Well ..... this isn't correct if you assume most users end up on clients implementing simplified payment verification - which is how Satoshi imagined the network would evolve and I agree that's the likely route (who knows, perhaps even using BitCoinJ as the dominant codebase). An attacker who can dominate the network can make SPV clients believe almost anything. They can create value out of thin air, for example. Running a full node is already kind of painful due to the long initial startup and in future, it'll get even more so as the transaction rate increases.
Wait, if I understood you correctly, this is another issue. You're saying that light-clients may be tricked if their server is compromised. That's true and indeed dangerous, but it has nothing to do with an attacker with more computing power than the honest network of miners. An attacker of this kind has no way of creating more new bitcoins than what the protocol allows, for example. I like the way ByteCoin is exploring alternative voting rules, but any changes to this part of BitCoin frankly scare me. The current rules are very carefully thought out and have been studied over a fairly long period of time now. Changes to it have the potential to introduce complicated new problems nobody anticipated. Frying pan, fire, etc.
Surely. That's why I said a mathematical demonstration of the soundness of the change would be welcome.... but that's for researchers I'd say... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been running successfully for over two years. Honest miners have generated over 120000 blocks. As admitted by Satoshi, if a well funded attacker develops a hashing ASIC or otherwise buys or gains access to >50% of the hashing power (by DDOSing some pools?) then all that honest historical hashing work doesn't matter one bit, Bitcoin belongs to the attacker.
Please, this is exaggerated. Stop propagating fear. Bitcoin would not "belong" to the attacker. The only thing such attacker would be able to do is rewrite recent transaction history, and with that, double-spend. That is: big annoyance + potential to fraud against some victims with bad luck. Ok, it's not good, but it's way less harmful than "Bitcoin belongs to the attacker". Now, about your suggestion, I don't think it'd work. Miners would spend their difficult discount as soon as they can use them on their advantage, meaning they wouldn't cumulate much anyway to resist the attacker. And the attacker could honestly mine for some months before turning rogue. Much easier and straightforward than that, IMHO, would be to periodically mark old blocks. It should be possible to calculate the chances of a honest chain split, and also calculate the probability of a honest split lasting a certain amount of days. For example, I believe that a honest split would never last an entire week, or maybe even much less than that - but it would be nice some math to demonstrate that of course. Suppose it's true. People could agree to, every week, mark the block produced one week in the past. Only chains containing the marked block would be treated as valid. This way, the most the attacker could do is to revert one week of transactions - that would be resent anyway. So this makes politically motivated attacks quite silly. And regarding profit oriented attacks, there wouldn't be much margin for double-spending in this short time window. The costs and risks of getting caught would probably outcome the potential benefits of such fraud. EDIT: Just trying to explain better what I meant, maybe marking once a week was not the right way to say it. The best way to do so is to make block reorganizations that rewrite a number of blocks higher than a constant C illegal. If a node receives a larger block chain which rewrites more than one week of blocks, for ex., it just ignores this longer chain and stick with the shorter one. |
|
|
|
I just don't feel very good about the "Do you want to earn a lot of money?" part.
Sounds a little bit like a scam. And I don't think people should join bitcoin because of the promise of earning 800%
I would focus the campain in other features of bitcoin that are just as awesome as this.
Yeah me too, but still, people do it a lot on these investment-oriented ads. Look at those on bitcoincharts for example. Maybe if they do it it's because it works... :p |
|
|
|
Merci caveden pour ces liens très intéressants et pour ces idées de liberté auquel tous adhèrent.
Pour l'instant, nous n'avons pas trouvé mieux que la démocratie qui impose, par la force, un leader aux minorités. Je vais creuser, mais si tu à une description du système idéal, je suis preneur !
