Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 02:33:51 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: John Nash created bitcoin  (Read 21534 times)
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 04:52:20 PM
 #261

I understand @dinofelis wasn't able to assimilate this information, so I think by putting it all organized concisely in one post will help him and readers to understand. And hopefully he will stop lying.

One last time, I will repeat the rebuttals I made to two of @dinofelis' incorrect claims that Bitcoin has a clunky design thus implying Satoshi's design was not genius. I made other rebuttals upthread, but I will not repeat all of them again.

1.
there's no point in making the hash bigger than 128 bits

@dinofelis claims that since it is known that the true security of Bitcoins 256-bit ECDSA (elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, i.e. a form of ECC aka elliptic curve cryptography) is only 128-bits, then if we hash the ECDSA public key, then we only need a 128-bit hash. Thus he claims that Satoshi was wasteful and not genius. Although Satoshi's long-term priorities were not prioritized on not consuming too much block size given 1 MB was deemed more than sufficient for Bitcoin's planned future as block chain for the $billionaires only, Satoshi did minimize the length of the hash function by choosing 160-bit RIPE160 instead of SHA256 for the final hash of Bitcoin addresses (as they appear on the blockchain, but note that publicly distributed addresses also have a checksum for eliminating user typos but afaik this checksum is or could be discarded from what is stored on the blockchain). He did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.

Agreed it is but collision attacks based on distinguishers, boomerang attacks, and other forms of cryptoanalysis which attempt to reduce the intractability are what concern us.

...

You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits. By frustrating crypt-analysis with the prehashing with SHA256, this RIPE160 is deemed to be a perfect balance of compression and brute force collision resistance.

Yet @dinofelis is incorrect to claim that 128-bits would have been sufficient for the hash function, because of at least two reasons:

a)
Reducing 160-bits by 16 bits only saves 10%, and for that miniscule size reduction you are not factoring the exponential loss in randomized collision resistance.

Insufficient collision resistance of 128-bits. Even if we assume that all attacks on collision resistance of SHA128 are intractable, even the equation for random chance says that if we generation more than a trillion addresses then we have a near certainty of production one random collision. But that is for an idealized hash function. Whereas in fact hash functions always have more collisions than the perfect randomization of their bit length. Conservatively we would presume on the order of a few bits of redundancy in the permutation engine of the hash function, thus we would expect a random collision with only billions of address.

Satohi was prescient in his prudence because since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, a collision attack against SHA128 has been discovered which reduces the collision security to 60-bits which is approaching the realm of tractability. Additionally since the attacker can control the message being signed, birthday attacks generally can reduce collisions to half the bit-length of the hash, which is different from using the birthday problem to attack the ECDSA.
b)The hash is intended for long-term security (as it is public for a long time whereas the ECDSA signature and public key is only published for a short-time before it becomes recorded as final and not double-spendable in the blockchain), so it requires greater security. Notwithstanding the long-term security distinction, if the security of both the ECDSA and the hash are the same then cryptanalysis reduction of security in both might be levered in such a way that their weakening is compounded.

Also the larger bit length of the hash may also provide competitive economic security compared with the block reward of using the SHA256 resources to mine the blockchain. And as I had pointed out upthread, the 160-bit reduces the collision attack space of the 256-bit ECDSA from 128 to  96 bits.

2.@dinofelis claims that quantum computing resistance with the hash is futile because if the ECDSA is broken via Shor's algorithm, because he claims the attacker can crack the transaction signature and double-spend it when it is published before the bonafide signature becomes final in the blockchain. I already refuted this argument based on two reasons.

If you argue that it doesn't matter if we have the hashes when ECC is broken by quantum computing, because the transactions can be intercepted and cracked by the attacker before they are confirmed in the network, you would not be thinking clearly. Because quantum computing would at its inception (nascent stages) likely be only able to break long-term security but not short-term. So there would be a period to transition as I already stated in the above quote from my prior post.

