Bitcoin Forum
March 01, 2015, 04:27:13 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  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 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... on: February 11, 2015, 05:15:34 PM
I just wanted to point out that Monetas / Open-Transactions is working on a solution that eliminates the need to trust third parties.

What? With Bitcoin, you already don't need to trust a third party. Why would this be different?

Sure you do. You need to trust MtGox and Bitstamp when you want to do market trading. And as this thread shows, you will soon need to do off-chain just for normal transactions (as a result of the 1mb limit.)
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... on: February 11, 2015, 11:56:55 AM
Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... if you are a bank.  Those favoring a permanent 1MB cap saying that Bitcoin can still be a financial backbone of sorts they don't know how right they are.  The problem isn't a limit in general but that 1MB is so low that under any meaningful adoption scenario it will push all individual users off the blockchain to rely on trusted third parties. 1MB is useless for end user direct access but is sufficient for a inter-"bank" settlement network.

...

Conclusion
The blockchain permanently restricted to 1MB is great if you are a major bank looking to co-opt the network for a next generation limited trust settlement network between major banks, financial service providers, and payment processors.   It is a horrible idea if you even want to keep open the possibility that individuals will be able to participate in that network without using a trusted third party as an intermediary.

I just wanted to point out that Monetas / Open-Transactions is working on a solution that eliminates the need to trust third parties.

So the bulk of transactions could move off-chain to Monetas notary servers, and a notary would be unable to steal the coins, and would be unable to falsify receipts or change balances without a user's permission.

With the vast majority of transactions occurring safely off-chain on Monetas notaries, any user would still be able to perform on-chain transactions when necessary -- it would just be a lot more rare, and would usually consist of a transfer from one voting pool to another.

So keep your 1mb limit if you want, it will definitely benefit Monetas.
3  Economy / Speculation / Re: sidechains discussion on: January 01, 2015, 09:26:14 PM
Just making sure this doesn't get lost in the mix:

Quote from: justusranvier
I think this concern could be minimised if the soft fork needed to support sidechains was part of a larger clarification of the Bitcoin protocol development process.

If there was a clear process that explained what kinds of changes to the protocol are acceptable, and what kinds are not, combined with a development roadmap and a transparent sequence of steps for adding things to it, I think there would be less reason for Bitcoin users to worry about Blockstream and sidechains.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this.

Clearly it could only be for the benefit of Bitcoin.

And it would assuage any/all concerns.

So... ?
4  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: January 01, 2015, 06:53:41 AM
Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?

Seems like a good time for me to chime in here. Maybe a year ago I used to hear this sort of thing about Ripple, that somehow Ripple and Monetas were competitors. But we are not, since our software does different things. This will become much more evident as our software rolls out.

The same is true of Blockstream. If you generalize enough, you can find some sort of overlap and then assume we must be competitors. But the reality is that no one else is building what Monetas is building, and no one else will be able to do the things that our software does.

That's nothing negative on Blockstream, it's just different -- that's all. Anyone who thinks there is competition between us lacks an understanding of what we're building and how we plan to monetize it.

I welcome Blockstream's entry into this space and I think alt-coins are the ones most concerned about what they represent.

------------------------------------------

re: Justus, Adam Back

The reason Monetas contracted Justus to help us build the voting pools is because he is a Bitcoin purist. Justus keeps us honest. And I think that is the same role he is playing here in this thread. Bitcoin is his highest value.

And I think what Justus is saying is, that a framework needs to be developed for any changes to Bitcoin. I think he's right that it's not good enough for changes merely to be "open source, open IP." There is a potential conflict of interest, and there is an easy way to put any concerns to rest.

Justus said it best:

Quote
I think this concern could be minimised if the soft fork needed to support sidechains was part of a larger clarification of the Bitcoin protocol development process.

If there was a clear process that explained what kinds of changes to the protocol are acceptable, and what kinds are not, combined with a development roadmap and a transparent sequence of steps for adding things to it, I think there would be less reason for Bitcoin users to worry about Blockstream and sidechains.

