If you control + f keywords such as "emission", "supply", etc, you can't find anything on the whitepaper. No mention of the total supply, of the emission curve, let alone block sizes and whatnot.
Satoshi's whitepaper had a different target audience than the crypto projects you have nowadays. Today most whitepapers try to garner investors so they focus mostly on supply and questionable technical terms. They are trying to sell an investment vehicle pretty much like banks do when they give you fancy prospects of their latest mutual funds. Satoshi's whitepaper was about suggesting a concrete technical solution to a previously unsolved problem. To that extend the emission rate and overall supply were irrelevant, especially since there were no investors to speak of with the main audience being academics and cryptography enthusiasts. |
|
|
|
You forgot Satoshi's 1000000 bitcoins that have newer been moved, but still have their public keys visible.
Those addresses are difficult to protect from QC, because even if we implement a QC-resistant algorithm, those can't be protected or otherwise even Satoshi couldn't move them.
That's quite interesting, I didn't know that. I couldn't find anything useful on Google, got any more info on that? How are the public keys to Satoshi's old stash known, where public keys public before the protocol was changed to the way it works now? |
|
|
|
I like the "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news" part of your post, because I have noticed this a lot of time in the past. The latest "India is banning Bitcoin" is a perfect example of that. The rumors were doing the rounds and everyone started to panic and the price started to drop, but it took only a few days for their government to react and to tell people that it was not going to ban Crypto currencies.  That's funny, I never quite thought about how this old adage could also work the other way round (ie. regarding rumors about bad news). Come to think of it that's more or less what China did for the longest time (ie. every time they "banned" Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
Which docker image are you using? And what precisely are you trying to do? If you are using that one -- https://hub.docker.com/r/nicolasdorier/docker-bitcoin -- and are trying to run some RPC commands then maybe you still have to take care of the following: By default, Docker runs all containers on a private bridge network. This means that you are unable to access the RPC port (8332) necessary to run bitcoin-cli commands. There are several methods to run bitcoin-cli against a running bitcoind container. The easiest is to simply let your bitcoin-cli container share networking with your bitcoind container: $ docker run -d --rm --name bitcoind -v bitcoin-data:/data NicolasDorier/bitcoin
$ docker run --rm --network container:bitcoind NicolasDorier/bitcoin bitcoin-cli getinfo |
|
|
|
Well finally!  Congrats ProfTP! And congrats on a winning prediction that made everyone else a winner too!  |
|
|
|
[...] the response to this announcement were anticipated and priced into the market.  [...] The bear market reversal pretty much coincided with the Bakkt announcement for the July test phase, so I think that's the answer right there. "Buy on the rumor, sell on the news" and all that. I think it's way too early to assess whether Bakkt is dead on arrival and whether it's going to have any meaningful impact besides marketing hype. |
|
|
|
But how will you know if it is a minted one?
Because Bitcoin transactions are transparent. Each coin can be traced back to its original coinbase transaction, ie. the moment they were mined. A coin is freshly minted if it hasn't been used in any transactions since that original coinbase transaction. --- I found that bit quite interesting: Russian conspirators involved with the alleged 2016 election hack in the U.S. were presumed to have funded their operations in part via a host of different Bitcoin mining operations based across the globe. Honestly I think it's less about avoiding taint from previous usage in criminal activities but rather about ease of anonymously procuring substantial amounts currency: a) If you buy coins from an exchange they'll have your data on record b) If you buy coins for cash it (1) doesn't scale well and (2) will eventually trace back to an exchange (ie. your seller will have to have bought the coins from somewhere) c) Purchasing directly from a miner is much better but still introduces a liability d) Which only leaves running a mining operation yourself (unless you have someone trustworthy at (c)) Since "clean" money always comes at a premium this also means that there are miners out there that are willing to mine at a loss. Hm. |
|
|
|
Deriving the private key of old addresses that got reused and still have balance: eventually. Deriving the private key of old address with no outgoing transactions: no. The majority of "lost" coins fall in the latter category. Quantum computing can't bring back old coins just like it can't bring back your grandmother. |
|
|
|
In 10 years from now a quantum computer will have sufficient computation power to give a 51% attack on the bitcoin network.
Please discuss.