So the day that one finds the "Euclidean division" in an ECC, it is COMPLETELY BROKEN.

You are describing future cryptanalysis breakage of the math theoretic security of the intractability of the discrete logarithm over certain fields.

But you're analogy does not apply, because Shor's algorithm (a form of cryptanalysis) is already known! It is not a future unknown.

Also (and this is a minor point which isn't really necessary for my slamdunk) you are conflating the breakage of discrete logarithm math theoretic security with the security of permutation algorithms of hash functions. I repeat the distinction between the two which you have failed to assimilate:

You are uninformed. Crypt-analysis breaks on hash functions typically lower the security in bits, but don't lower it to 0 bits.

As I had originally pointed out you are conflating two entirely different systems of security and each can benefit orthogonally from increased bit lengths when we are not concerned about an intractable brute force enumeration attack and instead concerned with math theoretic cryptanalysis breakage.

Thus...

--> if we assume that ECC will be broken one day, bitcoin's crypto scheme is IN ANY CASE not usable.

Not only are you failing to assimilate the fact that Shor's breakage is already known (not a future thing not knowable as you are arguing) which is sufficient slamdunk on why you are incorrect, but you are also claiming that hash functions can typically be entirely broken in one swoop which afaik not the case (and I studied the cryptanalysis history on past SHA submissions from round 1 to final rounds).

Now, what is the reason we can allow LOWER security for the exposed public key, than for the long-term address in an output ?  The reason is a priori (and I also fell into that trap - as I told you before, my reason for these discussions is only to improve my proper understanding and here it helped) that the public key needs only to secure the thing between broadcasting and inclusion in the chain.  But as you point out, that can take longer if blocks are full than 10 minutes.  This can be a matter of hours.

Now, if we are on a security requirement of days or weeks, then there's essentially not much difference between days or weeks, and centuries.  The factor between them is 10000 or so.  That's 16 bits.  A scheme that is secure for days or weeks, only needs 16 bits of extra security, to be secure for centuries ====>  there is no reason to nitpick on 16 bits if we are talking about 128 bits or so.
There is no reason to introduce "short term security" if this is only 16 bits less than the long term security level.

You have incorrect conceptualization. The point of long-term security is not the difference in the time it takes to crack with a given level of technology, but rather that over the long-term we can't know when that moment comes that cracking has become sufficiently fast enough. The Bitcoin UTXO from 8 years ago that Satoshi has not spent, could have been under attack for the past 8 years. By having the hash for the long-term security, then we force all attacks to begin only when the UTXO are spent. This enables us to restrict damage to a very few number of transactions and the community will become alarmed and take corrective action.

I already told you that if the public key were exposed for a longer (indefinite!) time, so you would need to increase the security of the public key.  But to what level given quantum computing may be coming?

And 256-bit was about the upper limit of what was available and well accepted in 2008.

I remember seeing that 256-bit was only expected to be recommended security for ECC for only another decade or so.

https://www.keylength.com/en/3/

https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/

...


Another reason (in addition to the compression of UTXO) to hash the values on the block chain is because when the use of a quantum computer is detected, we have some protection against chaos and can map out a strategy for burning the values to a new design securely. Hashes are much more likely to be quantum computing resistant.

You're advocating reducing to 80 bits, so that means in the future if someone has to computational capacity to break 128-bits in 2.814749767×10¹⁴ / 60*24*365.25 years, then then at your suggested 80 bits they could break it in 1 minute.
1512959631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512959631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512959631
Reply with quote  #2

1512959631
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512959631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512959631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512959631
Reply with quote  #2

1512959631
Report to moderator
1512959631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512959631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512959631
Reply with quote  #2

1512959631
Report to moderator
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 06:36:08 PM
 #262

How can they find out I own bitcoin?

You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.

Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.

He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic.

Do you need the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.

Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.

Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly. Wink Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


#tapcoin


View Profile WWW
April 14, 2017, 06:43:28 PM
 #263

As great a mathematician as John Nash was, he did not code bitcoin.  Some of his thinking may have influenced bitcoin's genesis, but he did not write the code....He was too busy chasing Harvey the Rabbit to find the time to code.

thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 07:04:21 PM
 #264

How can they find out I own bitcoin?

You have no secrets from the national security agencies. I don't care how many mixers you use, you have no secrets from them. Find old discussions between @smooth and myself on that topic.

Why doesn't MP dump too? he is a public figure so he will be the first to get trapped by the anti bitcoin government control operation.

He is already one of the $billionaires (will probably be $trillionaire by 2030). He is a member of their shadow elite's club named The Most Serene Republic.

Do you need the evidence. MP alerted the TMSR which controls Wikileaks and this is why Wikileaks destroyed Hillary's campaign. Do some research on the connection between Rothschild and Julian Assange. Btw, Julian was a cyberpunk (the mailing list discussions) before he launched Wikileaks of which so were other players such as Hal Finney and James A. Donald (see my quotes of him in the Dark Enlightenment thread and note he was first person to respond to Satoshi on the metzdown mailing list whet Bitcoin was announced Nov. 1, 2008).

It's harder to trap the small guy that only owns a couple 5-21 BTC, it's not public, uses Tor etc.
If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

They don't need to trap you. You'll get caught in their regulations because you will get kicked off the blockchain by the exorbitant transaction fees due to the constrained block size.

Also they can create war and other problems for us that cause us to need to spend our BTC sooner than we anticipated.

If by 2030 I have several million dollars that I cannot enjoy because I can't even cash them out because the fee is higher than the million dollars I have im going to be pissed.

You'll be forced to cash out of BTC before that (to some regulated financial system such as Lightning Networks, SEPA, etc) or hold your BTC a regulated exchange.

Or possibly there will be another blockchain choice such as yours truly. Wink Ethereum is also attempting to scale the blockchain. I will make a post comparing Ethereum's technology to mine in Altcoin Discussion soon...

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

And how do we know when we start losing money (aka when is the time to dump?)

You say now is too early because the price will go higher and the fees will still be affordable.

How does one calculate when you start losing money in relation to the amount of BTC you are holding, the price, and the fees so you know the ideal time to dump?

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.
You paint a scary picture where there is an Illuminati elite of BTC holders. I am just a hard working poor guy hustling for BTCs, made a decent portfolio (not even yet 21 BTC group) and you are saying these guys will make my wealth useless because the fee will be so high by 2030 that even if you are holding something decent like 10-20 BTC, your wealth will be stuck, so you are forced to eventually sell before the fee is higher than your wealth. This is just nuts man, what the fuck? Fucking billionaires. Fuck all of you!! I only wanted to make a couple million dollars from my hard working and hustling and long term vision to hodl BTC and retire peacefully and now I will get fucked by insane fees. Fuck this trash, fuck their group, pussies. I was excited to see BTC at 6 figures in 10 years, but I will not be part of it even if i have 10 million worth of BTC because fees will be higher than 10 million BTC? this is insane. When the fuck do I dump this garbage? im too pissed, im going to the gym.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 07:48:36 PM
 #265

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.

And how do we know when we start losing money (aka when is the time to dump?)

Monitor the fees paid in blocks. It will gradually rise over the coming years.

You say now is too early because the price will go higher and the fees will still be affordable.

How does one calculate when you start losing money in relation to the amount of BTC you are holding, the price, and the fees so you know the ideal time to dump?

It is a function of the supply and demand for BTC. As the demand for transactions outstrips supply of block size space, the transaction fees will rise accordingly. You can project if you can project BTC transaction demand.

You paint a scary picture where there is an Illuminati elite of BTC holders.

Well they exist. MP is one of them. You can speak to him on his IRC channel. Ask him if you want. Be sincere and maybe he won't be too hard on you.

