Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:32:40 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 [802] 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010859 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:28:45 PM
 #16021

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
1511281960
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281960

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281960
Reply with quote  #2

1511281960
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
 #16022

hey cypher, seen you reference nmc MM @70% a few times...

for reference, its hash rate is more in the 50's % usually

http://blockchained.com/namecoin/




thx!
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:29:27 PM
 #16023

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.  
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.


"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 05:33:01 PM
 #16024

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

I don't know, you will have to answer that. I assume because it is trivial to do so. If you could pull profit out of it don't you think that even more people would be doing it?

yes, but he was saying if a SC becomes the MC, miners would MM Bitcoin. maybe so, i'm just saying that Bitcoin would then be less secure as it would only have a % of the total hashrate.

Not necessarily, if SC creates an incentive for miners to mine them (txs) then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that maybe 100% of the miners would MM them.

With sidechains, the mining revenue pie is now split between different chains. As a miner, would you choose to mine only a slice of the pie or MM all of the slices. I think the answer goes without saying.

I would expect some-but-not-all would be MM'd.
There may easily be side chains that are not profitable to MM, and some that can't be MM'd with MC, but like you I would expect any SC miner that can MM with MC would do so (and continue mining Bitcoin).

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
 #16025

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.

So did we(SC proponents) changed your mind about SC ?
Or do you still believe it is "Blockstream scam" ?

Will you support 2wp by bitcoin protocol ?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 05:36:53 PM
 #16026

All I'm saying is the Blockchain is the money, dont mess with it, I care about my private keys like everyone else but the value is in the ledger moving value to other ledgers is actually a threat. This isn't code, it's and economic experiment that parent child relationship is not defined in code, its defined by market forces, I'm not trolling, to be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin.

I am opposed to changing the protocol as proposed by BlockStream, here’s why?
It changes the incentive structure that gives Bitcoin its value. Miners will eventually have to MM Bitcoin not for profit but for some other reason.  

Adrian, please.. why do you repeating the same mistakes all over. Sidechains are not messing with Bitcoin, they are improving it and ensuring its preservation and adaptability to future threats. The value does NOT move to other ledgers. The ledger remains the same, its token are only given more features to work with.

Only the creation of a new coin creates a new ledger and this is not the purpose of sidechains.

You keep parotting the same "it changes the incentive structure". In reality, it improves the incentive structure for miners who are no more dependent on ONE chain. They now have a whole ecosystem of interconnected chains that are each valued for their particular characteristics. The mother chain being BTC's, it is the least likely to be abandoned

This one is amazing.  
Practically every other sentence contradicts each other.


instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.


"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

There is one Bitcoin ledger.  There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint  >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  Wink
I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:37:23 PM
 #16027

that's funny. then why do i and 70% of hashing power on the network "do" it?

Did not you tell us that you have no investment in altCoins.

oh, just so you don't pop up here with some trivial allegation, smoothie kindly gifted me a coupla physical Litecoins last year, so yeah!  i guess i LOVE altcoins.

Maybe you have Monero too. So now it is crystal clear.

yep, and i'm manipulating the price of gold lower just so i can BUY.

So did we(SC proponents) changed your mind about SC ?
Or do you still believe it is "Blockstream scam" ?

Will you support 2wp by bitcoin protocol ?

why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:47:54 PM
 #16028


why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!

If you are not trading BTC then there is not much reason buying now b/c You already bought at better price years ago.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:49:00 PM
 #16029

....
Then we agree.
Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters.

It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others).  In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided.  The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work.  If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock.  But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers.

Is  it possible for attackers to do this in reverse?

Take someone's cold wallet and lock them into an SPVPROOF on a SC while the true owner is indisposed for some reason? Or is this impossible because they would need the private keys to begin with? 

Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block.

Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction.  The headers prove the transaction was added to a block.  (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).

What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins.  If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 05:57:29 PM
 #16030

...
TL;DR: Sidechains (if they succeed) force Bitcoin's hand, although decades in the future, in setting an inflation rate determined by the market, in order to tie miner's subsidies more exactly to the primary service they perform: that of securing Bitcoin's store of value. This is because successful sidechains would allow Bitcoin transactions to be disconnected from Bitcoin miners. Bitcoin therefore could not rely on transaction fees for its network security incentives. Sidechains would have made it clear that transaction functionality is not intrinsic to or inseparable from the Bitcoin network; only the store of value function is, and therefore miners must be continually rewarded for maintaining this function alone, for the lifetime the network.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your constructs over the years here, I appreciate that you the potential for and disposition toward thinking.

It does seem to me that Bitcoin infrastructure provisioning is designed such that it will always approach unprofitably no matter what the growth rate, inflation rate, fee structure, etc.

It is worthwhile to note that different classes of entities can accept different levels of profit.  So, an independent enthusiast class individual might be happy to break even and occasionally make a few bucks while this is not an option for a large commercial.  Whatever the case, Bitcoin as implemented simply does not promote the individual class actor very well.