Unlikely, given that quantum computing are unlikely to offer any advantage in attacking SHA256: There may be breakthroughs in generic quantum collision search algorithms, or someone may find specialized cryptanalysis of SHA-256 that works only on quantum computers (e.g., see below about exotic constructions). But in the current state of the public literature, classical collision searches already appear cheaper than any known quantum collision searches would be even in the unbelievable scenario that qubit operations became as cheap as bit operations. Granted, running the hashing algorithm and searching for collisions are two very different things, but it goes to show that quantum computing is not some kind of magic all-seeing oracle for which the laws of mathematics don't apply. Additionally modern Bitcoin mining is done via ASICs which offer even more of an advantage over regular CPUs that are usually the benchmark for comparing classical to quantum computing. Also keep in mind that even if quantum computers where more efficient than ASICs at mining Bitcoins they would more likely be used to simply mine Bitcoin rather than attacking the network. |
|
|
|
electronic cash was long ago exist its all over the web just go do research its very easy.
Of course Bitcoin didn't exist in a vacuum. But name one project that came even close to be the p2p equivalent of cash prior to Bitcoin. Just one. |
|
|
|
|
While it probably was one of Bitcoin's first "Killer Apps" and helped spread the word, Bitcoin probably would have started to gain traction even in a world where Silk Road never existed.
Keep in mind that the Bitcoin exchange rate never broke USD 280,- during Silk Road's lifetime. Also Bitcoin was starting to see acceptance by clearnet organizations (eg. Reddit and WordPress) when it first reached a 3 digits exchange rate so it was probably the move from legal grey areas to legit companies that kicked off Bitcoin's upward trajectory.
|
|
|
|
newbie Alen_btc BANNED is plagiarizing Andreas M. Antonopoulos' "Mastering Bitcoin" book: Copy:Securing bitcoin is challenging because bitcoin is not an abstract reference to value, like a balance in a bank account. Bitcoin is very much like digital cash or gold.You can lose it, misplace it, have it
stolen or accidentally give the wrong amount to someone. In every one of those cases,
the end-user would have no recourse, just as if they dropped cash on a public sidewalk.However, bitcoin has capabilities that cash, gold and bank accounts do not. A bitcoin
wallet, containing your keys, can be backed up like any file. It can be stored in multiple
copies, even printed on paper for hard-copy backup. You can’t “backup” cash, gold or
bank accounts. Bitcoin is different enough from anything that has come before that we
need to think about bitcoin security in a novel way too.
The core principle in bitcoin is de-centralization and it has important implications for security. A centralized model, such as a traditional bank or payment network, depends
on access control and vetting to keep bad actors out of the system. By comparison, a de-centralized system like bitcoin pushes the responsibility and control to the end-users. Since security of the network is based on Proof-of-Work, not access control, the network
can be open and no encryption is required for bitcoin traffic.
The most important principle for bitcoin developers is de-centralization. Most devel‐ opers will be familiar with centralized security models and may be tempted to apply
these models to their bitcoin applications, with disastrous results.
In the longer term, bitcoin security will increasingly be implemented with hardware tamper-proof wallets. Unlike a smartphone or desktop computer, a purpose-built bit
coin hardware wallet has only one purpose and function - holding bitcoins securely.
Share your thoughts as well on this...thank you
Original:Googling any of the above sentence fragments will lead you to Google Books or similar results of "Mastering Bitcoin" |
|
|
|
People loathe Facebook yet the still use it. People loathe PayPal yet they still use it. So Libra might become a success after all. Regardless of that I'm not sure who Libra's target userbase is. Crypto-enthusiasts are unlikely to be converted and normies have other micro-payment-services available that are easier to use than Libra. As it is it seems to be worst of both worlds.
