Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 11:46:55 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Let There Be Dark! Bitcoin Dark Wallet  (Read 49123 times)
Ecurb123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
November 15, 2013, 06:10:45 PM
 #101

If anyone wants to come participate in development, you're more than welcome.

https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/DarkWallet/Meeting_Nov2013

This is the event for starting everything. We have more public talks in the first week of December, and spaces if people need a place to sleep (although it will be quite busy). If you have a proposal for a talk or need a bed then send me a PM. Feel free to visit if you're around.

Our mailing list:

https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem

I'm not a real developer, but would it be ok if I checked it out?
1508240815
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508240815

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508240815
Reply with quote  #2

1508240815
Report to moderator
1508240815
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508240815

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508240815
Reply with quote  #2

1508240815
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
hamiltino
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


P2P The Planet!


View Profile
November 17, 2013, 01:02:31 PM
 #102

So this is how it will work.

Blockchain.info for person to person and online transactions
DarkWallet for silkroad
Coldstorage for saving and very big transactions


I'm hoping however zerocoin will be eventually implemented into bitcoin.

stacking coin
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
November 17, 2013, 02:41:24 PM
 #103

Dark Wallet was mentioned in a "leaked" e-mail correspondence:
Quote from: John Dillon
Posted to the foundation forum,
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/483-bitcoin-dark-wallet/page__st__20#entry5410
 
Dunno if you have a membership or not.
 
 
Quote from: Saivann Carignan

Patrick Murck said it in simple terms: The use of Bitcoin will (and is) regulated, not the Bitcoin protocol itself..

He's right, but the way he's right is not at all the way you probably think he's right: Bitcoin mining can and almost certainly will be regulated, and by regulating mining you regulate all use of the Bitcoin protocol.
 
The first problem is ASICs, specifically the huge gulf in performance per unit cost between commodity hardware, or even hardware possible to create on a small scale with FPGAs, and ASICs. The nature of IC manufacturing is such that a very small number of companies, about two to three, can afford the immense capital costs required to operate top-of-the-line chip fabrication facilities. Put another way, the entire world's economy is unable to support a diverse IC manufacturing industry at the current level of technological sophistication.
 
Control those chip fabs and you control mining. It would be extremely easy for the US government to tell Intel and TSMC that from now on any wafers they process capable of doing Bitcoin mining must include additional circuits that let the US government control how, and by whom, they are used. This is a problem in general with computing, but controlling the manufacture of a special-purpose ASIC is far easier and simpler, both technologically and politically, than controlling the availability of general purpose computing hardware. Fortunately it is possible to create proof-of-work algorithms where custom ASICs have less of an advantage over general purpose hardware, but Bitcoin itself isn't going to change the algorithm.
 
The second problem is bandwidth: the Bitcoin protocol has atrocious scalability in that to mine blocks you must keep up with the bandwidth used by all transactions. The current 1MB blocksize is small enough to make this not a major problem yet, but if you increase that (with a hardfork!) at some point you will have increased it to the level where you can no longer mine anonymously and then regulating miners directly becomes possible. Unfortunately while technological improvements have made non-anonymous bandwidth more plentiful, for anonymous bandwidth - or even just censorship resistant bandwidth - the options are much more limited. Jurisdiction hopping is an option, but even for the likes of The Pirate Bay it's proved to be a huge pain in the ass, and they only had the relatively small media industry as their enemy rather than the much larger banking industry. (and government in general) It does appear that you could make a crypto-currency with better core scalability - as opposed to the well understood and already-used ways to fairly securely transfer funds off-chain - but no-one's quite yet figured out yet how to upgrade Bitcoin itself with those improvements.
 
What's interesting is with good cryptography we've figured out ways to at least detect if miners are violating every other aspect of the Bitcoin protocol: some relatively small and backwards compatible changes to the protocol allow auditing everything miners do with peicewise audits done on low-bandwidth connections. If your wallet randomly audits 0.1% of every block, and there are a few thousand like you, the chance of fraud not being detected quickly approaches zero.
 
But auditing can only detect if miners fail to follow the rules of the Bitcoin protocol; it can't force miners to decide to include your blacklisted transactions in a block. If a majority of hashing power is under government control, there's no way we can prevent them from blacklisting whatever they want. Secondly, if the government does decide to change the rules of the Bitcoin protocol by fiat, then what? Suppose the Federal Reserve or equivalent decides that the deflation of Bitcoin is bad for the economy, and the coin distribution schedule needs to be changed. Or perhaps the courts decide that some stolen Bitcoins, that were subsequently lost, are to be returned to their former owners in an invalid transaction. They can order the majority of hashing power to follow new rules, and while you're wallet software may detect that fraud and shutdown, what alternative do you have but to "upgrade" it to accept the new rules? If you're transactions aren't protected by the majority of hashing power, you're transaction aren't secure.
 
