These days we've got whole towns in Asia coming here just for the campaigns, and they are all shitposters and they all sound alike. So it's too damn bad that these noobs won't rank up. They shouldn't be able to, and the merit system is near perfect for ensuring that.
Lmao! Man you crack me up at times. "Whole Towns in Asia" - It literally gave me an heart attack while spilling the food from my mouth as I was at the dinner.You know signature campaigns is an old trend now.The trend heavily is shifting towards bounty campaigns.You will find accounts that literally have no posting history but only links for the bounty campaigns. There are 2 types of bounty campaign though. The ones that pay shittokens to spam social media and the ones that pay shittokens to spam this forum. The merit system should help speed up the transition to the former. I don’t see why. Spam is spam; and social-media spammers won’t be earning any more merit than forum spammers.
I’ll reply later to JayJuanGee and possibly others. N.b., my “whine” about activity levels was sarcastic, intended to satirize whines about the merit system, oppression by evil Legendaries, etc. I have edited my prior post to add an explicit note about this. |
|
|
|
If I were to attempt to write a similar program in Rust, are there documents anywhere that outline how I could generate keypairs efficiently like this?
If you have a foreign-function interface which can talk to C code, <secp256k1.h> has extensive comments explaining its proper use. You may also use segvan.c as a concise guide—both for secp256k1 library use for generating public keys, and for the quite simple procedures for generating different address types. I am currently amidst a major refactor and reorganization of the code (much delayed by recent business in Meta, etc.—sorry). I will try to keep in mind that others may wish to use segvan code and comments as documentation for how to do these things. I am also happy to provide tips and answer questions for other intelligent implementers, insofar as I am able. (There’s nothing secret to what I’m doing here—and the one who actually writes the best code should get the most users!) I would not recommend trying to implement your own secp256k1 library, unless you have extensive knowledge of both cryptography and computer science. That said, if you want to study how this works, Dr. Wuille’s code (currently maintained it seems mostly by him (sipa) and gmaxwell) is concise and clear for those good at reading C code. The secp256k1_ec_grind() function made famous by this thread fills less than 4 screenfulls when reading it with less(1) on a standard terminal. That should provide a very exact answer to your specific question. N.b. that to my understanding, the endomorphism performance increase bits may allegeably raise software patent questions in some jurisdictions; they are marked “experimental” (remember that secp256k1 is a research library!), and should only be compiled in if you are doing research and/or you are not under the jurisdiction of whatever possible patents. It is wise to protect users this way. (Note: This is one reason I like to write in C. Most of the most awesome libraries have native C interfaces. So it has been for decades, and so it will be for at least decades more. Other languages come and go—so to speak.) |
|
|
|
[edited out]
@theymos: Please add a merit requirement for reaching Jr. Member status. Thanks.Hahahahaha... nullius, you surely beat me to the beat up on the bad ideas of fxstrike post, and yeah you are probably correct in your assertion that Theymos may have been too generous to allow Jr. Member status without any merits whatsoever, and maybe a requirement to receive something like 2-5 merits would helpful to the forum overall to cause better quality posts right from the start, or otherwise the newbie could just be stuck at newbie status, forever and ever.... Actually, I think that the Jr. threshold should be 10 and the Member threshold should be around 30. I am preparing a post with these and other suggestions. My immediate impetus for making proposals is that I reached the Hero threshold of 500 merit within 27 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes, 22 seconds of active posting. Zero to Hero within four weeks? That should not be humanly possible. Adjustments are needed at the high and low ends; I do think the middle ranks’ thresholds are appropriate. (<whine>The earliest I can actually rank up to Hero will be Activity Period 1283, which will start during 12 March 2019. The activity system is oppressive to new users! Legendaries push everybody else down!</whine>) (Edit following JayJuanGee’s below reply: <whine> tag with gratuitous complaint about Legendaries implies /s. I will follow up later; for now, I just want to make that excruciatingly clear for those reading this thread.)
Edit: As for “better quality posts right from the start”, it is good for new users to lurk awhile. Some do that by reading the forum for months (or even years) without making an account; they (we) can make good posts “right from the start”. Vide my debut post in Development & Technical Discussion, three days after I started actively posting. It discusses covert ASICBOOST, quotes gmaxwell from bitcoin-dev, speaks about miners’ job of BFT transaction ordering—all to analyze the ulterior motives of people who hate Segwit. Is that a “Newbie” post, in any sense? Whereas users who make an account as soon as they find the forum, and especially those who are totally new to Bitcoin, should surely be kept at Newbie rank for awhile. They are newbies! Nothing wrong with that; we all start somewhere.
I wanted to reply to some others upthread, but thus far—well, priorities. |
|
|
|
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================
In that regard, I look at Lightning as a huge force multiplier for any further incremental on-chain scaling improvements. Of course, I also hope that Lightning itself will see further scaling improvements as it matures. If it gives big, then I’ll want bigger—well, one step at a time!