Better to ask directly while you still can access him. I provided the link to his IRC in my prior post.

Please notify us after you did.

I am just a hard working poor guy hustling for BTCs, made a decent portfolio (not even yet 21 BTC group) and you are saying these guys will make my wealth useless because the fee will be so high by 2030 that even if you are holding something decent like 10-20 BTC, your wealth will be stuck, so you are forced to eventually sell before the fee is higher than your wealth. This is just nuts man, what the fuck?

Well I think the price of Bitcoin will rise to greater than $10,000 before you have any problem about the fees, as long as you are only spending minimum increments of 1 BTC.

Fucking billionaires. Fuck all of you!! I only wanted to make a couple million dollars from my hard working and hustling and long term vision to hodl BTC and retire peacefully and now I will get fucked by insane fees. Fuck this trash, fuck their group, pussies. I was excited to see BTC at 6 figures in 10 years, but I will not be part of it even if i have 10 million worth of BTC because fees will be higher than 10 million BTC? this is insane. When the fuck do I dump this garbage? im too pissed, im going to the gym.

Well at 20 BTC you probably be able to cash out more than a $million if you don't encounter the other pitfalls I mentioned.

We are headed into a difficult time with collapsing governments, chaos, and war.

But if you are clever, you might make it through in a good situation. Remain alert and astute. Don't stop learning.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 07:56:19 PM
 #266

no, bitcoin will most likely not go to $500,000 in 2030

But you aren't sure.

no, you will not be tortured if you own BTC

Will you guarantee that no one will be imprisoned/tortured for "financial crimes"1 if they fail to comply with government orders to turn over their private keys?

I want you to make an asshat for yourself so we can enshrine your post later when it is proven that you were incorrect.

no, you will be able to move 1 BTC (we will never reach a point where fee is higher than 1 BTC, it would collapse before we get there, too many angry people will kill the project)

no, bitcoin will not be for billionaires only (devs allowing this will get killed by angry bitcoiners that holded for years only to find out their millions are stuck on the blockchain because the fees are millionaire in itselves)

Your nonsense has been refuted already upthread.

The devs have no control whatsoever dufus.


1 Read more about this here.
btcbug
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 449


View Profile
April 14, 2017, 09:42:10 PM
 #267


So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

And how do we know when we start losing money (aka when is the time to dump?)

You say now is too early because the price will go higher and the fees will still be affordable.

How does one calculate when you start losing money in relation to the amount of BTC you are holding, the price, and the fees so you know the ideal time to dump?

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.
You paint a scary picture where there is an Illuminati elite of BTC holders. I am just a hard working poor guy hustling for BTCs, made a decent portfolio (not even yet 21 BTC group) and you are saying these guys will make my wealth useless because the fee will be so high by 2030 that even if you are holding something decent like 10-20 BTC, your wealth will be stuck, so you are forced to eventually sell before the fee is higher than your wealth. This is just nuts man, what the fuck? Fucking billionaires. Fuck all of you!! I only wanted to make a couple million dollars from my hard working and hustling and long term vision to hodl BTC and retire peacefully and now I will get fucked by insane fees. Fuck this trash, fuck their group, pussies. I was excited to see BTC at 6 figures in 10 years, but I will not be part of it even if i have 10 million worth of BTC because fees will be higher than 10 million BTC? this is insane. When the fuck do I dump this garbage? im too pissed, im going to the gym.

I'm sure it'll be fine. I wouldn't worry too much. We're on the front lines of this whole shift and as investors/speculators we need to be! IMO we need to be preparing for when we want to cash some out to lock in gains and/or diversify. Are you familiar with Doug Casey, Simon Black, etc.? Investigate their PT (permanent traveller, multiple flags philosophies. Essentially, living in one country, holding citizenship(s) in another with low or zero tax on non-residents, and thirdly, have assets (offshore account, real estate, etc) in another jurisdiction. The idea is diversifying your life between multiple jurisdictions. Typically tourists are treated better than citizens (they aren't tax livestock!).