Where Dark Wallet goes wrong
 
This is what bothers me about their efforts: I see no reason to think they understand any of the above. They're approach of making a ground-up re-implementation of Bitcoin is fundementally flawed, both from an engineering point of view, as well as a political point of view. What they should be doing is latching on to the notion that the core Bitcoin protocol is a fixed suicide pact that must only be changed with the true consent of all users. As step #1 they should have taken the Satoshi source code, stripped out everything that isn't directly related to that core consensus protocol, and turned it into an easy to use library. Only then should they have built a wallet/node implementation around that core, unchanging, protocol.
 
Where Amir Taaki and the rest of the Dark Wallet team go so very wrong is they don't understand that the Bitcoin specification is the consensus-critical part of the Satoshi source code. Instead they are pursuing a ground-up re-implementation, and like it or not, they're just not smart enough to get all the details right - nobody is. Because they haven't gotten the details right, no significant amount of hashing power is going to ever use their node implementation to mine with - what pool wants to lose thousands of dollars of profit just because yet another libbitcoin consensus bug was found? Of course, with no-one using their code to mine, they have no political power - Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation's ability to control the core Bitcoin protocol is entirely based on the fact that almost all the hashing power uses the source code at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
 
On the other hand, if even just a quarter of the hashing power used the Dark Wallet node implementation, and could trust it because the !@#$ thing actually implemented the Satoshi protocol properly by using that protocol's source code, changing that protocol in fundemental ways would be far harder - Dark Wallet would have a lot more genuine political weight. With hashing power using that implementation, they would be able to implement their own rules for relaying transactions. For instance while much of the community complained violently about the 0.8.2 dust rule, which made it far harder to get "dust" outputs mined, if the Dark Wallet team decided they didn't like that rule and had hashing power that trusted their node implementation, they could make the rule irrelevant. They could even come up with a anything-goes mechanism with no rules at all governing what transactions got relayed, and let individual miners make those decisions.
 
If I were the US Government and had co-opted the "core" Bitcoin dev team, you know what I'd do? I'd encourage ground-up alternate implementations knowing damn well that the kind of people dumb enough to work on them expecting to create a viable competitor anytime soon aren't going to succeed. Every time anyone tried mining with one, I'd use my knowledge of all the ways they are incompatible to fork them, making it clear they can't be trusted for mining. Then I'd go a step further and "for the good of Bitcoin" create a process by which regular soft-forks and hard-forks happened so that Bitcoin can be "improved" in various ways, maybe every six months. Of course, I'd involve those alternate implementations in some IETF-like standards process for show, but all I would have to do to keep them marginalized and the majority of hashing power using the approved official implementation is slip the odd consensus bug into their code; remember how it was recently leaked that the NSA spends $250 million a year on efforts to insert flaws into encryption standards and commercial products. With changes every six months the alts will never keep up. Having accomplished political control, the next step is pushing the development of the Bitcoin core protocol in ways that further my goals, such as scalability solutions that at best allow for auditing, rather waiting until protocols are developed, tested, and accepted by the community that support fully decentralized mining.
 
Dark Wallet has the opportunity to make the very idea of the "core" Bitcoin dev team irrelevant. But sadly Amir's lot seem to understand the art of PR a lot better than the political science of decentralized consensus systems.

The take-away is that to have real political power, libbitcoin (and btcd) must be in use by a large portion of the hash-power. In order for this to happen, at least one implementation using libbitcoin must be bug-for-bug compatible with the standard bitcoind. At the very least, it should pass the same regression tests.

Before running this as a miner I would like to know:
  • How much extra space (if any) is needed to store the block-chain in this implementation
  • Is bootstrap.dat supported?
  • Extra CPU time for block verification may increase the orphan rate: the multi-threaded design may mitigate that on systems with many CPUs.
  • I plan on mining namecoin and using P2Pool. It would be nice if those (and other alt-coins) were ported to libbitcoin as well.

Edit: for the ASIC thing, there is always 110nm chips Tongue (not sure how small the independent fabs can go)

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
November 22, 2013, 11:45:21 AM
 #104

hey, that email is just a bunch of whining. I reimplemented Bitcoin because all the internal parts are highly connected. Your validation code is linked to blockchain, network and script subsystems. It was a purely technical decision. In the beginning (early 2011) I started by refactoring the Satoshi codebase (made Python bindings and improvements in a custom fork) but the entire thing is total crap and tightly coupled. I decided if Bitcoin is the future then we need a solid foundation to build upon. Rewriting Bitcoin from scratch by comparison is not a big deal in the long perspective.

his complaint is invalid. satoshi is not a god. we write code, improve the software and move forwards. Bitcoin is not some mythical codebase.

The blockchain is bigger since it is optimised for servers. I'm thinking primarily about scalability then performance. bootstrap.dat is supported thanks to Robert Williamson. I'm working on supporting luke-jr's eloipool but a lot of the mining stuff is new to me and I'm preoccupied with dark wallet this month.
spartacus_
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91


View Profile
November 22, 2013, 02:20:32 PM
 #105

I will donate for this project.