Lightning is off-block and consists of banks that charge fees and many developers are running away from Bitcoin for this reason just as fast as they can. I don't recall any banks announcing that they were going to run Lightning nodes. That would be a pretty major headline I'm pretty sure I would have noticed. Like most people involved in Bitcoin, I'm not a fan of banks. I'd be dubious of anything that resembled traditional finance and fractional reserve making their way into Bitcoin. Thankfully, the closest thing we have to that are called Exchanges. If only people directed their misplaced vitriol at those instead of attacking Lightning, which could well lead to completely decentralised exchange. There are no banks in Lightning. You raise an excellent point, DooMAD. I myself try to do what I can, e.g.:I would also recommend that you steer clear of Coinbase altogether - they are a very shitty company and have banned my account for a rather trivial reason. Just don't use them. Get a private key and lock it in a fireproof safe, there's your vault.
This. If you don’t have private keys, then you’re not using Bitcoin. Coinbase is a bank. Be your own bank. Staking Bitcoin address? Well, sorry that I don't have a permanent one. All my Bitcoin addresses are given to me by exchange sites so there would be no point.
If you don’t control your own private keys, then you are not using Bitcoin. Forgive me if I am underwhelmed by your opinions about the Bitcoin Forum. However, please realize that the people who attack Lightning with such vitriol are not acting in good faith. Ulterior motives readily explain why they spread malicious disinformation misrepresenting Lightning as if it “consists of banks” (quoted above), whereas they ignore the issue of exchanges which are banks in any sensible definition of the word. Lightning is like an off-chain P2P private wire transfer network connecting people who adhere the Bitcoin motto, “Be your own bank.” Settlements for Lightning-wire consist of on-chain, armoured-car transfers of bit-bullion. This analogy is intended to be roughly conceptual, not technically rigorous.(I also find it curious that known troll account #1801074 “RNC” dug up and quoted a post of mine from when I had just passed from Newbie to Jr. Member. I can hear the gnashing of teeth over how e.g. there is now a Meta thread titled, “Who the hell is ‘nullius’ the guy is too smart around here :)”. I am also involved in some long-term running flamewars over there. But in Development & Technical Discussion, I try to avoid such things due to my respect for the moderator’s policy of maintaining a high S/N ratio for technical discussion.) |
|
|
|
Lol  bruda, pls stop thinking that other people writing something only for merit/money/other incentives. Do not compare others with yourself. The topical sarcasm of a quip about merit in the merit thread goes right over your head, I see. I’m not your “bruda”. As for your insinuation that I write for “merit/money/other incentives”, let’s see: My post history is readily available. It reflects that when I was a Newbie and the merit system did not exist, I posted the same way—insulted idiots the same way—did most everything the same way, but for occasional fumbling due to being a forum newbie. If you suggest I’m writing for merit, go read one of my earliest posts as a Newbie: My debut in Development & Technical Discussion, three days after I started actively posting. People actually remembered some of my early posts, such that I got a total of +17 for old Newbie/Jr. posts during four days of complete inactivity from 25–29 January. I think that speaks to the quality of my posting before the merit system existed. That said, I do enjoy being shown appreciation, and knowing that people find my posts valuable. The merits and moreover, the intentions of those who award them give me a smile for a job well done. That’s really the positive purpose of the system. As for money, my PGP key fingerprints are paying me handsomely for my signature. The payola isn’t not as good as shilling for sarcasm; but the sarcasm sig ad campaign only accepts Sr. Member rank and higher. I have already given an “I’ll think about it” to another plum offer for my signature. But since I’m still thinking about it, and perhaps will be for a very long time, I really don’t see how that could motivate me to write posts. As for “other incentives”—what? Pursuit of a pretty girl? Why yes, I write for that “incentive” sometimes— and I get what I want.In sum—methinks you’re projecting yourself with your accusation of projecting. It’s not the first time I’ve seen such things from you. I saw funny picture. Then i saw your post full of butthurt without any reason for it. (with stupid conclusions like "you posted commie picture - you're the commie"). And i advised you to stop. Without any mercenary minds.
Let me spell this out for you: If you post a Communist agitprop picture, then yes, you are Red scum. Unless, that is, you are someone currently at least age 35–40+ who was born in the former Soviet Union or other formerly Communist-ruled places. In that case, you may simply be riffing some familiar cultural thing you grew up with, without any political intentions. Wherefore my apology to Lunarics, when he explained that this was indeed the case. By available evidence, I misfired on that one. You may have observed that I rarely apologize to anybody—only when I get something wrong, which is almost never. If some drooling imbecile from the “Che T-shirt” faction of American college brats posted the same picture, then I would roast him to a cinder. Commie. A person’s subjective cultural context can be determinative, in some limited ways not to be over-expanded as academic sociologists tend to do. (Commies.)And i don't care about your discussion, because i replied only for specific post.
