p.s. you do have a big screen @cypher, don't you?  no, i use a laptop. it's all about being detail oriented and an insatiable thirst for obtaining as much knowledge as possible to get a good sense of the Big Picture. unlike tvbcof, and others, who come here to vomit on this thread once in a while after returning from the fields from humping little dogs (he is a little dog afterall). I've no doubt about your thirst for knowledge, I was referring to your habit of posting hi-res screenshots without resizing or using img tag "with" property, though |
|
|
|
also doesn't explain the Peter Todd debate reference from someone.
It seems I've missed this one. Care to share a pointer? |
|
|
|
so what the hell is this all about and how does this correlate with what somewhat else said the other day about Adam backing out of the SC debate with Peter Todd?
from Adam's twitter stream: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/556462951507714049Apologies to @btcusa & TNABC attendees: late cancel due to hospital visit of family member. All ok, but couldn't travel under circumstances.
p.s. you do have a big screen @cypher, don't you? That's too convenient, it sounds like a weak excuse to me. Could be anything, of course. As general rule I tend to apply Occam's razor, though. |
|
|
|
so what the hell is this all about and how does this correlate with what somewhat else said the other day about Adam backing out of the SC debate with Peter Todd?  from Adam's twitter stream: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/556462951507714049Apologies to @btcusa & TNABC attendees: late cancel due to hospital visit of family member. All ok, but couldn't travel under circumstances.
p.s. you do have a big screen @cypher, don't you? |
|
|
|
it has already been coded.
secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput.
PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum.
Do you have some kind of white paper? Is it an open source project?Do you have some kind of white paper? NO Is it an open source project? maybe yes, maybe no. the pt is, is it secure and does it make sense economically? Maybe it's me but I thought it was a marcus_of_augustus's project, are you involved? (It seems so from your answers) for some, it may make sense economically as they will be willing to take the risk. that's fine. i can't stop ppl from making risky, if not downright stupid, decisions with their money.
but what i can try to prevent is "institutionalizing" risky protocol changes (spvp) that benefits a specific for-profit company at the expense of a public good, ie, Bitcoin as Sound Money. yesterday's CHF decision should continue to highlight what i feel is Bitcoins greater purpose; that of replacing gold with a digital equivalent. if Bitcoin is based on consensus, i sure won't ever be giving my consent to implementing spvp as i think it sends the wrong message to global markets that a self interested group can change the rules in the middle of the game.
I asked those quests precisely to understand and evaluate the project, based on the fact that it's not based on side chains. And ironically bitcoin *is* based on consensus, this statement is so true that we don't even know if an alternative to bitcoin core is possible without risking forking the chain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923409.0Edit: s/butcoin/bitcoin :-) |
|
|
|
Cypher (or someone who feels like they can properly explain it): can you please ELI5 why sidechains will break the incentive mechanism? I haven't been able to follow this thread as well as I used to.
I think (cypher can correct me) its because taking transactions off (main)chain reduces fee-based income for miners. When the block reward dwindles after several halving that is their only incentive to mine. If they have no incentive, then they will not mine, the network will become more vulnerable. eh ok, there must be some way to count off chain transactions and then credit the miners appropriately. I'm not saying this would be a trivial change, but this scenario is probably 10 years away minimum and I find it fairly difficult to believe that there is no way to get around this between now and then. it has already been coded. secure, cheap, off-chain tx is a solved problem. SC or max block size increases are not needed for increasing max TX throughput. PM me if you are genuinely interested and not just shooting the breeze on a forum. Do you have some kind of white paper? Is it an open source project? |
|
|
|
as peter todd already said: "Daily BTC tx volume will hit all time next monday, if someone gives me a few hundred dollars to pay fees."
i.e. tx volume metric alone means nothing |
|
|
|
MPOE-PR a major player, u serious? |
|
|
|
Although I can't think of a practical scenario where a typical user would ever be exposed to this, yes, the concern is side-channel attacks (e.g., a timing attack): ( ... cut a lot of helpful links, quote and explanations ... )I think deterministic signatures are much more important than constant-time signatures (there's been a non-trivial amount of funds lost due to the repeat k-value problem but I doubt a single satoshi has ever been lost due to a genuine side-channel attack). Someone like gmaxwell could comment better on the practical risks here… I concur with all you said. I think that Pieter Wuille took a chance to snap in this "constant time" thing while writing libsecp256k1. What seems weird to me is that they don't mention the main advantage of replacing OpenSSL with such "custom made" signing tool: speed. Quoting a gmaxwell's email to the bitocoin-development mailing list (related to the headers-first sync feature): (I'm using 295k as the target here because after that point ecdsa
dominates, and then your 6+x faster libsecp256k makes more of a
difference)
(bold is mine) about that matter, this is an interesting post on reddit by gmaxwell (aka nullc): to make a long story short: while working on this new libsecp256k1 Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell found a new OpenSSL flaw (CVE-2014-3570). @cypher, this quote could be interesting to you: This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.
|
|
|
|
Please stop feeding the troll. All as in 100% of his arguments have been debunked or already have solutions planned. He is very good at using fallacious arguments. Don't play into them. They are easy to spot because they have few details. If you challenge them, he doesn't answer you directly, instead he plays another trick.