The take-away is that Bitcoin's only realistic hope is for infrastructure providers to monetize some other aspect of Bitcoin's existence.  For large corporate actors this is a no-brainier.  Monetize the intelligence stream as has been a well proven model over the last 15 years.  The big down-side of this is that actors who are able to monetize in this way are distinctly under the thumb of governments, and governments have a very strong propensity to exercise fine-grained control over their citizens.  Governments are inextricably linked to corporations and will be for the foreseeable future.

As I've mentioned before, sidechains would seem to provide a golden opportunity to monetize Bitcoin as a credible source of backing which they require in order to function.  They thus have a significant interest in keeping it that way.

Right now Bitcoin is fairly credible to at least a cross-section of us in the community because it is free of interference (no 'red-listing', transaction discrimination at the mining level, etc.)  Sidechains seem to me like the last best hope of keeping it that way.


rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:16:38 PM
 #16031

instead of doing drive bys hiding behind cryptic messages and never taking position why don't you counter argue my "contradictions"

Its going to be hard, I didn't see any contradictions. Your statement that the ledger remains the same is accurate, coins transfered to a SC are the same as coins transfered to an address. In both cases there is still one ledger, the mechanics may be different but its still one ledger. Its quite obvious they don't understand both the tech or the economic implications.


"There is one ledger"
Is untrue if (as it appears) you are referring to the side chain and Bitcoin, and true only if you are referring only to Bitcoin.
Each side chain has its own ledger, its own block chain.
Understanding side chains is much easier than understanding your descriptions of them.  

No NewLiberty there is in fact a single ledger in the system, you are wholly incorrect and do not understand the basic concepts apparently.

The phase "one ledger" means a single ledger of 21M coins. Yes in sidechains there are multiple separate blockchains, but the 2-way pegging system merges these blockchains into a single ledger. This is the basic 101 concept. Just because it is over your head does not mean that it is not the case.

There is one Bitcoin ledger.  There are also as many side chain ledgers as there are side chains.
So how many does that make?

(hint  >1)

Please do not pretend to know what is in my head.  Wink
I limit my guesses to what is in your head to the words that you write.
I hope I am being helpful to you in making more careful use of those words.

Let me explain it even more simply then.

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger, that is why the 21M cap holds.

The reason it is a single ledger is because the separate data structures are merged into a single data structure with 2-way pegging.

Congratulations, in 3 years on this board I've never once put someone on ignore because I usually like to hear what others have to say even if I disagree. But you are the first. It was a feat, you should be proud.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:17:31 PM
 #16032

This is because successful sidechains would allow Bitcoin transactions to be disconnected from Bitcoin miners.

Interesting read but considering this is the premise of your scenario I have no choice but to disagree with your conclusions.

Txs fees are not escaping Bitcoin miners. As I've explained in another post, instead of miners sharing a % of the same pie, the txs fees are now split into different slices which are all available for miners to MM.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:18:16 PM
 #16033

....
Then we agree.
Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters.

It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others).  In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided.  The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work.  If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock.  But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers.

Is  it possible for attackers to do this in reverse?

Take someone's cold wallet and lock them into an SPVPROOF on a SC while the true owner is indisposed for some reason? Or is this impossible because they would need the private keys to begin with? 

Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block.

you mean the SC block?  yes, don't these SPV proofs require 2 tx's each, one in MC and one in SC?
Quote
Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction.  The headers prove the transaction was added to a block.  (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).

there is no section 8
Quote
What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins.  If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.

i asked you before about this contest period.  what is the probability of an attacker constructing a fake proof in either direction.
Quote

what is this all about?  isn't this a fundamental change to how Bitcoin blocks are linked together?

We require a change to Bitcoin so that rather than each blockheader committing only to the
header before it, it commits to every one of its ancestors.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:20:25 PM
 #16034

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your constructs over the years here, I appreciate that you the potential for and disposition toward thinking.

It does seem to me that Bitcoin infrastructure provisioning is designed such that it will always approach unprofitably no matter what the growth rate, inflation rate, fee structure, etc.

It is worthwhile to note that different classes of entities can accept different levels of profit.  So, an independent enthusiast class individual might be happy to break even and occasionally make a few bucks while this is not an option for a large commercial.  Whatever the case, Bitcoin as implemented simply does not promote the individual class actor very well.

The take-away is that Bitcoin's only realistic hope is for infrastructure providers to monetize some other aspect of Bitcoin's existence.  For large corporate actors this is a no-brainier.  Monetize the intelligence stream as has been a well proven model over the last 15 years.  The big down-side of this is that actors who are able to monetize in this way are distinctly under the thumb of governments, and governments have a very strong propensity to exercise fine-grained control over their citizens.  Governments are inextricably linked to corporations and will be for the foreseeable future.

As I've mentioned before, sidechains would seem to provide a golden opportunity to monetize Bitcoin as a credible source of backing which they require in order to function.  They thus have a significant interest in keeping it that way.

Right now Bitcoin is fairly credible to at least a cross-section of us in the community because it is free of interference (no 'red-listing', transaction discrimination at the mining level, etc.)  Sidechains seem to me like the last best hope of keeping it that way.



