I think we are going to break out of this in a massive downtrend. keep in mind I am always wrong when it comes to this and this is just a sad attempt to get the bitcoin powers that be to prove me wrong again  [\size]
wow you're even better of Lavabit's Ladar Levison who gave to the fed his server SSL keys printed on 11 pages using a 4pt font |
|
|
|
1. its centrally controlled
thank you for adding this subtle point which even i seem to have missed. who knows, sidechains could be a trojan horse. since there's still no white paper publicly available I've gathered info about Back's and Hill's project mainly from LTB E99, a few articles here and there and from Back's posts on reddit. having said that I can't see how the system they're proposing would be centrally controlled, am I missing something obvious? |
|
|
|
I didn't read the paper linked but looking at the graph avg confirmation time started to decrease when bitcoin core 0.9 has been released. I hadn't time to check but it could be that block size has been increased in 0.9 |
|
|
|
Any details how Incan install the extra ports at Jupiter board?
Jellin! We've all been waiting for your reply, did you come your pants, and/or fall off your scooter like was speculated? Rotfl Jelin don't take it too personally we do think you're really a funny guy :-) Anyway I seem to recall that someone soldered two additional ports on a controller with 4 board plugs. Search for it in this or in the overclock thread |
|
|
|
They aren't mining 21k BTCs per month. Read again. "the computers mined" For me it's what they mined from the start until now. We don't know when they started. Even if they had 20% so what? Does it matter for you or for me? Not so much (as long as they don't push to 51%). What matter for us regular miners is the TOTAL hashrate, not what KnC has. Also: http://organofcorti.blogspot.ro/2014/04/april-6th-2014-weekly-hashrate.html so chill. @merv77 It's been a very long while since a lot more of 3.6k btc are mined every day. On avg we're near to 5k (last month) |
|
|
|
|
Now that I think about it bitcoin deb packages are already built using gitian
|
|
|
|
Since anyone can download and read the code how would they do this?
They could've modified the downloadable binary and force a dev to sign the compiled binary so that it looks legit. Not sure how fast a slight modification would've been noticed this way. Checking the code and diffing it with previous releases would show nothing nefarious, and compiling from source and comparing it to the released binary might as well not work very well, as I guess different environments have different build environments and builds will be slightly different unless environments are duplicated exactly? So the change in the binary might for instance allow siphoning of private keys to an adversary. And if the adversary was careful, stealing of coins could go on slowly as not to raise too much suspicion, or it could be used to just control bitcoin addresses, and then freeze them once it's necessary. Ie. 'freezing' it by transferring coins using the stolen private keys. I don't know if there currently is any process whereby the binaries released are checked by several parties before they're ok'ed. The Sha256 checksums and pgp signature only proves that the holder of that signature has vouched for those checksums. There should ideally be some 'paranoid bitcoin' project, or better yet several of them serving as watchdogs alerting the larger community once something nefarious happens. Ideally to stay safe, one should always diff a new release against a previous release by checking what code is added, then understand this code and ensure nothing nefarious has been added, and then compile it yourself. But how could one be sure that eventually sometime some distributor of a linux system doesn't distribute it with a compiler that will insert some nefarious code once it discovers that a bitcoin binary is being made. There's a lot of trust we need to place in other people - and if you become too paranoid, you could worry about details all day long. Any comments to this ? ^^ From the lwn.net article "binary diversity" There's been a lot of talk about reproducible (or deterministic) builds recently for the purposes of verifying that binaries come from the "right" source code.
See: https://lwn.net/Articles/565113/http://gitian.org |
|
|
|
- increase the pace of innovation without risking to make everything collaps
The risk is that the proposal could create gatekeepers to innovation via the big bitcoin mining pools, because only the "2.0" chains the big pools agree to merge mine (that may not quite be the right phrase) will get to participate in this two-way peg. this is definitely a valid point. mining concentration is a major concern that has to be "solved" someway, and 2-way peg sidechains do not have any cure for it IMHO. it's all a matter of incentive. e.g. a way to make p2pool less cumbersome and as efficent as possible has to be found. or maybe we need to find a way for the people to partecipate to a pool without being a mere hasher but a real miner, if memory serves Adam Back in LTB E77 briefly talk about this. |
|
|
|
my first impression is that i like this idea much better than Hill and Beck's Sidechain proposal.
1. the initial distribution is fair and codified.
2. Bitcoin holders have everything to gain and nothing to fear from any altcoin clone distributed in this manner. they are free to evaluate the altcoin on it's own merits as to whether they hold, sell, or even mine their aether.
AFAICS first two points apply also to 2way peg sidechains. 3. it's a much more effective separation from an altcoin; no firewall needed. i have my doubts about how BTC's can traverse back and forth btwn the main Bitcoin blockchain and a Sidechain w/o interfering with the main chain function long term. i believe there will be some risk.