+1 Please note how he started to post on this thread a few days ago ( asking questions about sidechains) and then he slowly started to broaden the scope of his questions to bitcoin fundamentals and increase posts frequency. Each of is post contains valid reasoning and seems legit, you have to take a step back to see what I think is his real agenda. Looking at JorgeStolfi account activity by time I wonder even if it is used by more then one person:  Having said that I think the best course of action is leaving him (them?) alone, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Aww, give him a break, it is a public Uni, so government payroll and in a country arguably even more socialist than the US. It is a handicap difficult for most to overcome, at least until they are tenured.
We can't expect him to even nibble at the hand that feeds him. Even though the criticisms are fairly speculative, at least he is looking at it.
I am already tenured, actually, so I could badmouth the government at will (which in fact I do) with no risk. But of course I can't expect someone who is invested in bitcoin to admit that its future is in danger.  Really? I think that a good investor would be thankful to anybody that let him knows he's losing his bet. Maybe you think tha all (?) people who bought Bitcoin are blind to the truth. |
|
|
|
massive misunderstanding
back to troll Of course. Your prose is amazingly polished and clear. You are a professor of something. Philosophy is my guess Dunno why but I though you already knew him. |
|
|
|
I am very confident that Satoshi Nakamoto is from Europe and not from USA or America or from Asia. Let me explain how i come to this conclusion. This idea came when i see the time of the first genesis Block. It was established at 18:15:05 GMT. I am very sure that Satoshi first runs his miner gpu from his apartment. The next logical step is to do this in his personal afternoon relaxing time. The second evidence is the time that have post in this forum. If you see this statics https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=statPanelthe time that he has done most of his posts was between 15:00 to 23:00 GMT time. He has near zero posts in the morning job europe zone time from 7 to 12. I have not search if this few posts that has done from 6:00 7:00 or 9:00 GMT time is from one general day or in that day there is a national holiday in a europe country. The most popular time that he has done some posts here is 17:00 GMT and that means 19:00 Athens Greece 20:00 Moscow Russia 18:00 Vienna Austria 18:00 Rome Italy 18:00 Berlin Germany 18:00 Paris France GPU miner, really? I've always thought that a cpu was enough at difficulty 1. |
|
|
|
It's not that I'm feeding anybody but for everyone interested in keeping this thread signal/noise ratio as high as possible, I've taken the liberty to quote the excellent Peter R's categorization of a particular kind of user:
A Taxonomy of the Troll
Class C bitcoin troll (lat. trollus minimus):
-How to recognize: Simple-minded FUD spreading, and juvenile insults.
-Recommended response: ignore, their trolling is obvious to everyone and occasionally humorous.
-Examples: falllllling, Chuckee, fonzie (in the earlier part of his career)
Class B bitcoin troll (lat. trollus averagus)
-How to recognize: bait-and-switch thread titles and well-executed concern trolling; methods designed to fool the reader into thinking the troll is a non-troll.
-Recommended response: agree with everything they say in a satirical way. Their arguments are usually so flawed that simply rephrasing back what they said will reveal their lunacy. This technique is especially effective if the troll doesn't recognize this attack vector until he's already sunken his ship.
-Examples: Nagle, JorgeStolfi, Edward50
Class A bitcoin troll (lat. trollus maximus)
-How to recognize: usually hold an esteemed position or a PhD.
-Recommended response: Engage in logical and polite debate. These are the most difficult trolls to defeat, so you must be patient. The truth will prevail.
-Examples: Mark Williams, Paul Krugman, Richard Murphy
|
|
|
|
Other things also snarks can do magical things (full node validation and low bandwidth), sharding like Rusty Russel is exploring with pettycoin (its not an alt, its an approach to sharding bitcoin).