I really don't think that's much to ask. Do you, Adam?

I think Adam is a good guy with good intentions. Certainly he deserves respect -- he has earned it. All around. He's a brilliant guy and he's been working for good for a long time. We all owe him our thanks at the very least for his invention of hashcash, his work at Zero Knowledge, etc. And I know Justus can be blunt; Adam has been very graceful in this thread.

Yet it is true that Monetas is not asking for any forks in the Bitcoin protocol. Blockstream is. That's why these questions are being raised. There is an easy way to put them to rest.
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. on: September 21, 2014, 02:08:31 PM
Just noticed there is some activity in this thread, so I wanted to answer these questions...

Quote from: sukrim
So ~1.5 years later... what exactly is still missing that OpenTransactions can finally take off?

Open-Transactions itself is fully-functional.

What's still missing is the voting pools (using multi-sig to prevent the OT server from stealing any Bitcoins transacted there.)

However, Monetas is hard at work building the voting pools...
You can read updates on the Monetas blog: http://monetas.net/blog/

Design info for voting pools has started popping up on the OT wiki: http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Voting_Pool_Deposit_Process

Once voting pools are ready, it should "take off," as you say. It will take a few more months.

Quote from: mere-mortal
If you look at some of the videos on OpenTransactions, FellowT mentions that different encryption methods can be used for messaging and Bitmessage is one being used, at least that is my understanding

Here's the latest video update: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJKWDC4q5rA

As you can see from the video, we are agnostic to the exact transport method, with Bitmessage being only the first integration.

However, Bitmessage is now fully-integrated and working in the Moneychanger desktop client! (As of the past couple months, as shown in the video.)

Now that we have Bitmessage integrated, we can start adding the features described in this thread, such as cross-server discovery for trading, legacy bank integration, etc. (And of course, the Bazaar feature.)

Quote from: mere-mortal
Fair enough, and I am not here to compare either. I believe there is more to OT than you say, and its Bazaar feature is what I am talking about, which is to market and sell physical products. Using multisig and bitmessage.

To be clear: Bitmessage is not integrated into OT itself. Rather, it's integrated in the Moneychanger desktop client.

Similarly, the Bazaar will not be built into OT itself. Rather, it's now being built into the Moneychanger desktop client. Here is some of the design info: http://opentransactions.org/forum/index.php?topic=3821.0

The basic concept is to have decentralized markets for goods and services, sort of like e-Bay, except without the server. Like a P2P version of e-Bay.

To whatever degree we have inspired any other projects, that's great! Let's change the world.
6  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Holy Grail BOUNTY on: August 06, 2014, 01:19:39 AM
I should mention that the above video has resulted in an article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/08/04/bitbeat-crypto-innovators-find-fertile-ground-in-soft-touch-switzerland/
7  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Holy Grail BOUNTY on: July 31, 2014, 11:27:09 AM
NEWS ITEMS:

-- I've moved to Switzerland!

-- See our new update video, including Bitmessage and Bitcoin integrations:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJKWDC4q5rA&feature=youtu.be

-- It's time to pay out some bounties, which I'll be doing over the next couple days. (Huzzah!)

-- The new video also shows screenshots for Monetas' new Android app. Check 'em out!

-- Don't miss this music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMQg546agpU
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. on: June 04, 2014, 03:26:27 PM
http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20130606055250338000&ident=M100V137&chksum=a2a9d6d5

It appears that all the funds have been removed and *nothing has happened with this project for months*.

So unless I am led to believe otherwise then I will be closing it off at the end of this week.

Actually this project has been worked on continually, even up until today, as you can see in the commit history:

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Moneychanger/commits/develop

We have a lot of new features added, and an announcement is overdue. For example, Namecoin and Bitmessage have been integrated. I've been in the middle of a move to Switzerland, and busy with the Bitmessage integration, so I want to get that tested up and make a new video before I post a big update here to this thread.