I suppose we have to wait for the "math" behind Back/Hill proposal to judge it properly. 4. they have said they are forming a "company" with "core devs" who undoubtedly will be employed and/or shareholders. this introduces potential bias and risk to Bitcoin from profit motives.
it's a possibility 5. Peter has introduced an ingenious way to set up a head to head competition btwn aether and ether that can be applied to any altcoin. this has the potential to severely inhibit scamcoins and premines. which is a good thing.
6. altcoin devs still have an incentive to innovate. if Bitcoin holders dump their free aether, as Peter suggests, the devs have the opportunity to scoop up cheap aether as testimony to the belief in the merits of their altcoin.
also 5 and 6 seems to apply to Back/Hill's design i eagerly await more information.
me too. |
|
|
|
Instead of building Bitcoin 2.0 lets just put all resources to making bitcoin succeed we haven't yet and there's still a lot of work to do. Until then all bitcoin/blockchain base currencies are a waste of time.
Agreed that Bitcoin needs to succeed and resources are required to make that happen. Sure. As I see it that they're working to improve bitcoin, the actual bitcoin not a alter-ego 2.0. It seems to me that they're not building a new cryptocurr from scratch, they're leveraging the value of the blockchain to remove potential risks for the bitcoin survival. Among all the things they talk about the more important to me are: - preserve bitcoin scarcity, - increase the pace of innovation without risking to make everything collaps - increase/preserve fungibility Anyway I'm eagerly waiting for official material/whitepaper, as of now the words of Adam Back should suffice as guarantee of the value of the proposal. |
|
|
|
"these guys" who?
The guys behind Blockchain 2.0. I find the idea of 2way peg sidechains and its applications fascinating and useful. Having said that I don't need anyone granting me the permission to jump to anyone train. As long as my own interest has a not null interceptions with the one of "these guys" there's no need to jump whatsoever |
|
|
|
These guys r interested in their own profit. Why do u think u'll jump their train?
"these guys" who? |
|
|
|
Someone is selling thousands at a time. This isn't individuals panicking. This is a planned dump from someone that doesn't care about maximizing their gains. It's probably from gox, mybitcoins, hackers, or early adopters panicking.
or someone with a big stash that want widen it, buying lows. maybe or maybe not. I just wanna add this wild guess to the list |
|
|
|
The difference now is that China has actually got to a sustainable solution. Now they have found a solution which provides the capital control they desperately needed without completely banning a revolutional technology. Similar to the compromise that they came to with the internet as whole.
Sorry for bothering but what's the solution they found? (somehow I managed to miss it) |
|
|
|
The bank deposit thing I dont think is a massive problem. I can have a wire from my account and on Stamp in a couple of hours most of the time.
wow that's fast. sepa or wire transfer? |
|
|
|
Wall at $400 was chewed up nicely. It will be interesting to see if what's left holds.
The timing was weird, stamp usually follows huobi a lot, this was kinda out of place unrelated question: who's buying at houbi? How they do think to eventually monetize theirs assets? You do know that lots of Chinese travel, have relatives and own property outside of China right? I do. I just didn't think it could absorb all the assets coming from "going-tp-be-close" china exchanges. But I've simply underestimated it. |
|
|
|
Wall at $400 was chewed up nicely. It will be interesting to see if what's left holds.
The timing was weird, stamp usually follows huobi a lot, this was kinda out of place unrelated question: who's buying at houbi? How they do think to eventually monetize theirs assets? |
|
|
|
Interesting.
So am I right in thinking that the interface between the main blockchain and a "sidechain" in effect just does the job that Cryptsy already does:
Provide an exchange interface for a free market of altcoins, albeit in a decentralised manner.
The main aims are preserving bitcoin digital scarcity and innovating bitcoin without risking to blew everything due to a fast pace of innovation. A decentralized "exchange" is "only" a side effect :-) |
|
|
|
"So in essence, while there are multiple chains, no new bitcoins are created. Protecting the digital scarcity of the finite amount of tokens (ultimately 21 million) is a core point to this project. By linking chains they have set Bitcoin up as a “transactional currency for all the innovation and all new assets so you can potentially issue shares in a sidechain, that specializes in smart contracts shares, derivatives, user assets, ultimately backed by Bitcoin pegged to Bitcoin, explained Back."
Isn't something/someone else already doing this? (i.e. Mastercoin)
I haven't already understood all the details nor thought about all the implications, but Adam Back said that the current metacoins implementations are somewhat limited (e.g. in regard of smart contracts), whereas the one built on a 2way peg side chains will be based on tagging not watermarking in such a way to avoid those limitations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