So... You don’t care that I’d already recanted what I said to Lunarics, for reason of my recognizing that I’d mismeasured him. In other words, you are searching for an excuse to flame me because you hate my guts. ok, np You're too much discussing with spammers and others i think. You know, if you live with a dogs, you become a dog soon.
I think you understand what i mean.
ok
Bloody hell, I get the point, I really do. But it won't prevent from shitposting anyway, It will just be a pain in the ass for new users, who are just starting their journey in crypto world. They won't be able to post quality content, as they don't have any knowledge. Being a Jr Member all that time will be just demotivating for young fellows. It'll be way way harder to rank up now. Daamn, I mean it's just too subjective.
^^^ Example of a post by someone who will be a Jr. Member for a very long time—perhaps forever. No, the merit system didn’t stop you from “shitposting anyway” right here. |
|
|
|
By happenstance, the [cool] dude also came on radar where I, too, noticed his Merit count, hence asking him privately if he's gmaxwell. He timely replied in kind and ask me if I would [kindly] ask the question in this thread. I told him to go kindly fuck himself. This is not the first time I’ve had such a query; and last time was from someone with a five-digit uid. Thus I wished the opportunity to address the matter clearly in public, without coming off as if I were the one suggesting the connection. I’m not gmaxwell. Though in terms of technical virtù and Bitcoin prowess, being asked if I am is some of the highest praise I’ve received here. Indeed, it is a bit overwhelming; for due to my background, I’ve had to admit to him my inadequacy in maths and comp.sci: Sipa also has AVX2 8-way sha2 and ripemd160 that he might post somewhere if you asked. An 8-way bech32 checksum generator should be really easy to do,
Will ask. Actually, I think I may have this mentioned somewhere in GH discussions; I didn’t pay attention, because I don’t yet own any machines with AVX2. Not quite as rich as people think I am. <g> I myself will not try implementing such things, even the “really easy” ones. I don’t have the CS background. After tinkering for years, I learned programming by reading FreeBSD kernel code until I thoroughly understood almost everything except the CS-heavy subsystems (vm, scheduler, etc.). I think you see that my code reflects the style you’d expect from that experience. Otherwise, as in all else, I take pride in knowing enough to know the limits of my own knowledge.Also, for the record: “nullius” is a nym I picked quite some years ago, and became far too attached to. I had the nym reserved for some special future project long before I heard of /u/nullc—so yes, some years ago. PS: Don't click on any links he provides, for they're ALL diatribe traps.  Thanks. I’ve been preparing a special “diatribe” for this thread. You didn’t think I’d not reply here, did you? But those take some time to write. I’ll be back. |
|
|
|
I did not want to offend anyone, I want to show that you need to work hard to reach the top in any job! To whom to stop himself to decide
Seriously? Your graphic depicts a Newbie dead from exhaustion, next to a crowd of Jr. Members who struggle to who hold up all the other ranks above them. Two Jr. Members to the side hold a Red Flag of the Communist type, with dark, revolutionary looks on their faces. The “subscription” notice at the top says, “Foremost Exponent of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism”. You posted 100% Commie scum agitprop, definitely against the merit system. Calm down. This picture looking very funny. It's some kind of "Oxymoron" at my view.  Also, this picture represents very good attitude to the subject from different ranks (butthurting jr.members for example). Also, most newbies (mostly for those who came here for easy money) looks like on the picture (i think ) If you finish reading the discussion between Lunarics and myself before you reply, you may have a cookie. Not merit, though. The merit you get for a good post. |
|
|
|
Changed from huge embedded image to archive link by nullius:Addressing here the author of that graphic, who may or may not be “Lunarics”: If you put the same skill and effort into writing quality posts as you did into that graphic, you’d be swimming in merits. Tell me, did someone pay you? Perhaps someone whose profits are being hurt by the merit system, such as a spammer? Cui bono?Between the Communist agitprop imagery and the words “Subscribe for the INDUSTRIAL WORKER”, thank you for making clear your political allegiance. Die in a fire, Red scum. Bitcoin shall crush you. I did not want to offend anyone, I want to show that you need to work hard to reach the top in any job! To whom to stop himself to decide Seriously? Your graphic depicts a Newbie dead from exhaustion, next to a crowd of Jr. Members who struggle to who hold up all the other ranks above them. Two Jr. Members to the side hold a Red Flag of the Communist type, with dark, revolutionary looks on their faces. The “subscription” notice at the top says, “Foremost Exponent of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism”. You posted 100% Commie scum agitprop, definitely against the merit system. I was born in the USSR and I know what communism is and how it was necessary at that time to work to feed the children. And what kind of propaganda was both the USSR and the United States. I'm not for any political system, they