Personally, I can see cryptos becoming the new offshore accounts. Will it not be possible in 10 years to be have diversified a significant amount into something like Monero, ZCash or some other fully anonymous coin? I can't see how the anonymous coins wouldn't be insanely valuable if/when governments start cracking down on crypto holders. Maybe @iamnotback has some thoughts on this?

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 10:35:55 PM
 #268

You could just remove the reward, any one can mine new block out of the mem pool, if two blocks or tx are in common, a determinstic algorithm could be used to select between the two.

Seriously you do not understand Byzantine fault tolerance and the FLP impossibility theorem.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 10:53:15 PM
 #269

if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.

I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?

As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.

If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)

You have an incomplete mathematical conceptualization.

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

So let me get this straight.

Even people holding millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, will see their bitcoins trapped because transaction fees will be worth millions of dollars? What fees are we talking about by 2030? (at supposedly around $500k price)

Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 11:00:57 PM
 #270

No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee

The whales do because they will be paying 0% fees, as I explained in my prior post.

And everyone who can afford it, will still want to hodl BTC, because the price is going to the moon.

So it will be a process that as the price rises, more and more riff-raff get priced out of the block chain. But those who remain will hodl because the price is rising logistically.

Really you need to think this out. It works very well economically and Satoshi was an evil genius.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 11:08:21 PM
 #271

Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.

Satoshi was so genius that he designed the AsicBoost into the design.

I can say that with great confidence because double-hashing defeats attacks such as AsicBoost, and Satoshi did double-hashing as a precaution every where it could be required in his design except for the proof-of-work.

He managed to think far ahead on the game theory and realized he would need a poison pill to ensure that no one could modify his evil design.

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

@dinofelis STFU on your nonsense about Satoshi wasn't genius. I've strongly refuted all of your nonsense technical claims. Stop your lying nonsense.
vintagetrex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
April 14, 2017, 11:13:52 PM
 #272

Nash is a left wing bitch.  I thought he would be a conservative.  He was probably replaced when he was detained as a young man and is a long running U.S. military system. 

Nemesis: minting cryptographic currency with information
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 11:28:58 PM
 #273

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.

All his funds (have been and) are being stolen from him, because he tried to compete with Bitcoin.

He is not mistaken that he has been targeted. He is mistaken that he can defeat the forces against him, because for one thing he doesn't even understand the technology he needs to know in order to defeat the TMSR.

Re: PRE-ANN: People's Mark - basic income local currency in Finland - launch Oct2016

- is currently executing Kansanmarkka, a debt-free basic income currency, designed to oust Euro from Finland (and the world) by voluntary choice by the people. Participation in Kansanmarkka is free, you actually get paid.

Centralised DB

This is a technological and political-economic flaw. A Nash equilibrium immutable protocol should be the law, not humans.

A system mutable by humans is a power vacuum.
Dorky
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 392


Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain


View Profile
April 15, 2017, 04:04:23 AM
 #274

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

My comment: Hmmm... that scenario above sounds like my Scenario A whereby fee (not fixed, no minimum) is based on certain % of transaction value. This is fine.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

My comment: This is plausible but not guaranteed. And gives rise to risk of such corruption being publicly disclosed. By right if my Scenario A plays out, the whales should have no complain even if fee reaches $600,000 as long as price of BTC is $600,000,000/unit to commensurate. And by that time, the miners may very likely be centralized by super farms/nodes, or something like that, thus no risk of collusion between whales and miners (that may eventually be owned by the same whales).

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

My comment: So there is a way out after all from exorbitant fee after all. That's a relief.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.

My comment: We are all slaves, with or without bitcoin, and with or without regulation. Bitcoin being a digital tracker to enforce obedience and compliance is not here to free us.



