Bit-thereum

[DeathAndTaxes]

If OP_ADD is allowed, the bulky 8-of-11 multisig is not necessary and some block space is saved

Can you explain this?  How does OP_ADD simplify the security requirements?

[1713570558]

1713570558

[1713570558]

1713570558

[jl2012]

If OP_ADD is allowed, the bulky 8-of-11 multisig is not necessary and some block space is saved

Can you explain this?  How does OP_ADD simplify the security requirements?

Oh, even OP_ADD is not needed.

Public key of Alice is pub-a; pub1-pub7 are public keys of 7 oracles.

For 4 of 7 oracles, the script could be:

Code:

pub-a OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_4 pub1 pub2 pub3 pub4 pub5 pub6 pub7 OP_7 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

or equivalently,

Code:

OP_4 pub1 pub2 pub3 pub4 pub5 pub6 pub7 OP_7 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY pub-a OP_CHECKSIG

(actually the paper mentioned this: "Transaction of 1+(m of n) signatures would be non-standard")

[jgarzik]

Yes, the WoT is a common solution.  In order to scale well, WoT usually requires one or several centralizing entities that act as large signature hubs.

And even so, you still need a useful rendezvous mechanism.

LOL, a common solution?

in what exactly?

-bm

Commonly proposed as a solution, to be specific.

[PodBayDoors]

The goal of ethereum is to replace the Internet (DNS, email, facebook, ...). It's not even remotely comparable to the goals of Bitcoin. I very much doubt that Bitcoin can move in this direction, for many reasons. I mean, for example the accounting system is a mess and is going to be removed. If not even something which is in the core can be fixed, how could one take one such large goals? The last 16 bips of 39 bips are in draft mode. The last feature update of Bitcoin is now 20 months ago.

Anyone taking this seriously? Seems to me that innovation in the protocol is stalled. Anyone asking why? Is it the protocol architecture? Is it the core dev team (size, resources, politics)? I would think some of the venture money coming in would be paying attention (Andreesen, R. Branson). Oh, look, Branson just put money into TransferWise...

[bluemeanie1]

The goal of ethereum is to replace the Internet (DNS, email, facebook, ...). It's not even remotely comparable to the goals of Bitcoin. I very much doubt that Bitcoin can move in this direction, for many reasons. I mean, for example the accounting system is a mess and is going to be removed. If not even something which is in the core can be fixed, how could one take one such large goals? The last 16 bips of 39 bips are in draft mode. The last feature update of Bitcoin is now 20 months ago.

Anyone taking this seriously? Seems to me that innovation in the protocol is stalled. Anyone asking why? Is it the protocol architecture? Is it the core dev team (size, resources, politics)? I would think some of the venture money coming in would be paying attention (Andreesen, R. Branson). Oh, look, Branson just put money into TransferWise...

when these big names announce they are 'putting in' to some venture it's never clear how much money is actually being spent.  For instance not very long ago Andressen backed Ning, and was really excited about improving PHP... what happened to that?

Ethereum is not consistent in their claims.  I think much of it is just overly ambitious vaporware that was initially designed to sell these Ether credits.

there was this thread earlier:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=431513.msg6509979#msg6509979

I think the idea of having special nodes validating the txs on behalf of most of the nodes breaks very basic operating standards of cryptocurrencies.  Don't we like Cryptocurrencies because there is no central server?  Now we want to make a central server and we pronounce it a 'fix'?

-bm

[gmaxwell]

I think the IBM cards are basically dead, at this point. TC is now all about Intel TXT (sort of crappy) or SGX (not here yet but seems to have a much better design).

Nope, still sold and supported— and there was a new version (third generation) released last year. (I also have a second generation card to screw around with…)

[edmundedgar]

If OP_ADD is allowed, the bulky 8-of-11 multisig is not necessary and some block space is saved

Can you explain this?  How does OP_ADD simplify the security requirements?

Oh, even OP_ADD is not needed.

Public key of Alice is pub-a; pub1-pub7 are public keys of 7 oracles.

For 4 of 7 oracles, the script could be:

Code:

pub-a OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_4 pub1 pub2 pub3 pub4 pub5 pub6 pub7 OP_7 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

or equivalently,

Code:

OP_4 pub1 pub2 pub3 pub4 pub5 pub6 pub7 OP_7 OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY pub-a OP_CHECKSIG

(actually the paper mentioned this: "Transaction of 1+(m of n) signatures would be non-standard")

It would be really great if we could get the standard rules opened up a bit for this kind of thing (just in P2SH would be fine), assuming they're not going to be completely re-thought any time soon.

The other pattern that comes up a lot here is where you want to specify multiple sets of conditions, then point to one or the other with a flag in your sigscript, eg:

Code:

OP_IF
 <some perfectly innocuous, already-standard m of n or whatever>
OP_ELSE
 <some other perfectly innocuous, already-standard m of n or whatever>
OP_ENDIF

[jl2012]

I think the IBM cards are basically dead, at this point. TC is now all about Intel TXT (sort of crappy) or SGX (not here yet but seems to have a much better design).