are all one type, only the names are different. With ranks that merit simply added more work and all! Based on the hint from the .ru image hosting link, I was just checking your post history to see if you looked like someone who may have living memories of the Soviet Union. I do realize that when you grow up with pervasive propaganda, it becomes part of your cultural milieu. The same is seen in Western Europe, the United States—everywhere. People simply do not realize it. When I see an American post some annoying American cultural thing, I take that person’s immersive inculcation into account. Same as for you. Please accept my apology for being hasty there (and I take back what I said about dying in a fire). And please do realize, that graphic is classic Communist agitprop, a thing all too popular with Western kids who have no bloody idea what life under the Red Flag is/was really like. In Bitcoinland, as you understand, the systematic denial of private property is bound to raise some ire. My private keys, my money, my freedom! As for US-USSR being distinct without difference—why yes, I think you’re right. They’re evil twins. |
|
|
|
Changed from huge embedded image to archive link by nullius:Addressing here the author of that graphic, who may or may not be “Lunarics”: If you put the same skill and effort into writing quality posts as you did into that graphic, you’d be swimming in merits. Tell me, did someone pay you? Perhaps someone whose profits are being hurt by the merit system, such as a spammer? Cui bono?Between the Communist agitprop imagery and the words “Subscribe for the INDUSTRIAL WORKER”, thank you for making clear your political allegiance. Die in a fire, Red scum. Bitcoin shall crush you. I did not want to offend anyone, I want to show that you need to work hard to reach the top in any job! To whom to stop himself to decide Seriously? Your graphic depicts a Newbie dead from exhaustion, next to a crowd of Jr. Members who struggle to who hold up all the other ranks above them. Two Jr. Members to the side hold a Red Flag of the Communist type, with dark, revolutionary looks on their faces. The “subscription” notice at the top says, “Foremost Exponent of Revolutionary Industrial Unionism”. You posted 100% Commie scum agitprop, definitely against the merit system.
Archival of fxstrike’s post saying as so: Such potty mouth expecting honesty from others  better luck asking that from your mom Is that the best you can do for vulgarity, let alone insult? Are you retarded? I mean that as a literal question. Even a bright ten-year-old can whip off a better insult than “your mom!” Thus, your mental function must be below that level. |
|
|
|
Changed from huge embedded image to archive link by nullius:Addressing here the author of that graphic, who may or may not be “Lunarics”: If you put the same skill and effort into writing quality posts as you did into that graphic, you’d be swimming in merits. Tell me, did someone pay you? Perhaps someone whose profits are being hurt by the merit system, such as a spammer? Cui bono?Between the Communist agitprop imagery and the words “Subscribe for the INDUSTRIAL WORKER”, thank you for making clear your political allegiance. Die in a fire, Red scum. Bitcoin shall crush you.
@fxstrike: Yes, you’re a fool. An irritating fool, who would get flamed to a cinder on Usenet for posts with long, untrimmed quotes. Also, you’re a semi-literate idiot. These remarks are necessary, insofar as it seems nobody has ever been honest to you about such matters—a lack which has led to delusions of competency on your part. HTH, HAND.
|
|
|
|
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I suppose that leaves one question: What the heck was your dastardly scheme supposed to achieve for you? Would somebody please enlighten us poor fools who lack the Brainpower to understand this plan for Lauda to TAKE OVER THE WORLD by adding herself to the trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts? I've been thinking about it, and I need enlightening too. I couldn't come up with any (not even a small) benefit in adding yourself to the trust list of random (apparently) purchased alt accounts. Maybe I just forgot because of the alleged pills, which were previously proven by the undeniable words of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source.  Well, it’s just the quality of evil-mastermind plan which Quicksy himself would use to TAKE OVER THE WORLD. Which is why he hasn’t. Also why he subconsciously assumes that it would make a plausible accusation against you. -snip-
Nice picture. I remember that. I was afraid a “Pinky & the Brain” image would get your claws out. But evidently, you are having too much fun playing cat-and-mouse with Quickseller.
/. 0. Add self to trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts. 1. ? ? ? 2. Profit! |
|
|
|
...and that is why we have a merit system instead of a “like” system. You wouldn’t want spammers and trash posters to have farmloads of alt accounts hitting the “like” button on each other, now would you? I mean, would you?
The fact that some farmers also did this with merit makes me laugh. But I hope they just keep doing this tho, makes it easier to catch one. Oh yes, it does make it easier to catch them. There is a small conspiracy theory floating about, to the effect that the merit system system has an ulterior motive of outing alt accounts. Moronic spammers just can’t resist the bait. Gotcha.
[...TRIM QUOTES TO WHAT IS RELEVANT, YOU FOOL...]
