Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2017, 04:10:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1981618 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 08:03:11 PM
 #16061

don't forget that Blockstream is a risk as well.
Good point.
I'd likely have put that in the confidence category.  The conflict of interest is a bit tragic.  
I am hopeful that it would get resolved sooner rather than later.
It is sort of a weird one.  Its like some operating system team members are leaving to go work on "InstallShield" (remember that?).

Historically, in security software development, the installer is the principle place to introduce vulnerabilities.  Owning the installer is a privileged position as it is the engine of feature distribution, and the closest persistent connection to "the customer".  So I am kind of glad that it is these guys doing it.  But they shouldn't be doing both.

I'm not an insider there and don't know the technology perimeter of their company.
I just really wish that there were more folks doing what they do so that we didn't have to suffer through these sort of conflicts.

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
1506399035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506399035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506399035
Reply with quote  #2

1506399035
Report to moderator
1506399035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506399035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506399035
Reply with quote  #2

1506399035
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506399035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506399035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506399035
Reply with quote  #2

1506399035
Report to moderator
1506399035
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506399035

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506399035
Reply with quote  #2

1506399035
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:08:36 PM
 #16062


Not really worth commenting, but:

The ruble is not free floating if the masters of the russians ban circulation of dollars.

Bitcoin can not be used as a mass value exodus from russia unless there are sufficient supply of bitcoins from other russians, in a regime with currency controls.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:23:08 PM
 #16063

I just really wish that there were more folks doing what they do so that we didn't have to suffer through these sort of conflicts.

I'm afraid this is the source of the problem. There are only so many highly qualified crypto-developers out there who are willing to work on Bitcoin projects. We should expect to have more in the future but meanwhile a project requiring industry experts only have so many candidates to pick from.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:25:47 PM
 #16064

Can atomic transfers between two coins (say bitcoin and litecoin) work now, without changing any of the two systems?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:39:26 PM
 #16065

Can atomic transfers between two coins (say bitcoin and litecoin) work now, without changing any of the two systems?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949

So locktime is needed.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:43:01 PM
 #16066

The problem that me, and seemingly a couple others, have with Cypherdoc's concerns is that most of them boil down to the creation of altcoins, something that sidechains did not introduce and do little to enable. I hope you have come to understand this part because the accusation that you make of SC proponents being "unreasonable" can equally be applied to most, if not all, of the SC opponents in this thread.

You seem to be a reasonable person who has a great ability to distill his ideas in thoughtful and concise manners. Maybe you want to share with us notable weaknesses of the 2wp and what considerable risks you can foresee?

I don't know that there are any SC opponents in this thread.
I also don't claim there are any weaknesses in the SPV mechanism, and find it weird that you would see that anywhere in anything I wrote.  
I like SC's, I think it works and does pretty much what it says it does is the blockstream white paper.

There are however risks, some of which have been discussed here already.  Most of the more interesting risks fall into two main categories.
1) Economic risks (changes to miner incentives, centralization issues, and practical concerns, ZB's is one of these)
2) Confidence risks (both "cons" in the scam sense, and misplaced confidence in the mechanism as a panacea, or else misplaced confidence in any particular SC - what you call the altcoin risk, and loss of confidence in Bitcoin generally due to its new ease of change).

As mentioned upthread, the SC mods present a new upgrade path.  Introducing upgrade paths is something to do carefully, and I like that there is this discussion to work through some of the more obvious issues.


There are all sorts of dystopian varieties of these two categories.
Some may imagine a distant future where with a click of a button (or it is done automatically) where one upgrades their bitcoins from Bitcoin 17.4 to 17.5 moving to yet another new chain, and something goes horribly wrong and they find themselves on Central Banker Inflation Coin of something.
Or what is more likely historically, they do this willfully because the news is telling them that it is necessary to do it for their survival in the new important war of the day.

Edit: there is a 3rd category of risk, technical risks (of which SPV brokenness would be an example, but these haven't been much discussed here).

Now these are reasonable, sensible remarks that do not rely on hyperbole scenarios and generally address the situation in a non-biased manner. Thank you.