C'est cool que tu t’intéresses, cela me motive à écrire plus. Je n'espère pas te convaincre de rien avec des messages de forum, mais peut-être au moins te fournir un début. Déjà, la démocratie n'est qu'une forme particulier de dictature: la dictature des élus. Les privilèges qui avant étaient réservés à l’aristocratie n'ont pas disparus, ils ont seulement devenus des "privilèges de fonction". Il n'y a pas des garanties que la démocratie est moins mauvaise que d'autres formes de gouvernement. En effet il y a mêmes des contre-exemples: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Singapour... ce ne sont pas vraiment des démocraties et pourtant ses habitants vivent mieux que ceux des pays autour.... Bref... Dans une vraie société libre, n'importe quelle violation du principe de la non-agression doit être vue comme criminelle. Un groupe qui essaye d'imposer des règles arbitraires et des taxations à des innocents doit être vu comme une gangue. Pour que quelque chose soit légitime, elle doit être volontaire. Tous les choses qu'aujourd'hui sont monopolisées par l'état peuvent être faites volontairement. Et la science économique nous permet de comprendre pourquoi cela aurait des mieux résultats que laisser ses monopoles dans les mains d'une institution. Cela ne serait jamais une "société parfaite" ou "sans problèmes", mais si une société ou la structure d'incentives serait la meilleur humainement possible pour que les problèmes existants soient correctement priorisés et traités, selon ce qui veulent les gens (demande) et dans les limites que nous impose la réalité (offre). Il y a beaucoup des textes pour apprendre ces règles économiques, et des explications sur comment certaines choses en particulières pourraient être faites sans initiation de violence. Moi même j'ai une fois eu l’opportunité d'écrire pour l'institut mises brésilien, et j'ai écris sur les lois positives volontaires. Le texte malheureusement est en portugais, voici la traduction automatique. Bien sûr qu'il y a des contenus beaucoup mieux. Par ex., dans cette vidéo, Jacob Spinney essaie d'expliquer comment chaque service important peut être volontaire, des rues/routes à la défense contre des états étrangers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9QLa partie la plus importante c'est quand il explique pourquoi même un état remplie par des anges ne pourrait pas avoir des bons résultats: une institution qui s'utilise de la force pour imposer ses décisions n'est pas soumise au mécanisme de pertes et profits et justement pour cela, n'a pas les moyens de prendre des bonnes décisions - même si tous ses intégrants voulaient le faire, ce qui est une hypothèse irréaliste déjà. Cette institution va inévitablement gaspiller des ressources. Spinney aurait peut-être dû dépenser plus d'effort dans cette explication que dans tous les tentatives de "prévoir le futur", mais bref, la vidéo est pas mal quand même. En plus de ça il y a pas mal des livres et sites... un site que je recommande est le Mises Institute ( www.mises.org). La Reason Magazine n'est pas mal non plus, et ils ont un canal youtube (ReasonTV) avec des nouvelles vidéos fréquentes. Les français du forum pourraient peut-être te recommander des sites francophones du même type. J'ai trop écris là... je vais me tenir. Par définition une mafia ne peut pas "solidaire". Tien donc, quelle définition ? On n’a décidément pas le même point de vue. De toute façon, l'état n'ayant rien de secret, il ne peut être comparé à une mafia. Les mafias t'obligent à payer pour la 'sécurité' - la sécurité contre eux mêmes. [  ] |
|
|
|
|
This is really nice of you MemoryDealers!
Have you considered accepting bitcoins for your business and announcing that? It would be great advertising both for bitcoin and for you...
|
|
|
|
Solidarité qui est et devrait être incarné par l'état, sa seule fonction.
Par définition une mafia ne peut pas "solidaire". La solidarité doit être volontaire, sinon ce n'est que du vol. L'état ne fait que voler des innocents et distribuer le bilan à ceux qui lui convient. Donner le même pouvoir à chacun s'appelle l'anarchie ou la loi du plus fort
La "loi du plus fort" c'est précisément le système où nous vivons aujourd'hui. N'importe où dans le monde, il y a toujours un groupe armé beaucoup plus fort que tous les autres, qui impose ses règles arbitraires à tous les habitants du territoire en question. Je te conseil regarder cette petite présentation sur les droits naturels (l'éthique). Évidement qu'en 10 min elle va pas fournir tous les bases logiques de l'éthique, mais elle est très bonne quand même: http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction-french.swfEt si tu veux connaitre ces bases logiques: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe11.html |
|
|
|
Maintenant que je comprends un peu mieux le principe de cette monnaie, je crains qu'elle retire du pouvoir aux états pour se précipiter vers une société encore plus libérale.
"Encore plus libérale"? Et où est-ce que tu vois une société libérale? N'importe où, au monde entier, les états gagnent du pouvoir, augmentent leur tailles, leur dépenses, leur dettes, leur guerres... Les pays qui ne sont pas déjà sous un gouvernent totalitaire deviennent de plus en plus victimes du corporatisme, cette alliance entre le gros état et les grosses entreprises. L'assistencialisme à la romaine (pain et cirque) est pratiqué partout, de plus en plus - la France étant un très grand exemple de cette pratique. Liberté, où? Peut-être à l'exception récente des pays arabes, je ne vois pas. Et même dans ces pays, je crains ce qui peut leur arriver dans un système démocratique. Bref, oui, tu as bien compris. Bitcoin peut être utile pour enlever le pouvoir des gros états et des grands banquiers qui se bénéficient des "générosités" de l'état, du monopole de la monnaie et de la cartellisation provoquée par la banque centrale. Et c'est bien cella qui m'a attiré à ce projet - en plus de ça génie technique, bien évidemment. |
|
|
|
How do you argue against IP if you stand by that point anyways? If all forms are of either energy, matter, or both, and that energy and matter are equivalent, then intellect is as much of a property as anything else.
