Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 01:45:34 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation  (Read 4296 times)
Kouye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


Cuddling, censored, unicorn-shaped troll.


View Profile
August 19, 2013, 01:17:59 PM
 #21

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned betsofbitco.in and the BFL unit, when BFL has not shipped anything but merely let Luke-Jr ssh into it
I accepted a hosted device I paid for in full 10 months earlier, which had been losing value rapidly for months since competing ASICs had delivered. Wouldn't anyone? It's unfortunate that a certain wager was badly worded such that a single delivery satisfied it, but IMO it's a bit unreasonable to blame me for that.


Cool.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html
Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title? Smiley
I wouldn't want the foundation president to randomly forget words in his statements.

Maybe it's a good time for honesty, confession and apologies.
I'm serious, here, cause I just think you were a bit overwhelmed, and this is very understandable.

[OVER] RIDDLES 2nd edition --- this was claimed. Look out for 3rd edition!
I won't ever ask for a loan nor offer any escrow service. If I do, please consider my account as hacked.
1513302334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513302334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513302334
Reply with quote  #2

1513302334
Report to moderator
1513302334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513302334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513302334
Reply with quote  #2

1513302334
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513302334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513302334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513302334
Reply with quote  #2

1513302334
Report to moderator
1513302334
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513302334

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513302334
Reply with quote  #2

1513302334
Report to moderator
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 02:49:30 PM
 #22

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html
Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title? Smiley
It was irrelevant? And obvious from the photos showing BFL's location too.
I wasn't thinking about bets when I made the post, let alone that some bets might or might not have hinged upon trivial things like this.

BTC_Bear
B4 Foundation
VIP
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


Best Offense is a Good Defense


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2013, 03:47:14 PM
 #23

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.

Corporations have been enthroned, An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. ~Abe Lincoln 1ApJdWUdSWYw8n8HEATYhHXA9EYoRTy7c4
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 03:54:55 PM
 #24

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.

I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.
Huh?

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 04:01:33 PM
 #25

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.


What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.

Are you saying you're a bad choice.

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 04:54:15 PM
 #26

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.
What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.
If I don't, someone else will.
Now if someone like gmaxwell were willing, I'd decline my nomination and vote for him instead. Wink

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
 #27

+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.


With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.



Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.
J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 07:02:25 PM
 #28

+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.


With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.



Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.

That would be me giving you permission by revealing my public key. Even then, I can have countless other addresses unlinked to the one I've revealed.

In order for bitcoins to be on the address you must make some sort of transaction... In which case someone knows your balance and transaction history. Maybe not me, but anyone you deal with will know.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 07:25:43 PM
 #29

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 07:43:34 PM
 #30

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Kouye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


Cuddling, censored, unicorn-shaped troll.


View Profile
August 19, 2013, 07:58:05 PM
 #31

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.
I don't understand.
I can vouch for that. Lurk moar, J.
As suspicious as Luke might look, he's 100% right, here.
Check the recent troubles around the not-that-random transaction signing on android wallet for more insight.

One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.

And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?


[OVER] RIDDLES 2nd edition --- this was claimed. Look out for 3rd edition!
I won't ever ask for a loan nor offer any escrow service. If I do, please consider my account as hacked.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 08:02:50 PM
 #32

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Proper paper wallets have unlimited addresses.
For example, Armory supports paper wallets.

One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
1) There is no official client.
2) Bitcoin-Qt never reuses addresses itself.

And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
All of the Bitcoin-Qt dev team seem to be in agreement that the "Receive coins" tab could use a makeover to discourage address reuse better.

fently
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66

Bleh!


View Profile
August 19, 2013, 08:03:22 PM
 #33

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 19, 2013, 08:05:55 PM
 #34

Addresses don't have balances.
From a layman's point of view, that makes no sense.

Regardless of how Bitcoin technically works (from the point of view of a developer), most users know of "addresses" and an amount of Bitcoins "located" at that address. That would be a "balance", a.k.a. an amount.
This misunderstanding is where education is needed.

Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 07:44:11 AM
 #35

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
TradeFortress
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
August 20, 2013, 08:23:52 AM
 #36

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Privacy reasons.

Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 10:05:57 AM
 #37

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

I always thought it was a funny phrase since politics is basically a religion itself.

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 02:09:55 PM
 #38

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Privacy reasons.



I understand why you wouldn't want to use an address more than once, but what stops me from sending to an address more than once?
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2013, 02:16:56 PM
 #39

Perhaps I haven't asked too deeply, but doesn't the Board advise the Foundation?

If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.

Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions.  It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical.  That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
August 20, 2013, 10:55:36 PM
 #40

As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers? As with actual postal or bank storage boxes we don't really have their precise coordinates, just a number telling us which one it is.
This reenforces the incorrect understanding. There is no grouping by address at all.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!