As for the funds, they are still all there, I just moved them to a separate address out of concern for security. The amount was sitting on my desktop and was making me nervous, so I moved it to a paper wallet.

Pls just leave the project on CIYAM for now, and soon I will get in there and update the CIYAM page. Lots of the sub-bounties can be closed and paid out, and I will slip in new addresses for the bounties that remain, so the funds can be visible again. Lots of progress going on lately!
9  Other / Off-topic / Re: Open Transactions Blog on: May 13, 2014, 09:11:39 AM
Escrow contract (with 3rd party arbitration.)

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/scripts/smartcontracts/escrow/escrow.otc


Two-way trade contract (similar, much simpler -- only 2 parties.)

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/scripts/smartcontracts/two_way_trade/trade.otc

10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Has anyone integrated an alt-chain with Open Transactions yet? on: January 30, 2014, 08:50:48 PM
There are only two ways to use a blockchain-based currency in OT:

1. Trust an issuer to hold the coins, and then he issues the corresponding units inside OT. Markm's OT server is doing this now. This is the same as if he was holding gold, or dollars, etc.

2. Eliminate the issuer by putting the coins into a multi-sig voting pool. We are working on this now and should have the code ready soon. Note that this will only work with blockchains that support multi-sig.

Can miners be issuers?  Or mining pools would act as issuers?

FYI, mining pools have nothing to do with voting pools. Totally separate concepts.

You can ignore the concept of mining pools for the purposes of this discussion.

Quote
Or is this more like, somebody sets up an issuer that acts like a local exchanger, you send your mined coins to them, and they send you the OT tradeable units.  You are trusting them to be your reserve bank.

This is correct. The issuer is the guy you trust to hold your gold, and issue tradeable units in return. You are trusting him to return the gold to you, when you return the tradeable units to him.

(This is why I prefer #2 over #1 -- because I want to eliminate the need to use a trusted issuer.)

Quote
With #2, once you do this, can you then trade and perform transactions with the coins in the voting pool, or do you still need to convert them into tradeable units?

The whole point of putting the coins into the voting pool, is so they can be safely stored, so that when the server gives you tradeable units, you are able to use the tradeable units, without having to trust the server with your actual coins.

So yes, there are tradeable units, the same as in (1) -- the only difference is, you don't have to trust the server not to steal your coins.

See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teNzIFu5L70&feature=youtu.be

Also, this article:  http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/12/voting-pools-how-to-stop-plague-of.html

Quote
Also for #2, does this require a bitcoin-based blockchain, or does it only require a multi-signature interface that you could have a different type of blockchain behind?

Technically speaking, this will work with any blockchain that supports multi-sig.

Quote
Last question for now - so is there one OTX P2P network, that everyone using OTX will connect to?  To facilitate trades between assets I might define, and assets somebody else might define.

OT is federated, meaning:  many servers, many clients, and each client talks to many servers. A server is not an authority over a client, but a cloud commodity.

OT (the library) is not P2P itself, but OT clients will be integrated with P2P networks for various purposes. For example, the upcoming Bitmessage integration into the OT desktop GUI will allow clients to discover other clients for various purposes such as price discovery, wiring, legacy bank integration, etc. In that case, Bitmessage acts as the P2P layer -- but notice it's just incorporated into the same application that OT is, versus being directly integrated into OT itself. (Which would be unnecessary.)
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Has anyone integrated an alt-chain with Open Transactions yet? on: January 29, 2014, 11:25:01 AM
There are only two ways to use a blockchain-based currency in OT:

1. Trust an issuer to hold the coins, and then he issues the corresponding units inside OT. Markm's OT server is doing this now. This is the same as if he was holding gold, or dollars, etc.

2. Eliminate the issuer by putting the coins into a multi-sig voting pool. We are working on this now and should have the code ready soon. Note that this will only work with blockchains that support multi-sig.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations on: January 16, 2014, 08:47:15 PM
Yeah, I believe that's what fellowtraveller is saying too, but really I wonder. It seems a kind of immature approach.

