|
|
"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).
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I have a couple of observations on the Lightning Network. http://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf1. 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 Dave’s 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 Dave’s 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 didn’t 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. I’m not sure what the implication to the Bitcoin network would be if most bitcoins were locked in channels. Interesting stuff to think about. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Mycelium on the Apple App Store today. Seems to work fine now. I was able to send my coins.
Thanks guys!
|
|
|
|
|
Restart didn't work for me either.
iPhone 6 and Mycelium v1.1
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