Merchants, as they prefer stability over speculative risk. Having a 1 to 1 with a US dollar, means they can accept it and then convert to fiat at any time, they are not forced to immediately convert to fiat to avoid price falls like we have seen in the past few days. While Tether is a scam , Libra will not be. So it is actually viable. That's the thing though, the Libra will not have an exchange rate of 1:1 to the USD: The Libra has the potential to mitigate this problem by being pegged to a diversified basket of national currencies that could provide ordinary folks in developing nations a better alternative to local currencies and the dollar to store wealth and invest. It could be substantially immune to capital controls. So while not as volatile as Bitcoin it will still act like a foreign currency and not a native one, with an exchange rate dependent on who-knows what metrics. |
|
|
|
Funnily enough I think Bitcoin will have rather a lot to thank Facebook for in the coming years. Libra is going to consume government hate for quite some time to come while BTC continues to do its thing. It's actually quite funny how Facebook's Libra is jumping in between Bitcoin and the government to catch every bullet imaginable. Libra arrived like a chucked hand grenade. Bitcoin's progress is way more subtle and harder to upend. Facebook is so universally loathed that Bitcoin looks like a wholesome and entirely neutral thing in comparison. People loathe Facebook yet the still use it. People loathe PayPal yet they still use it. So Libra might become a success after all. Regardless of that I'm not sure who Libra's target userbase is. Crypto-enthusiasts are unlikely to be converted and normies have other micro-payment-services available that are easier to use than Libra. As it is it seems to be worst of both worlds. |
|
|
|
|
Jesus, even mentioning Bitcoin in the same thread as MLM makes me shiver. I believe we're past the comparisons of Bitcoin to pyramid schemes, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
Here, have a Tampermonkey script that will hide every post except for OP and merited ones: (function() {
'use strict';
const links = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (let i = 0; i < links.length; i += 1) {
if (links[i].hasAttribute('name')) {
const reply = links[i].nextElementSibling;
const spans = reply.getElementsByTagName('span');
let isMerited = false;
for (let j = 0; j < spans.length; j += 1) {
if (spans[j].innerText === 'Merited') {
isMerited = true;
}
}
if (!isMerited) {
reply.style.display = 'none';
}
}
}
})();Install the Tampermonkey Chrome extension (or whatever the equivalent to the browser of your choice is) and have the script run for bitcointalk.org. The script will probably break at the simplest of edge cases but maybe it's a starting point  |
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't even the most basic building block of this decentralized sales agency easily broken? Simple enough. If B tries to sell the widget to a different address he is immediately fired. If A does not pay B then B just quits.
. A
. |
. v
. B
Add more.
1) The problem of trust doesn't seem to be solved. What prevents A from repeatedly not paying their employees? (ie. A does not pay B so B quits, so then C joins. A does not pay C so C quits, so then D joins...) 2) The problem of verification doesn't seem to be solved. What happens in case of a dispute between buyer and seller? (ie. B sells and delivers the widget but the customer claims the item has never arrived or is faulty) |
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say that Bitcoin as it exists today is not quantum secure, period. Pieter Wuille https://twitter.com/jb55/status/11335330681976750101. The first owners of possible computers with the ability to 'frack' the privatekey will use these computers only for shalecoins. (Coins with no holder) [...] No such thing as "fracking" private keys of old unused coins in the foreseeable future, even accounting for quantum computing. Note that Pieter Wuille's quote above refers to the public key of an address being exposed while sending a transaction from it. Old addresses that have never seen any outgoing transactions have never exposed their public key and can thus not be "fracked" by quantum computers. Neither Bitcoin nor quantum computers work that way. |
|
|
|
You can also ask the seller for their xpub key and use it to derive a fresh payment address for each individual sale.
I didn't know about xpub key, thanks. But after some researches, it seems that it's not a good idea to share your xpub key, so I can't really ask this from my sellers. There's 2 risks involved when sharing your xpub key: 1) Whoever has access to the xpub key can track your transactions 2) Whoever has access to the xpub key and to the private key of one of its derived addresses can derive the private keys of its other addresses as well (1) is precisely what you want to achieve, (2) should not happen as long as the seller keeps their private keys safe -- apart from very special scenarios where they explicitely export a single private key usually either all their private keys are safe or none of them are; regardless of whether they shared the xpub key. So while you shouldn't share your xpub key with random strangers on the internet, the scenario that you describe would be a typical use case for it. Alternatively, if you don't feel comfortable with asking sellers for the xpub key, you could also have them send you new addresses in batches. Having them send you e.g. 100 addresses a month would still be less cumbersome than them sending you a new address 3 times a day. Not optimal, yes, but unfortunately as far as non-custodial address generation goes you can't do much better than using the xpub key. |
|
|
|
I think we both have a different understand of the term 'implementation'.
If i write python code which uses a well known libary to implement AES encryption before sending it via the internet and the server receives it and uses the same libary to decrypt it... that's my 'own' implementation (in my terms). Ah, gotcha. Fair enough. By the way.. if you follow the specification properly, your cipher text won't be vulnerable to attacks.
Except even the most competent developers make mistakes and even the most trusted implementation can have vulnerabilities (see Heartbleed for example -- not exactly a MITM attack but I think you get my point). We're all just human after all (presumably). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