Yea Jr. Member should not join discussion here they just promote ICOs, they know nothing about bitcoin <blink> Just a few moments ago, your post said this: So high rank members can ask for lower rank member restriction ? that is how this forum working, wow so much about decentralization spririt you have there, only people with lots of ability ranks and money got good favors
Did you suddenly realize that I am a low-ranked Member with 98 activity who started out with zero merit, and now have 498 merit? (I was a Jr. Member when the merit system started. I didn’t even get 10 freebies like you did.) Or did you have another reason for a hasty edit? Any which way, totally changing the substance of your post to some weird form of merit flattery is patently dishonest. P.S., observe my earliest posts at Newbie rank: My debut in Development & Technical Discussion, three days after I started actively posting from Brand New status. So yes, “Newbies” and Jr. Members can have plenty to contribute to the forum. Those who do, will be those who earn merit and advance in rank. |
|
|
|
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I suppose that leaves one question: What the heck was your dastardly scheme supposed to achieve for you? Would somebody please enlighten us poor fools who lack the Brainpower to understand this plan for Lauda to TAKE OVER THE WORLD by adding herself to the trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts? Pathetic. Like accusing a wealthy tycoon of counterfeiting Monopoly money so as to “look more rich”.
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much!
I think this is a very good idea.
Yah, right. Take an acting class. Some forum use "Like" system. With each post in a thread, readers (users) can LIKE (vote up), it is easier than our Merit system
...and that is why we have a merit system instead of a “like” system. You wouldn’t want spammers and trash posters to have farmloads of alt accounts hitting the “like” button on each other, now would you? I mean, would you? |
|
|
|
Getting a merit is like finding a bitcoin block while solo mining.
Then what am I, like the merit Satoshi? Please. Write some good posts. That’s like ASIC mining.
[whine]
Not listening to this. Development team of new alt coin
Developers of new scams altcoins will have problems? Awesome! No, wait... Development team of new alt coin using new account will be limited to few post for certain period of time and no link/image allowed, if he stuck at Newbie rank probably for long period of time because nobody care to give him merit, that just hinder productive discussion.
@theymos: Please add a merit requirement for reaching Jr. Member status. Thanks. |
|
|
|
My view: I am far from an expert on cryptography but I will say this, cryptocurrency depends on rock-solid, secure cryptography. It is exactly where the trust is placed in an electronic money system.
It’s sad how few people understand this. Bitcoin is not merely a new mechanism of transmitting money: It is a radically (from radix = [at the] root) new and different kind of money. This misundersanding also explains why so many people parrot “vires in numeris” who neither speak Latin, nor use PGP, OTR, etc., etc. to secure their communications. Uptake of crypto in the cypherpunk sense is abysmal amongst people who talk about “cryptos” all day. And apropos the topic, I think you’re right: This lack of fundamental comprehension has serious consequences when people who do not get it set their hands to “cryptos”, whilst neither undersanding nor caring much for the crypto. Bitcoin requires a new mindset. To handle it, you must understand on a very deep level that mathematical algorithms rule as by divine right. There is no higher court of appeal, no chargeback, no kill switch—nothing to help you if you muss the maths, lose your secret keys, etc. If you get that, then you will pay careful attention to the quality of your code. Also, you will much respect Core—because they get it, too. And if you dare to make your own currency, you will not start by designing your own hash function as IOTA did! That really wrecks any credibility they ever had. I don't know precisely what happened with IOTA but I have read a little bit about it and I'm not sure why the currency continues to circulate given what I do know. I guess too many people had invested into it by that point, which is more a political reason for continuing to exist rather than anything based on technical merit or the capability of the system. I'm not sure why the IOTA people thought it was a good idea to throw in some untested cryptography, but that seems like a very amateur thing to do.
As for the latter bolded part: I don’t see “amateur”. I see PHB + NIH.Come on. We’re the big boys. Microsoft is involved—you know, the company which does \ instead of / as a directory delimiter. For our billion-dollar cryptocurrency, we will do innovation! We don’t just use a commercial off-the-shelf hash which everybody else has. We have our own hash! The boss says so.Ben, you speak of some experience in that world. Did I approximately describe an amplified version of a scene you’ve seen play out a thousand times? ...also above: The former bolded part hit the nail on the head—perhaps (?) more than you intended. “political reason... rather than anything based on technical merit” Cf. later in your post: ...once crypto assets really start to bite into bank profitability, you better believe that they will be whining to the regulators to tighten the screws.
With due apologies to some folks here, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The “problem” you state is addressed not only by potential regulation, but also by misappropriation (plus other means). Strictly speaking, I am on a topical tangent from this thread. But this issue is on-topic anywhere Bitcoin is discussed; and it does pertain to the crypto-fail in IOTA. Why would the PHB demand a NIH hash, presumably for marketing purposes, without even a slight standard of care about the potential consequences? Because the purpose of IOTA is not to make a real cryptocurrency.A truly great idea which could change the world can only be stopped by twisting and distorting it. This has happened repeatedly in history. Bitcoin is an idea of such historic magnitude. I here sketch a multi-pronged distortionary attack on Bitcoin: - Misappropriate and dilute the Bitcoin brand. Scamforks. Btrash is the biggest right now. See also a long list from “BIP 100” to XT to S2X to Bitcoin Super Plutonium With Ponies. The long-term fork wars with repeated coup attempts.