     
     ██
    ███
  █ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 █  ██
   



         ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
      ▄████████████████████▄
    ▄████████████████████████▄
   █████▀▀▀▀▀▀███████▀▀▀▀▀▀████
  ██████      ███████      █████
 █████████▌   ███████   █████████
▐█████████▌   ███████   █████████▌
████████                   ███████
▐███████▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄██████▌
 ██████████   ███████   █████████
  ██████▀▀▀   ███████   ▀▀▀█████
   █████      ███████      ████
    ▀████████████████████████▀
      ▀████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀


 
 ▄▄         ▄▄             ▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌           ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄███▌      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▄██████████▌   ▄███████████   ▄██████████
▐█████████████▌  ███▀     ▐██▌  ▐███▀     ███  ▐███▀
▐██▌       ▐██▌ ▐██▌      ▐██▌  ███▌      ███  ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌  ███▄     ▐██▌  ▐███▄     ███  ▐███▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▀██████████▌   ▀██████  ███   ▀██████████
▀▀         ▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀


██
███
███
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
 ██ 
  █

██    Whitepaper    ██
.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
FacebookTwitterBitcointalk
Dorky
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 392


Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain


View Profile
April 15, 2017, 04:18:58 AM
 #275

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

My comment: The blocksize is constrained but not the monetary value of bitcoin. And the % fee is not based on the blocksize (which is limited), but on the monetary value of bitcoin (which is unlimited). It's just like using gold to facilitate global commerce. Many say gold is too limited in supply for the role, but some say, well, just adjust the price of gold (upward) will just do. The same is with bitcoin.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

My comment: If that's true, then we can throw out the 8 decimals of bitcoin as we won't be using it soon. The fact that it is well thought out to have 8 decimals is very probably because we will still be transacting in fractions of bitcoin no matter the fee.



     
     ██
    ███
  █ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 █  ██
   



         ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
      ▄████████████████████▄
    ▄████████████████████████▄
   █████▀▀▀▀▀▀███████▀▀▀▀▀▀████
  ██████      ███████      █████
 █████████▌   ███████   █████████
▐█████████▌   ███████   █████████▌
████████                   ███████
▐███████▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄██████▌
 ██████████   ███████   █████████
  ██████▀▀▀   ███████   ▀▀▀█████
   █████      ███████      ████
    ▀████████████████████████▀
      ▀████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀


 
 ▄▄         ▄▄             ▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌           ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄███▌      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▄██████████▌   ▄███████████   ▄██████████
▐█████████████▌  ███▀     ▐██▌  ▐███▀     ███  ▐███▀
▐██▌       ▐██▌ ▐██▌      ▐██▌  ███▌      ███  ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌  ███▄     ▐██▌  ▐███▄     ███  ▐███▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▀██████████▌   ▀██████  ███   ▀██████████
▀▀         ▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀


██
███
███
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
 ██ 
  █

██    Whitepaper    ██
.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
FacebookTwitterBitcointalk
Dorky
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 392


Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain


View Profile
April 15, 2017, 04:27:13 AM
 #276

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

My comment: Are you aware that China didn't discover bitcoin on its own and didn't mine bitcoin on its own initiative? China was proposed to mine and work on bitcoin by the same group of people that developed bitcoin. The mining technologies were not from China (they are not technologically competent for the job). Thus, all parties involved (Chinese manufacturers and the "satoshi" group) may already knew such hack as AsicBoost all along since the start. Thus there may be no such suspicion that "he knew the Chinese manufacturers would figure out" because they were already told such hack is in place. And do you know the Chinese miners are part of the shadow elites' network (knowingly or unknowingly)?