Besides, they won't like/believe anyone saying Bitcoin will destroy the dollar.

This was my point. They would never believe that the fiat empire will be destroyed. It's just completely outside of the realm of reality to them.

But they do feel a little funny about AML/KYC, so why not offer that to them? And they have recently voiced fears about losing the unit of account, so why not offer them a way to fix it? "Dollarcoin"! "Eurocoin"! This will be perfect in their eyes. They know that banks suck, and that new technology is coming out, but they want to preserve the dollar / euro. Colored coins give them a way to do these things.

What I say about colored coins isn't said in the spirit of deception. It's more in the spirit of "they would never believe us anyway, so why not offer them what they currently think they want?"

The reality is, cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The fiat empire is doomed. It is too late to change anything about that now. But they will never believe that, will they? In the meantime, let's give them what they want so we can get what we want. It will be easier for everyone.

If they ever think that could happen, they will kill Bitcoin in 1 day.

And how do you propose they will do that, the same way they killed Bittorrent?

Heck, some NSA guys are probably reading this right now and surely they're smart enough to know what's going on.

"Government" is not some giant monolithic person. It's a sea of competing interests and agencies, all composed of individuals with their own priorities.

"NSA" is not the same as "the banks." Likely the NSA doesn't really give a shit (at all) about the priorities of the banks. Most of them are probably good people who just want to protect the country. Many of them are probably like Edward Snowden -- remember where he was working?

The priority of the NSA is data collection, data mining, and systems penetration. (Not controlling the unit-of-account of our money system.)
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations on: January 15, 2014, 02:30:28 PM
Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

Hey Chris -

Don't get me wrong - I respect the work you are doing with the OT concept. However, I fear you might be looking at the problem from too far back with your OT lenses. I really don't feel like offering up any bone is going to accomplish anything here. What's more, what bone _could_ be offered? Will Bitcoin, the base protocol, sprout colored coin garb? I think the chances are remote. We could offer up the next layer, but to what end? Distraction?

Maybe I'm just missing your point. What do you hope to accomplish, and how?

Currently anything Bitcoin-related has trouble getting a bank account.

Authorities fear losing control over the unit-of-account, and losing KYC/AML control.

Colored coins give authorities a way to support blockchain technology while preserving their unit of account. (Since colored coins are denominated in dollars, euros, etc) Also they will feel they can control the in/out process since the colored coin issuers will be KYC/AML compliant when sending/receiving bank wires.

This gives authorities incentive to allow colored-coin issuers to maintain bank accounts.

===> Once this is in place, we have many capabilities as a result:

-- Exchanges can operate anonymously and beyond any state control. To have an exchange, you must be able to trade one asset for another, such as dollars for Bitcoins. Therefore we become able to do this without having to send bank wires to the exchange. Instead, we just move Bitcoins and colored coins in/out of the exchange. (Exchange needs no bank account.) That way we can trade Bitcoins for dollars, say, yet without ever having to wire dollars in/out of the exchange. Therefore the exchange itself is now free of AML/KYC and free of the banking system in general. Exchanges can operate anonymously.

-- There is still AML/KYC when dealing with the issuer -- but most users will never have to deal with the issuer, since they can just buy/sell the colored coins from each other. The only users who will ever have to deal with banking regulations will be the ones who wire funds directly to the colored coin issuer -- but most users will never have to do that.

-- Thus: Exchanges free of the banking system.

-- And: Most users free of the banking system.


14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations on: January 14, 2014, 11:10:19 PM
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/13/digital-economy-task-force
"Bitcoin, Tor and Gates Foundation join task force to prevent child exploitation"

I feel like you all actually believe what you're saying which is sad beyond belief.
You didn't quote the most interesting parts.

Quote
The Task Force, which launched in August, is not solely focused on child exploitation. It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement. It was launched off the back of a report by Thomson Reuters Fraud Prevention and Investigation unit about digital currency laundering.