My hope is that commoditization of ASICS and integration into heat recycling appliances distributed globally can solve that problem

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:21:05 PM
 #16035


why should i tell you?  with your propensity to accuse me of conspiracy theories improprieties, maybe i was a supporter all along and i just wanted to manipulate Bitcoin lower so i could just buy more!  like marcus said!

If you are not trading BTC then there is not much reason buying now b/c You already bought at better price years ago.

but i like buying Bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:30:39 PM
 #16036

i told you this was gonna happen:

Garrett Keirns isn’t the only bitcoin entrepreneur to come within the sights of the SEC, and some worry that his case may mark the beginning of a larger crackdown into the technically interesting and freewheeling world of crypto currency pre-sales—a crackdown that could affect promising Bitcoin 2.0 projects such as Ethereum, MaidSafe, and Counterparty.[/i]

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/crypto-ipos/
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:32:26 PM
 #16037

...
As I've mentioned before, sidechains would seem to provide a golden opportunity to monetize Bitcoin as a credible source of backing which they require in order to function.  They thus have a significant interest in keeping it that way.

Right now Bitcoin is fairly credible to at least a cross-section of us in the community because it is free of interference (no 'red-listing', transaction discrimination at the mining level, etc.)  Sidechains seem to me like the last best hope of keeping it that way.

My hope is that commoditization of ASICS and integration into heat recycling appliances distributed globally can solve that problem

I hoped for that as well at one point but I always considered it something of a pipe-dream.  Under an 'only Bitcoin for everything' paradigm it's probably completely out the window for technical reasons associated with data distribution.  With sidechains where people have a vested interest in reasonably finite chains of their favor, and where Bitcoin remains reasonably tight and compact, I could see more potential for such a thing developing.


notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:44:08 PM
 #16038

....
Then we agree.
Side chains accommodate arbitrary crypto (good bad or ugly) and which crypto is used for a particular chain matters.

It is my understanding that while the transactions can use arbitrary crypto, block hashing would be limited to sha256 (or possibly a small list of others).  In order to ensure a malicious attacker can not simply lie, the bitcoin miners supporting SPV proofs will need to verify the block hash is valid for the headers provided.  The transaction's details that destroy the pegged coin and unlock the bitcoin will be used, but the signature can be trusted since it is in the block with the highest amount of work.  If nobody presents a higher difficulty block header that contains a contradicting transaction within the contest period, the bitcoins unlock.  But, to verify all this, the miners must be able to hash the headers.

Is  it possible for attackers to do this in reverse?

Take someone's cold wallet and lock them into an SPVPROOF on a SC while the true owner is indisposed for some reason? Or is this impossible because they would need the private keys to begin with? 

Presumably the sidechain would still require a valid signature to allow a transaction in a block.

you mean the SC block?  yes, don't these SPV proofs require 2 tx's each, one in MC and one in SC?
Quote
Essentially, what you are dealing with is a set of headers and a transaction.  The headers prove the transaction was added to a block.  (See section 8 of bitcoin.pdf).

there is no section 8
Quote
What the sidechains idea adds is that instead light node verifying a bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin miners verify that the sidechain has a transaction that destroys sidecoins.  If this transaction goes uncontested, the SPV proof is accepted and the previously locked bitcoins are sent to the address specified in the destroy transaction.

i asked you before about this contest period.  what is the probability of an attacker constructing a fake proof in either direction.
Quote

what is this all about?  isn't this a fundamental change to how Bitcoin blocks are linked together?

We require a change to Bitcoin so that rather than each blockheader committing only to the
header before it, it commits to every one of its ancestors.


Yes a SC block.  Yes, there needs to be a destroy transaction on SC and a SPV proof on MC.

Did you try looking between sections 7 and 9?  That's where I found section 8.  (Hint, page 5).

An attacker can only fake a proof if they can fake a block, so it is up to the security model of the sidechain.

Can you put that quote in context (where is it in which whitepaper?).... I'm not sure quite what they are referring to.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
 #16039

i told you this was gonna happen:

Garrett Keirns isn’t the only bitcoin entrepreneur to come within the sights of the SEC, and some worry that his case may mark the beginning of a larger crackdown into the technically interesting and freewheeling world of crypto currency pre-sales—a crackdown that could affect promising Bitcoin 2.0 projects such as Ethereum, MaidSafe, and Counterparty.[/i]

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/crypto-ipos/

Just growing pains. Issuing shares and not expecting regulatory interest is foolish. Presale of new crypto currency or stakes in a network on the other hand is much more interesting. Is.it.similar to seeking equity or is it a simple exchange of goods?

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 06:50:38 PM
 #16040

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.
Scams depress price.  Alt scams, exchange scams, pirate@40 scams, these all depress price, reduce confidence, encourage regulation, and suck wealth and productive resources out of the crypto economy.  SC scams should be expected to do likewise.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Pages: « 1 ... 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 [802] 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 ... 1558 »
  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!