[DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation

[Kouye]

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?
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.

[Luke-Jr]

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?

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.

[JusticeForYou]

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.

[Luke-Jr]

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]

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]

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.

[J603]

+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]

+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]

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]

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]

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?

[Luke-Jr]

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]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

[Luke-Jr]

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]

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."

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Luke-Jr]

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.