Rusty Russell? The creator of iptables/netfilter? Edit: a brief search confirmed we have another main linux kernel developer on board Ayup the one and same. He has a video up about pettycoin chain sharding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzst_gChOr8. btw that is a kind of (non-pegged) sidechain and you hear him talking about a gateway or federated gateway. That is like a federated peg. (Yeah he knows its related, he's hanging out on #bitcoin-wizards and discussing pettycoin design with GMaxwell and others). (Pettycoin is a micropayment network bitcoin auxiliary chain aiming at scaling to 100k tx/sec.) Adam Thanks for the info Adam, appreciated. I will have a look. Somehow it seems that ex/still active kernel hackers are attracted to bitcoin world. Actually we have three of them involved (that I'm aware of): Garzik, Kolivas and now Russell. All of them did a lot of good stuff in the kernel sphere. |
|
|
|
I think there's a middle ground which can grow the blocksize a bit for now if it has to. And some technical hope that the problem can be solved so that we have decentralisation and more scale. Sidechains have a security trade off but do give you full (and potentially more) bitcoin ethos functions - eg someone can do zerocash, or network enforced limits etc. Other things also snarks can do magical things (full node validation and low bandwidth), sharding like Rusty Russel is exploring with pettycoin (its not an alt, its an approach to sharding bitcoin). Federated pegs. And Open Transactions offers some interesting protection via its trust but verify approach though maybe not quite full bitcoin features, it can offer many features and maybe some different ones also (eg blinding though that as I understand it hampers audit, and I didnt see a way to repair that either yet).
Rusty Russell? The creator of iptables/netfilter? Edit: a brief search confirmed we have another main linux kernel developer on board |
|
|
|
Almost everyone who want to sell have already sold, now the only sell pressure comes from daily coin generation, and since many profit oriented mining operations are going to shut down, the mining will shift to home miners, who are the backbone of bitcoin ecosystem. A true bitcoin miner never sell more than 10% of his coins in 5 years period
The biggest mining operations might force everyone else out by continuing to mine when it's unprofitable. They have probably got the money to do it saved from earlier this year when mining was very profitable. I thought the same as you until I saw the last series of "home" miners i.e. the SP20 and the S5. For a few bucks you'll get the best J/G ratio and without worrying about pre-orders. I think that mining centralization is less a threath that I suppose it was a few months ago. See: https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days |
|
|
|
Side chains are probably unicorns . I say probably because I haven't seen the proof of concept demonstrated nor have a real world analogy. It seems like vaporware.
Time will tell I suppose. Fwiw 2wpeg sidechains could be implemented now, without any changes to the btc protocol... Let's see a two way peg with test bitcoins and test litecoins at an arbitrary peg. Has anyone created an atomic swap between chains without human intervention? No such a thing is in place, that I'm aware of. Having said that, what I meant with "implemented" was the federeted servers with mutlisig scheme. Afaik atomic swaps concept is orthogonal to the way the sidechain is built, it even applies to alt chains. Dunno what you meant with "w/o human intervention" though. Scripted? In any case I'm very eager to see a first "actual" sidechains (if any). |
|
|
|
Side chains are probably unicorns . I say probably because I haven't seen the proof of concept demonstrated nor have a real world analogy. It seems like vaporware.
Time will tell I suppose. Fwiw 2wpeg sidechains could be implemented now, without any changes to the btc protocol... |
|
|
|
what is "constant time"?
Improved signing security
For 0.10 the security of signing against unusual attacks has been improved by making the signatures constant time and deterministic.
This change is a result of switching signing to use libsecp256k1 instead of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 is a cryptographic library optimized for the curve Bitcoin uses which was created by Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille.
There exist attacks[1] against most ECC implementations where an attacker on shared virtual machine hardware could extract a private key if they could cause a target to sign using the same key hundreds of times. While using shared hosts and reusing keys are inadvisable for other reasons, it's a better practice to avoid the exposure.
OpenSSL has code in their source repository for derandomization and reduction in timing leaks, and we've eagerly wanted to use it for a long time but this functionality has still not made its way into a released version of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 achieves significantly stronger protection: As far as we're aware this is the only deployed implementation of constant time signing for the curve Bitcoin uses and we have reason to believe that libsecp256k1 is better tested and more thoroughly reviewed than the implementation in OpenSSL.
[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/161.pdfA countermeasure against http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_attack? Although I can't think of a practical scenario where a typical user would ever be exposed to this, yes, the concern is side-channel attacks (e.g., a timing attack): ( ... cut a lot of helpful links, quote and explanations ... )I think deterministic signatures are much more important than constant-time signatures (there's been a non-trivial amount of funds lost due to the repeat k-value problem but I doubt a single satoshi has ever been lost due to a genuine side-channel attack). Someone like gmaxwell could comment better on the practical risks here… I concur with all you said. I think that Pieter Wuille took a chance to snap in this "constant time" thing while writing libsecp256k1. What seems weird to me is that they don't mention the main advantage of replacing OpenSSL with such "custom made" signing tool: speed. Quoting a gmaxwell's email to the bitocoin-development mailing list (related to the headers-first sync feature): (I'm using 295k as the target here because after that point ecdsa
dominates, and then your 6+x faster libsecp256k makes more of a
difference)
(bold is mine) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