     
     ██
    ███
  █ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 █  ██
   



         ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
      ▄████████████████████▄
    ▄████████████████████████▄
   █████▀▀▀▀▀▀███████▀▀▀▀▀▀████
  ██████      ███████      █████
 █████████▌   ███████   █████████
▐█████████▌   ███████   █████████▌
████████                   ███████
▐███████▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄██████▌
 ██████████   ███████   █████████
  ██████▀▀▀   ███████   ▀▀▀█████
   █████      ███████      ████
    ▀████████████████████████▀
      ▀████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀


 
 ▄▄         ▄▄             ▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌           ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄███▌      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▄██████████▌   ▄███████████   ▄██████████
▐█████████████▌  ███▀     ▐██▌  ▐███▀     ███  ▐███▀
▐██▌       ▐██▌ ▐██▌      ▐██▌  ███▌      ███  ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌  ███▄     ▐██▌  ▐███▄     ███  ▐███▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▀██████████▌   ▀██████  ███   ▀██████████
▀▀         ▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀


██
███
███
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
 ██ 
  █

██    Whitepaper    ██
.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
FacebookTwitterBitcointalk
Thatstinks
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 247


View Profile
April 15, 2017, 05:22:55 AM
 #277

If transaction fee's actually grew like that then bitcoin can never be worth those amounts.

If a very expensive BTC does not see small fee's then there is no such thing as a very expensive BTC price as mentioned above, simple.

iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 15, 2017, 05:51:54 AM
 #278

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

My comment: The blocksize is constrained but not the monetary value of bitcoin. And the % fee is not based on the blocksize (which is limited), but on the monetary value of bitcoin (which is unlimited). It's just like using gold to facilitate global commerce. Many say gold is too limited in supply for the role, but some say, well, just adjust the price of gold (upward) will just do. The same is with bitcoin.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

My comment: If that's true, then we can throw out the 8 decimals of bitcoin as we won't be using it soon. The fact that it is well thought out to have 8 decimals is very probably because we will still be transacting in fractions of bitcoin no matter the fee.


You entirely didn't understand the math. Both of your blue comments are incorrect. Sorry but you really need to go re-read and learn 8th grade mathematics. What were you doing since age 13 that you've forgotten the math that you were taught then.
Dorky
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 392


Best IoT Platform Based on Blockchain


View Profile
April 15, 2017, 06:05:54 AM
 #279

You entirely didn't understand the math. Both of your blue comments are incorrect. Sorry but you really need to go re-read and learn 8th grade mathematics. What were you doing since age 13 that you've forgotten the math that you were taught then.

The shadow elites, like you, have always been living in a make-belief kind of fantasy world.
Distorted, yet accepted as superior.

No, my math is not incorrect. It's just that you are not exposed to what you don't yet know.


     
     ██
    ███
  █ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 ██ ███
 █  ██
   



         ▄▄▄██████████▄▄▄
      ▄████████████████████▄
    ▄████████████████████████▄
   █████▀▀▀▀▀▀███████▀▀▀▀▀▀████
  ██████      ███████      █████
 █████████▌   ███████   █████████
▐█████████▌   ███████   █████████▌
████████                   ███████
▐███████▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄██████▌
 ██████████   ███████   █████████
  ██████▀▀▀   ███████   ▀▀▀█████
   █████      ███████      ████
    ▀████████████████████████▀
      ▀████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀


 
 ▄▄         ▄▄             ▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌           ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄███▌      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▄██████████▌   ▄███████████   ▄██████████
▐█████████████▌  ███▀     ▐██▌  ▐███▀     ███  ▐███▀
▐██▌       ▐██▌ ▐██▌      ▐██▌  ███▌      ███  ███▌
▐██▌       ▐██▌  ███▄     ▐██▌  ▐███▄     ███  ▐███▄
▐██▌       ▐██▌   ▀██████████▌   ▀██████  ███   ▀██████████
▀▀         ▀▀       ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀


██
███
███
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
███ ██
 ██ 
  █

██    Whitepaper    ██
.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
FacebookTwitterBitcointalk
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
April 15, 2017, 06:07:52 AM
 #280

No, my math is not incorrect.

You're (lack of) comprehension of the math I showed, is incorrect.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!