Nope, still sold and supported— and there was a new version (third generation) released last year. (I also have a second generation card to screw around with…)

How much for such card? Is there any real service (bitcoin or not bitcoin related) on the web using these cards?

[Mike Hearn]

Nope, still sold and supported— and there was a new version (third generation) released last year. (I also have a second generation card to screw around with…)

Do you still need to sign a support contract with IBM to get the SDK?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think the IBM cards are basically dead, at this point. TC is now all about Intel TXT (sort of crappy) or SGX (not here yet but seems to have a much better design).

Nope, still sold and supported— and there was a new version (third generation) released last year. (I also have a second generation card to screw around with…)

How much for such card? Is there any real service (bitcoin or not bitcoin related) on the web using these cards?

HSMs are very expensive, as in enterprise equipment expensive.   They run from a couple thousand to tens of thousands depending on what capabilities you want.  They also usually require multiyear service agreements on top of that.  IBM is just one vendor there is also Thales, and SafeNet.  One thing I would point out is that the code, drivers, and hardware is all closed source.  If a 3 letter agency put in some backdoor you would never know.

[justusranvier]

"Those who don't understand Open-Transactions are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

[benjyz]

"Those who don't understand Open-Transactions are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

yeah right. these lines of code is all you need to know about the project.. document strings in source code. one could not make this up.

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/src/ots/OTServer.cpp#L1611

[bluemeanie1]

"Those who don't understand Open-Transactions are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

yeah right. these lines of code is all you need to know about the project.. document strings in source code. one could not make this up.

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/src/ots/OTServer.cpp#L1611

there were at one time quotes from the Bible in "Open Transactions" source code.

-bm

[benjyz]

"Those who don't understand Open-Transactions are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

yeah right. these lines of code is all you need to know about the project.. document strings in source code. one could not make this up.

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/src/ots/OTServer.cpp#L1611

there were at one time quotes from the Bible in "Open Transactions" source code.

-bm

well, I've read I don't know how many million lines of code in my life, but I've never seen something quite like it. If you're going to rely on this software for financial transactions, well... good luck? Just because somebody puts together 50kLOC does not mean anything. It could be producing random cooking recipes. the same applies to ethereum. just because someone has an idea and codes together software, doesn't mean it actually does what it is claimed. the space of all possible software is pretty large (2^X). patching together random features to make a cryptocurrency is not going to lead to the desired result.

Code:

 if (NULL != m_pUserID)
        delete m_pUserID;
    m_pUserID         = NULL;

[bluemeanie1]

"Those who don't understand Open-Transactions are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."

yeah right. these lines of code is all you need to know about the project.. document strings in source code. one could not make this up.

https://github.com/Open-Transactions/Open-Transactions/blob/master/src/ots/OTServer.cpp#L1611

there were at one time quotes from the Bible in "Open Transactions" source code.

-bm

well, I've read I don't know how many million lines of code in my life, but I've never seen something quite like it. If you're going to rely on this software for financial transactions, well... good luck? Just because somebody puts together 50kLOC does not mean anything. It could be producing random cooking recipes. the same applies to ethereum. just because someone has an idea and code together software, doesn't mean it actually does what it is claimed. the space of all possible software is pretty large.

Code:

 if (NULL != m_pUserID)
        delete m_pUserID;
    m_pUserID         = NULL;

ya think?

commonly referred to as vaporware or shamware.

-bm

[gmaxwell]

OT has been talking about interesting things in connection with Bitcoin since at least mid 2011 (my personal recollection) but in all this time has still not, as far as I know, produced even the simplest tool to do anything useful with it and Bitcoin.

I wish them the best of luck, but to the extent that the promotion without delivery is distracting people from actually creating stuff that people can use it's not a good thing.

[bluemeanie1]

OT has been talking about interesting things in connection with Bitcoin since at least mid 2011 (my personal recollection) but in all this time has still not, as far as I know, produced even the simplest tool to do anything useful with it.

I wish them the best of luck, but to the extent that the promotion without delivery is distracting people from actually creating stuff that people can use it's not a good thing.

perhaps the Chief Technology Officer returned to his former profession?  http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1fbeqt/i_just_realized_chris_odom_at_the_bitcoin_2013/

-bm

[justusranvier]

OT has been talking about interesting things in connection with Bitcoin since at least mid 2011 (my personal recollection) but in all this time has still not, as far as I know, produced even the simplest tool to do anything useful with it and Bitcoin.

I wish them the best of luck, but to the extent that the promotion without delivery is distracting people from actually creating stuff that people can use it's not a good thing.

It does seem to be the case that building things that work in the real world, not jus in laboratory conditions,  takes time.

[Gavin Andresen]

It does seem to be the case that building things that work in the real world, not jus in laboratory conditions,  takes time.

Yes. I think most people believe that successful technology companies spring up very quickly, but in my experience most (all?) of the "overnight successes" were busy working for years before finding the winning combination of features, user interface, market, etc.