The report detailed how criminal and terrorist organisations have turned to digital currency to reap profits from drug trafficking, prostitution and the dissemination of child abuse images.

Steve Rubley, managing director, Government Segment for the Legal business of Thomson Reuters points out that the digital economy provides a plethora of new opportunities and is central to how business is conducted but there are also "dark corners" where drug cartels can easily launder money and human sex traffickers operate in near obscurity.

The Task Force will include the Bitcoin Foundation, The Tor Project, Trend Micro, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cato Institute, The Brookings Institute, the US Agency for International Development and Vital Voices. The group will educate the public and work collaboratively across stakeholder groups including government agencies, law enforcement, academia, NGOs and industry.

A statement released by Thomson Reuters and ICMEC said: "The approach will be a balanced view of both the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the digital economy -- a place where people can enjoy the convenience of digital currencies, but where there are controls in place to regulate them like any other form of money."

This may be the most disturbing thing I've read all year. Especially these:

"It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement."

"The approach will be a balanced view of both the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the digital economy -- a place where people can enjoy the convenience of digital currencies, but where there are controls in place to regulate them like any other form of money."

Where can I read more about this on the Bitcoin Foundation website, are there any further details on the plans for this? Please post URLs anyone, if there's anything relevant. (If not, that's even scarier.)

Gavin, in case you are listening, here's my two cents for your CFR meeting: The rulers in high places are aware of Bitcoin by this point at its potential, and they recognize that the awful service provided by banks is leading inevitably to a shake-up that's going to involve technological improvements based on digital currencies. They accept this. Therefore their next step is going to be a slow noose-tightening. They will act incrementally.

Their number-one concern will be to protect their control over the unit-of-account. Their secondary concern will be protecting KYC/AML. I suggest you take advantage of this and get them on board with colored coins. You can point out to them that dollar-coin, euro-coin, rupee-coin, etc will enable them to protect their control over the unit of account, while simultaneously giving users the other benefits of cryptocurrency technology. Also point out to them that they will continue to have KYC/AML control if they do this, since colored coin issuers will have to by KYC/AML compliant when dealing with bank wires in/out.

I think offering them a way to control the unit-of-account and preserve KYC/AML will be tempting enough that they will see this as an acceptable scenario, which will hopefully make it possible to drop bank opposition to Bitcoin businesses and especially bank opposition to colored coin issuers.

I have reasons for saying this. In fact it will only help us if this happens, by eliminating problems with Bitcoin businesses and colored coin issuers being able to maintain bank accounts. We can obtain this by offering the illusion of control, but for them it will only be a pyrrhic victory. (They will not be able to believe that though, and will be seduced.) The truth is, the cryptocurrency epoch has come. With the above pieces in place, Lex Cryptographia will be a foregone conclusion. (It is anyway, but this will only make it easier.)
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. on: January 07, 2014, 01:48:55 AM
Am I correct in understanding that MC is dependent on OT? If so is OT ready for prime time, can anyone set up an OT server?  Where would one start if they wanted to try? What sort of hardware would be required?

Newbie questions, I know, but I need to start somewhere.  Embarrassed  How does a newbie like myself make a positive contribution, or do I just sit and wait.

BTW, I'm nobody's Grandmother, but I am a Grandfather. I would be more than happy to be a usability guinea pig, should someone need one.  Wink

I will probably never say that OT is "ready for prime time" since, working in crypto-systems, I am extremely conservative and paranoid.

We've done a lot of testing over the past four years, but I want to do more. We've done some static/dynamic analysis, but I want to do more. We've had the code open-source for years, but I still want to pay experts to audit the code. Monetas is starting on some QA but that will be an ongoing process.

We are just now getting to the point where the Desktop app is usable, and even then we need install programs before normal users can access it. (I've been testing an install of the Mac version, but don't have an install ready yet for Windows/Linux.)