Simple. You own a piece of wood. You shape it into a chair and it stills belongs to you. The only thing you applied upon it is work.
I own my brain. I formulate a design with it. By your standards, it belongs to me.
Yes, you may claim that the "waves in your brain" or whatever are the result of your work done with your property (body) and therefore belongs to you. It's a weird claim but philosophically speaking it seems ok. But if in the use of your property you cause consequences to my property, you have no right whatsoever to claim that my property now belongs to you. For ex., if in the use of your legitimate creation you produce sound waves - which could still be considered yours - that hit my brain or my recorder, you're causing a (positive) externality to my property. Unless we had some sort of contract, that doesn't give you any right over what's mine. The closest way you could voluntarily simulate IP is by using contracts. But for someone to be submitted to a contract he must have had agreed on it, and that's is the greatest problem with IP. If person A produces something and releases it to person B under some contractual rules, but B ignores such rules and passes such content to person C, person A has no recourse against C, only against B. Calling a thief someone that downloads movies or music via p2p is plain calumny. |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations, you've managed to scare the guy before he receives any serious, concrete threat. Nice job spreading fear.
|
|
|
|
This whole story is just too much. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. How come you kill Bin Laden and you get rid of the body  Imagine if some armed group came by before it and said "Hey, we have killed Bin Laden! We had to get rid of the body immediately after to avoid complications, but yeah, we did kill him! Where is our $25 million reward?" Could anyone take such group seriously? Because Obama is doing the exact same thing, only that he wishes better poll results instead of $25m. |
|
|
|
Is there actually any proof he is really dead?
I ask the same question. Not that it's easy to fake such a thing, but still, if he was really killed, shouldn't there be evidences like videos and pictures at least? Has any been released to the media? If they take too long to release anything that will remain suspicious. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoinex,
I hope it was just misunderstood sarcasm and you really aren't behind such a childish action.
And using the opportunity, if you want to know why MtGox is much more successful than your site: your fees are too high!
At least last time I checked they were above 3% while MtGox was below 1%.
Have you considered a fixed fee per transaction? That would attract all the large sums of money to your exchange, making it have maybe even more volume than MtGox. Actually, constant fees make more sense than relative ones, as the costs of the exchange site don't really change concerning the amount of value but rather the amount of transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess recent articles on TIME and Forbes might justify a good part of the rally.
|
|
|
|
The "point" of currency is to deny people the necessities of life. free market No such thing. The only alternative is violence. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't managed to read the entire topic, so sorry if I'm repeating somebody else. But I saw some people worried with the need to pay higher fees in order to have more security.
Please understand that now, with this high inflation phase bitcoin is going through, every bitcoin holder is already paying a lot in the form of inflation-fee to have the network secured. The thing is that, as politicians have long found out, inflation is not easily perceived. But you do pay for it.
So, even if the fees go up, I hardly think they will ever be comparable to something like 50% annual inflation. Individually, we are probably paying much more expensively right now for network security than we will pay in the future when more people join, even if we have to pay more transactions fees.
Regarding the psychological effect - people being less inclined to join bitcoin due to the visible transaction fees annoying them more than the "invisible" inflation-fees we have now -, it could be avoided by letting the transaction fees to be payed mostly by the banks. Actually, that's how I think it will work.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, I don't think it's time to remove anything from any site, not at least while the site owner hasn't been threatened by any government agency of his jurisdiction.
When that day comes, I think the best policy would be then to disassociate completely with every site, not only illegal ones. The more the bitcoin project grows, the less need I see in a trade page being hosted by the project site. You don't see paypal linking to every merchant that accepts paypal payments on their site...
But of course, all this is my opinion, which doesn't mean anything. It's up to the site owners to decide.
|
|
|
|
My point of view is government is a criminal organization, so I don't like it very much. Just like I wouldn't like if Bitcoin developers went to talk about it with other organized thieves, kidnappers and murderers. I think Bitcoin should be promoted more among honest people, who trade drugs, weapons, voluntary porn of any kind and so on, not among criminals gangs.
hahaha, I couldn't have said it better. But well, putting principles aside and thinking practically, Gavin took the right decision I guess. You can't always run away from criminal gangs, specially such a powerful one. |
|
|
|
|
Holy-Fire, you shouldn't be frequenting these "inherently immoral forums". Delete your account, go to the nearest church to confess/purify and don't ever come back here. Your imaginary friend is watching you!
|
|
|
|
If talking to them makes y'all trust me less... then good! I'd like to see more careful code review
Now that's a good attitude. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