- Misappropriate and dilute the concept of a “cryptocurrency”, level 0. IOTA, Ripple, and other attempts to make “cryptocurrency” mean a centrally controlled Visa/Paypal 2.0. Distort, dilute, and thus destroy. Some have the magic pixie dust of “blockchain” sprinked on them. Others (such as IOTA and Ripple) are “better than blockchain”. All are only means to the same end: Attack the radical concept of Bitcoin at its root; and meanwhile, shear the sheep for lots of money.
- Misappropriate and dilute the concept of a “cryptocurrency”, level 1. Not done by the “big boys” themselves, but certainly beneficial to them. Scammers pumping low-quality altcoins and ICOs are tarnishing the public name and image of a “cryptocurrency”. Let them run amuck for awhile. Wait for people to cry out for some “consumer protection” after they got swindled by the same scum who have spammed this forum to near-uselessness. Paint Bitcoin with guilt-by-association in the media—how often do you see “Bitcoin” and “ICO” mentioned in the same breath, discussed in the same article, when they are not even remotely related? Then ride in as a knight in shining armour to protect Da Peephole from the Wild West of “Cryptos”.
I could probably list more, even draw a full taxonomy. But that will suffice for the here and now. There is only one Bitcoin. Out of close to a thousand active altcoins, the alts which are even interesting (let alone viable) can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even for the good ones, most of them will probably wind up with their best concepts integrated into sidechains whenever Bitcoin finally gets a viable decentralized/trustless pegged sidechain/drivechain implementation on mainnet. That is, if their innovations aren’t simply copied (and improved) into Bitcoin directly. (The only things I think couldn’t be handled that way would be either a viable replacement for the Hashcash-style PoW system for BFT transaction ordering, or something which radically changes the economics of the currency. Thus far, all such ideas on both points are either half-baked, or actively harmful.)
(Addressing same post; but using a divider between major concepts.)
Thank you for the link to that white paper. Simplicity looks to be a substantial improvement over Solidity in terms of being able to implement a smart contract that is secure. I agree that an individual contract is only as secure as the contract code. But as far as Solidity goes, it has a funny name now that I think of it, because it seems anything but solid. I really wanted it to be everything I thought it could when I first read about it, but it really "feels" fragile. Maybe it's because of all the horror stories I've read about it. But I don't think so. I don't know how to describe it except to say it just doesn't have the rock-solid stability that one would expect from a scripting language that controls billions of dollars of underlying value. I could be wrong, but usually when I am using a piece of tech and it doesn't have the right feel to it (that's really the only way I can succinctly describe it), it ends up being a dud.
Ethereum has a deeper problem: Bolting a Turing-complete VM onto a blockchain and painting it over with a Javascript-style language is manifestly irresponsible as anything other than a research project ( i.e. not as “money”). Satoshi was extremely conservative in his design of Bitcoin script: A simple stack language with no loops, etc. Even so, a bunch of opcodes had to be hurriedly disabled in early versions— and we got the notion of “standard scripts” tacked on for extra protection against footguns (and to some degree, malice by anybody who isn’t a miner). For money-handling on a blockchain, this is responsible behaviour. Rome wasn’t built in a day; and if we want more powerful smart contracts, we need to let the maths wizards grind the problem for awhile. But Vitalik knows better: Give us a system wherein we can prove neither the correctness of the VM, nor the correctness of the compiler which emits VM opcodes, nor the correctness of the code fed to the compiler. We don’t really know what it does in all possible cases; but, who cares what it really does? Then, etch the results into a blockchain forever—or until Vitalik commands otherwise. (I keep hitting only that one issue, because ETH is so disastrous I started tuning out its news awhile ago. Yes, I heard about that mountain of money lost to a deleted library, etc.) Wetware problem: Try explaining this problem in non-technical terms to a non-engineer. I know of intelligent people who do ETH. I don’t really blame them. They never even heard of most of the jargon I used above. I myself barely know enough about computer science concepts to grasp why Ethereum is a very bad idea. And ETH has some slick marketing, plus a big boost from the pathogenic viral marketing of “token”-pushing spammers who need it hyped so they can run their P&D scams on this forum.
Banks’ code quality is oftentimes abysmal. Of course, it depends on the institution—and such questions as, consumer banking vesus institutional investment. But overall, I think that much banking code is “WTF”-riddled stuff which ultimately relies on transactions being revocable. At best, you can’t rely on code being good just because it’s from a bank!
Moreover, persons from banks have been immersed in an institutional culture which is inimical and antithetical to the culture of Bitcoin. Individuals will differ, of course; but I’d start out wary of anybody who had worked for a bank.
Ultimately, with people as with languages, there is no magic bullet. If you look to the backgrounds of the best (non-anonymous) Core developers, I think you’ll find some vast differences. So as for past history. The common factor in the present is that they are smart, serious, responsible people who are devoted to Bitcoin. In some cases, zealously.