If you want to start playing with it, there's a bit of a learning curve on the server side. The first thing I would do is get a Mac or Linux system and then build OT on it:
http://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions

Once you have it built, I would copy the sample data over:

mkdir ~/.ot
cp -R Open-Transactions/sample-data/ot-sample-data/* ~/.ot

Then you can start the server: otserver

Then you can use the command-line client. You can also use the desktop client if you want to build it:
http://github.com/Open-Transactions/Moneychanger

I have a Mac install of that desktop client, and some testers have access to it, though we will make it more accessible to others soon. We still need to make install programs for Windows/Linux but it shouldn't be too hard.

Once you are comfortable using OT with the sample data, the next step would be to create your own server contract. To get started doing that, just erase the sample data and run otserver with no data. It should walk you through the process of setting up your own server (it's no picnic.)
16  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Holy Grail BOUNTY on: January 06, 2014, 10:03:06 AM
Is this a windows only (systray) bounty offer?

I need to update the bounty on the Ciyam site. (Soon.)

The basic GUI is already done, as is the markets screen. (See the above recent videos to see it in action.)

The namecoin integration is done but hasn't yet been merged back into the main branch.

The Bitcoin integration is partially done.

I believe lclc is working on the HTTP interface already and has the API working through the HTTP interface.

dansmith is still working on the legacy bank integration.

===> The Bitmessage integration hasn't been done yet, perhaps we can discuss you doing that one if you wish.

The application was coded in Qt/C++ and runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows.
17  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Holy Grail BOUNTY on: January 06, 2014, 05:33:39 AM
Quote from: gogodr
There is one problem I didn't get clear with the videos.
If it is decentralized and the servers can't change people's balance, how will someone put dollars into the system?

Let's say my balance is 40 clams.

Then I make a transaction request:

----BEGIN SIGNED TRANSACTION---
===> My current balance is 40 clams.
===> Please send 10 clams to Bob.
===> My new balance will be 30 clams.
---END SIGNED TRANSACTION-----

The server merely verifies and counter-signs. It cannot forge transactions because it doesn't have your private key. It cannot change your balance because your "balance" is just whatever appears on the most recent receipt.

So the server CAN show balance changes -- it just can't initiate them (the user has to initiate them.)

That's all SEPARATE from how dollars get into the system. There are multiple ways that can be done:

1. Have a dollar issuer who is trusted to hold the dollars. Give him dollars, and he gives you dollar units (and vice-versa.) This would work with or without colored coins.

2. Assuming you have that, you can also buy/sell those units from any other user (not just from the issuer.)

3. OR: Create a dollar-based currency where agents provide in/out and post BTC-based bonds to secure that service. That way you don't have some trusted central issuer holding the dollars -- instead you have the dollars stored at the edge nodes, with the reserves stored as Bitcoin in a multi-sig voting pool. This is the Lex Cryptographia idea (google it.)

4. OR: Just store the reserves as Bitcoin directly, in a voting pool, and then buy/sell them using real-world dollars. That way you have dollar in/out functionality, without trusting anyone to hold any dollars (as in 3.) The currency is Bitcoin-based, instead of dollar-based, however. But you can still "move dollars in/out" so it's worth mentioning. The only reason to do (3) instead of (4) is so you can trade dollars against Bitcoins on markets.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Open Transactions for Grandma on: January 05, 2014, 08:55:46 AM
I have tried it on Fedora 17 and on Fedora 19.

Fedora might maybe have some kind of problem with the concept of a "system tray", which seems to be a mac and/or windows concept.

However, it might be the case that more grandmas use windows or mac than use various types of Linux? (Is Android a type of Linux?) so maybe that is okay?

FellowTraveler basically just says Fedora must be using a broken windowing system or something.

1. We have many users on Linux who are able to use it just fine -- it's not a problem with Linux.

2. Google this:  "system tray" broken on Fedora.

Notice all the complaints and bug reports related to this issue on Fedora. (For other apps, like Dropbox, Skype, etc.)