COINVALIDATION IS SLAVERY NAMECOIN IS FREEDOM
BOYCOTT COINVALIDATION BUY NAMECOINS
Alpaca Bob
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153


View Profile
November 22, 2013, 02:28:04 PM
 #106

satoshi is not a god.

Source?

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
icebergslim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8


View Profile WWW
November 22, 2013, 05:55:10 PM
 #107

You got my $
hivewallet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


hivewallet.com


View Profile WWW
November 22, 2013, 05:57:12 PM
 #108


+1

Hive, a beautiful, secure wallet with an app platform for Mac OS X, Android and Mobile Web. Translators wanted! iOS and OS X devs see BitcoinKit.
Tweets @hivewallet. Skype us here. Donations appreciated at 1HLRg9C1GsfEVH555hgcjzDeas14jen2Cn
masterluc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
November 22, 2013, 09:38:45 PM
 #109

I don't see any innovation in this project. Like Mike said, it's just yet another Electrum. And I don't understand how they improve privacy with centralized model?

And yes, too much conspiracy and too less technical details.

PS. Mike Hearn is an asshole.

phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
November 23, 2013, 06:48:49 AM
 #110


Even if he is the second coming of Jesus, that does not necessarily mean he is a god. The Muslim view is that Jesus was a prophet.

Must re-read the book of revelations.

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
hivewallet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


hivewallet.com


View Profile WWW
November 25, 2013, 04:55:06 PM
 #111

Despite the naysayers, Dark Wallet is being built before our very eyes.

Hive, a beautiful, secure wallet with an app platform for Mac OS X, Android and Mobile Web. Translators wanted! iOS and OS X devs see BitcoinKit.
Tweets @hivewallet. Skype us here. Donations appreciated at 1HLRg9C1GsfEVH555hgcjzDeas14jen2Cn
SeansOutpost
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 04:15:10 AM
 #112

It's a very interesting argument.
Both sides consider the other naive - the 'Foundation' side thinks it naive to think Bitcoin can grow without finding a common ground with the authorities, the 'go dark' side think it naive to think the authorities will ever cede any control voluntarily.

To be honest, whichever side I personally fall on, I'm happier knowing that both sides of the argument exist, and I'd like them both to continue to exist.
This.

I run Sean's Outpost a Bitcoin fueled homeless outreach in Pensacola, FL. Over 140,000 meals fed with BTC donations.You can donate to Sean's Outpost at... 38ccq12hPFoiSksxUdr6SQ5VosyjY7s9AU
btcven
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 717


Bitcoin Venezuela


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2013, 12:02:56 PM
 #113

It's a very interesting argument.
Both sides consider the other naive - the 'Foundation' side thinks it naive to think Bitcoin can grow without finding a common ground with the authorities, the 'go dark' side think it naive to think the authorities will ever cede any control voluntarily.

To be honest, whichever side I personally fall on, I'm happier knowing that both sides of the argument exist, and I'd like them both to continue to exist.
This.

This must be pasted on every discussion where these two sides collide.

Admin: rdymac (PGP) | contacto@bitcoinvenezuela.com | @cafebitcoin | Electrum, lightweight bitcoin client
If I've been helpful tip me a coffee! Cheesy1rdymachKZpA9pTYHYHMYZjfjnoBW6B3k Bitrated user: rdymac.
hivewallet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


hivewallet.com


View Profile WWW
November 28, 2013, 06:44:01 PM
 #114

Despite the naysayers, Dark Wallet is being built before our very eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuPo5NJ-AZQ

Hive, a beautiful, secure wallet with an app platform for Mac OS X, Android and Mobile Web. Translators wanted! iOS and OS X devs see BitcoinKit.
Tweets @hivewallet. Skype us here. Donations appreciated at 1HLRg9C1GsfEVH555hgcjzDeas14jen2Cn
Alpaca Bob
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 153


View Profile
November 28, 2013, 08:24:13 PM
 #115

Are you developing it in Barcelona?

edit: Never mind, I figured it out. (It's Milan.)

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
December 02, 2013, 10:19:50 PM
 #116

Video updates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuPo5NJ-AZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn3m_K5AJec
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
December 02, 2013, 10:38:09 PM
 #117




I'm hoping however zerocoin will be eventually implemented into bitcoin.

it will not. zerocoin will be released as a new coin in 2014 which you can swap for bitcoins. interesting times...

genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
December 14, 2013, 10:33:00 PM
 #118

http://cooperativa.cat/en/do-it-yourself-calafou_hacklab-at-dark-wallet-meeting/

productive meeting in milan. see update on indiegogo page.


dewdeded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Monero Evangelist


View Profile WWW
December 15, 2013, 02:19:44 AM
 #119

Please support the brain-storming about funding an real, independent, international and usefull bitcoin organisation/foundation, under:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=371581.0
MEpatriot
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
January 10, 2014, 11:27:16 AM
 #120

I want to believe this is possible, but I really have my doubts.

TPTB aren't TPTB for nothing.  They will find a way to bust this too.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  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!