I agree that proprietary code quality is often horrible, especially banking. My experience with banking code, like many other internal systems, is that it has been adapted and hacked and made to "work" with the digital equivalent of duct tape and bubble gum. And that's on a good day. More recently, there are banking systems that have resulted from merger after merger after merger of smaller banks into the large behemoths we have today that are reliant on code that has been in place for at least a decade. No one dares to touch that code because if they do, they will break 500 things that you'd never expect have some dependency on this swiss-cheese like construct. Most of my experience in this comes from commercial banking as opposed to investment banking, perhaps it's more cohesive over there? But I doubt it. Like any business, banks do not upgrade their systems and proprietary systems are among the worst from a "wtf how is this even working" perspective. I mean, I am sure there are great coders in the banking business. But they are the exception, not the rule. I want to quote more of your post. I urge others to read this post carefully. What most people do not realize is that “the digital equivalent of duct tape and bubble gum” is holding together most of the modern world. I’ve long held that anybody who actually understands computers, will refuse to use today’s existing computers (unless slightly crazy—which I guess includes me). Unplug, drop out, and go live in the middle of the woods somewhere. Human beings know how to build correct, reliable computing machines. I’ve read of fully redundant systems which could lose a CPU any time without blinking, capability-based research systems, etc., etc.... But all that is too expensive, plus too slow to bring to market. People want their Dancing Pigs and their Cryptokitties. Thus, we get everywhere the computing equivalent of Ethereum. Who wants to wait for research like Simplicity before running a hot new ICO? It’s the same with buildings. Once upon a time, a cathedral would have its foundations laid by workers who cherished the faith that their grandchildren may live to see spires rise to the sky. Nowadays, having forsaken cathedrals to please gods, all the world’s a goddamn bazaar: A pile of cheap shacks and stalls thrown up in a hurry so that idiot masses and idiot plutocrats alike can hawk their baubles to their fellow idiots. Shiny! Needs a bounty ANN thread. As the wetware degenerates itself in a negative feedback loop, we soon find empirical proof for a principle well-known to philosophers since the beginning of time: Ochlocracy equals kakocracy. — Ergo, “regulations”. Oh, by the way: In case nobody noticed, if I support Core, that means something. (In the long term, I would like to see some old, Satoshi-era design flaws fixed—most of all, the marriage of the wallet to the node, which makes it impossible to separately sandbox the two functions in different processes with different capabilities. But even meanwhile, I am more comfortable trusting Core with the world’s new money than I am with 99.9% of the broken computer stuff I am forced to use if I don’t want to unplug as I said above.) I also admire the zealousness of many of the Bitcoin Core team, those that I know of. They are a big reason, to me, as to why Bitcoin is something I know deserves more trust than any of the altcoins. Personally, I am a person that is passionate about the projects I take on and when I see that passion emanating from other people about their projects, it resonates with me. Bitcoin is not perfect and certainly, it has evolved over time and will continue to do so. But everything I have observed about the people that are part of Core, their writings on the listserv and discussions on GitHub, etc., shows me that they take their responsibility very seriously. At least to me, that is a very important and crucial distinction between Bitcoin and 99.9% of the altcoins.
I agree that staying under the radar of regulations is an ideal scenario when that can be done. However, that is not possible in all circumstances. Fiat/crypto exchange (besides P2P cash) is very difficult, for example, without a relationship with an entity subject to KYC regs (at least in the US). And for the foreseeable future, fiat/crypto conversion will be necessary for adoption.
Moreover—I will admit that overall, I have lost more money than I still have due to my demand for adequate privacy. That’s neither practical nor sustainable for anybody. Improvements are certainly necessary. Regulations rarely do anything useful, I agree with that. The thing about regulations that I know from a lot of experience with regulators is that it is much better to work with them than to ignore them and/or fight them completely. Regulators often will defer to industry when they come together with a reasonable and workable solution to whatever the issue at hand is. When this doesn't happen, the regulators decide on their own how best to handle the situation. Or even worse, other interests chime in with their view and that becomes the model adopted by the regulators. Right now crypto is around $450 billion USD in total market capitalization. That's just a little under the market capitalization of Facebook, one company. We know this is going to grow, and in my view, market capitalization isn't really a good metric to measure currencies, but it's quick on Google. However, once crypto assets really start to bite into bank profitability, you better believe that they will be whining to the regulators to tighten the screws. I believe that businesses in the cryptocurrency field need to be paying close attention and be prepared to work with regulators instead of letting them run the tables.
It is this generalized wetware bug which Bitcoin could solve in the long term, in matters of money. The question is whether wetware will run Bitcoin, or demand instead its Dancing Pigs and Cryptokitties.