3. Google these:
   A. solved "system tray" fedora
   B how to fix "system tray" fedora

(You can see there are many various solutions for this as well.)


"The missing system tray icons in Fedora 19 Gnome3"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974937

"System Tray: You know that nice thing in the bottom right of your screen that you think even the dumbest fool couldn't break? They broke it."
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/230255/alan-cox-fedora-18-the-worst-red-hat-distro-switches-to-ubuntu

"Once installing Fedora 19 Desktop Edition, I run the systray of Qt Example. But I could not look for the system tray icon. There is no Notification area in the Activities overview."
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17460705/the-missing-system-tray-icons-on-fedora-19-desktop-edition

"I know that Gnome and Canonical have a thing for dismissing the importance of the system tray, but hiding it in such an arcane manner is just plain stupid."
http://spiralinear.org/forum/discussion/1048/gnome-3-6-review-fedora-18-approaching-maturity-but-still-has-major-issues-ahead/p1

"Hi everyone. I'm having some difficulties when i minimize a program to tray (system tray). Everytime i did it the icon that should be at the tray simply does not appear."
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/question/9302/minimize-to-tray/

"Gnome3 system tray not working."
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=166346

"Gnome 3 system tray area not working"
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1044335

"I just installed Ubuntu 12.04 and after sorting out some other problems, I now have this problem; No system tray for HPLIP. running Gnome, rebooted quite a few times, so this problem is new."
http://linuxforums.org.uk/index.php?topic=10323.0

"Most of the extensions should just work, but they donít, because GNOME Shell extensions are broken by design. Let me count the ways:"
http://sc3d.tumblr.com/post/34163672571/gnome-3-extensions-the-madness-must-end

"I have a weird problem. Icons in tray area are just disappeared"
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1044322

"i think gnome15 is installed because my keyboard lights are red [they are always blue if its not working] but unfortunatly i can't see system tray"
http://www.russo79.com/forum/gnome-15/support-and-answers/184

"Tried all possible ways to give visibility to tray icons"
http://askubuntu.com/questions/136733/some-system-tray-icons-invisible-in-gnome-classic-12-04

--------------------------------------------------------

MarkM:

I think the problem is that Gnome may have put the systray into an extension.

We discussed this on IRC previously -- have you installed the systray extension?

I recommend you get a windowing system that works but otherwise you might try the extensions, such as:

https://extensions.gnome.org/review/1591

--------------------------------------------------------

P.S. most Linux users do not have this problem. lclc, randy, da2ce7, and others have not reported any problems, so it's not specific to Linux. And of course the problem doesn't occur on Mac or Windows either.

19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Open Transactions for Grandma on: January 04, 2014, 10:04:23 PM
I have tried it on Fedora 17 and on Fedora 19.

Fedora might maybe have some kind of problem with the concept of a "system tray", which seems to be a mac and/or windows concept.

However, it might be the case that more grandmas use windows or mac than use various types of Linux? (Is Android a type of Linux?) so maybe that is okay?

FellowTraveler basically just says Fedora must be using a broken windowing system or something.

1. We have many users on Linux who are able to use it just fine -- it's not a problem with Linux.

2. Google this:  "system tray" broken on Fedora.

Notice all the complaints and bug reports related to this issue on Fedora. (For other apps, like Dropbox, Skype, etc.)

3. Google these:
   A. solved "system tray" fedora
   B how to fix "system tray" fedora

(You can see there are many various solutions for this as well.)
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Holy Grail! I wish I could kiss the author of Bitmessage on his face. on: January 04, 2014, 12:06:42 AM
fellowtraveler,

I see you're speaking at the Miami conference in a couple of weeks. Will you be discussing the technical details of OT during your talk? If not, would you consider a mini breakout session?

I suppose I could do a breakout session. I'll be walking around for a few days answering questions anyway I'm sure.

I suggest also checking out the wiki, the videos, etc.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »
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!