There is much more in your post to which I wish to reply. Thanks for writing. Cheers. [Although I can’t very well add major substance which few people would see, this post may be occasionally edited. It’s rather rough. if (error && errno == ENOTIME) { post_now(); return; }] |
|
|
|
Y’know, I was just talking about this “ICO” thing which is so hyped “hot” nowadays... Another area that needs a close look is the way that KYC is conducted in ICO/ITO offerings. In my view, the risk of giving out your information to some project on the Internet is just as high, if not higher, than the risk of losing funds from the venture.
I have an easier solution: Don’t ever do “KYC”. Avoid anything and everything which requires it. For Bitcoin-related purposes, I have never submitted to any “KYC” identity-rape. No, really. Nobody’s records show I own even a single satoshi—“nobody’s”, as in “nullius”. Oh—you said “ICO”. Well, those are scams which should be avoided, regardless. Check post history. If you see any non-negligible and non-incidental ICO involvement, then it’s a “no merit” decision no matter how good the post was. There exist other, better posts by people who don’t do ICOs. Those posts need your limited supply of sMerit. I have also dropped my support for and/or customer relationship with companies which caught wind of the hype, decided to sprinkle some magical “blockchain” on an unrelated business, and announced a whitepaper for their upcoming ICO. Not meritorious, in any sense. |
|
|
|
While it's not same with what you mentioned, it's possible if you use OP_RETURN function.
You need use BIP38 to encrypt your private and add your encrypted private key to a transaction with OP_RETURN, even though OP_RETURN function isn't supposed to store any data besides transaction/P2SH for features such as multi-sig. Also, it's risky to expose your encrypted private key, even if you encrypt it with strong passphrase.
You also need to remember the transaction ID and the process isn't user friendly.
What for though? I don't think the OP wants a method to store his encrypted private key publicly. It should never be shared online, much less a platform for which everyone can see it. I don’t think that OP has a clear concept of what a private key is, or how the blockchain works. It sounds like he wants a way to require a password to authorize a transaction, in case the private key gets h4x0r3d. As ranochigo observes, I saw no indication of any idea to store the private key on the blockchain—just the password, which is used to authorize a spend from your Bitcoin “account”. It is one of those ideas which is “not even wrong”. Parsing this, with curly braces added: You { have a private key and a public key } and { optionally you could password protect your 'account' after which all transactions would require you to enter this password }. This password would obviously be stored on the blockchain itself.
Untangling the background misconceptions would require a full lesson on the basic concepts of public-key cryptography, how the blockchain works, etc. I do not think it could be done in one post, even a long one; and it would be suitable for multiple topics in Beginners & Help (or reading some introductory books on applied cryptography and on Bitcoin—or browsing the Bitcoin Wiki).
Is something like this possible to implement?
Short answer: No. Also, even if such a thing were possible (which it’s not), any password you pick will be laughably insecure compared to the strength of Bitcoin’s public-key security. That would be like propping a chair behind a bank vault door to try to prevent anybody from pushing it open. Well, it seems rather useless; and moreover, anybody who can get through the door somehow, will be able to push aside the chair! If your computer gets compromised (“hacked”) to the degree that your private keys are stolen, then the same attacker has the power to: Steal your password when you type it, prevent you from sending your own transaction until he has time to make a theft transaction, and/or change your send transaction details invisibly so that you send out a transaction which sends your funds to him. Please read up on applied cryptography and on Bitcoin concepts. Questions here. |
|
|
|
A public key is a large numerical value that is used to encrypt data. The key can be generated by a software program. It is provided by a designated authority and made available to everyone to send crypto.
A private key is for the owner and should never be shared!!!!!!!
WRONG INFORMATION, at least in the context of Bitcoin (and in some parts entirely incorrect). The public keys in Bitcoin are used to sign data, not to encrypt data. A digital signature from a private key is verifiable with a public key. This provides authorization for a spend. The key is not provided by a “designated authority”. Not in Bitcoin, and not in any other reasonably designed public-key cryptosystem. (In some other systems, such as TLS, an “authority” may certify public keys as being connected to a certain identity, such as a website address or (for EV) a corporate name; however, a TLS certificate authority does not generate the keys.) The public key isn’t just a “large numerical value”. It has specific properties which relate it to the private key. For Bitcoin, read up on secp256k1, the ECDSA curve parameters used by Bitcoin. The only correct line in this post: A private key must never be shared. The security of the whole system depends on the secrecy of the private key. (This is an application of Kerckhoffs’ Principle.)
OP, you need to explain more clearly what you want. bob123 said this already; and your followup post did little to elucidate. Anyway, I don’t anticipate that I will follow this thread. I only posted the foregoing because I saw incorrect factual statements, and there is already too much misinformation about there. No need for newbies and learners to get confused by an authoritative-sounding wrong statement concerning the basic facts about public keys. Happyniall, please don’t pretend to give answers unless you actually know what you’re talking about. You will mislead other people. Why bother? Do you think anybody will give you credit for incorrect information in a technical forum? |
|
|
|
No, LoyceV is correct; and the pertinent part is, the imposter account was created 2018-01-09. I noticed that later. Should have edited my post to append a correction. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