While there are some issues presented that I don't see as a problem, some definitely merit attention. Of course, due diligence on the part of the user is always one of the main concern but while sidechains might introduce new forms of scams, I will continue to say that fools, no matter the mechanism, will find a way to part with their money.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
 #16067

don't forget that Blockstream is a risk as well.
Good point.
I'd likely have put that in the confidence category.  The conflict of interest is a bit tragic.  
I am hopeful that it would get resolved sooner rather than later.
It is sort of a weird one.  Its like some operating system team members are leaving to go work on "InstallShield" (remember that?).

Historically, in security software development, the installer is the principle place to introduce vulnerabilities.  Owning the installer is a privileged position as it is the engine of feature distribution, and the closest persistent connection to "the customer".  So I am kind of glad that it is these guys doing it.  But they shouldn't be doing both.

I'm not an insider there and don't know the technology perimeter of their company.
I just really wish that there were more folks doing what they do so that we didn't have to suffer through these sort of conflicts.

I think there is possible to create very interesting Federated 2wp (using oracles, automated auditors, and human judges).
So if there is fraud attempt detected , more conflicting SPV proofs or  incosistency in side-blockchain. Then human judges are required.

So even service like Gox can be used safe . :-)
Maybe Federated peg is even better than only bitcoin protocol peg. Currently I do not know SC where I want keep BTCs for decade.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
 #16068

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

did you see this: over $3.6M in hardware, one of the risks of centralized mining, the guy was consuming 5.5MW of power and only had 2 security grads. 


link?  wow, that looks like that Chinese mine with huge fans in opposite walls?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2lexl2/here_is_why_the_hash_rate_jumped_and_took_a_dive/
I flowed up on BT last night and there are a few other threads.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:04:55 PM
 #16069

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

did you see this: over $3.6M in hardware, one of the risks of centralized mining, the guy was consuming 5.5MW of power and only had 2 security grads. 


link?  wow, that looks like that Chinese mine with huge fans in opposite walls?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2lexl2/here_is_why_the_hash_rate_jumped_and_took_a_dive/
I flowed up on BT last night and there are a few other threads.

goes to show you there are risks to centralization.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:09:38 PM
 #16070

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

did you see this: over $3.6M in hardware, one of the risks of centralized mining, the guy was consuming 5.5MW of power and only had 2 security grads. 


link?  wow, that looks like that Chinese mine with huge fans in opposite walls?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2lexl2/here_is_why_the_hash_rate_jumped_and_took_a_dive/
I flowed up on BT last night and there are a few other threads.

goes to show you there are risks to centralization.

I think that's more a case of a wealthy amateur job going wrong

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
 #16071

brg444, how do you want to implement fastBTC using MM ?

Edit:
I think it is only possible by splitting into more(1000) SCs
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:18:39 PM
 #16072

brg444, how do you want to implement fastBTC using MM ?

In all honesty that type of design question is out of my technical range.

I understand from your posts there are different ways to go about it and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know which one would be best.

I'm certainly interested in hearing what you have in mind though..

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:22:47 PM
 #16073

actually, that may not be true.  hardware is entering commoditization and the cost of hashing has dropped 10 fold in the last year.  so there may be some hope for solo mining still.  or at least for individuals holding hardware that want to pool mine.

did you see this: over $3.6M in hardware, one of the risks of centralized mining, the guy was consuming 5.5MW of power and only had 2 security grads. 


link?  wow, that looks like that Chinese mine with huge fans in opposite walls?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2lexl2/here_is_why_the_hash_rate_jumped_and_took_a_dive/
I flowed up on BT last night and there are a few other threads.

goes to show you there are risks to centralization.

I think that's more a case of a wealthy amateur job going wrong

After seeing some more pictures I have to take that back. It is suggested the fire did not originate from the miners. Setup looked fine

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:28:41 PM
 #16074

brg444, how do you want to implement fastBTC using MM ?

In all honesty that type of design question is out of my technical range.

I understand from your posts there are different ways to go about it and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know which one would be best.

I'm certainly interested in hearing what you have in mind though..

I think that this service will use HUGE amount of small transactions
1) split into 1000 local providers
2) or maybe at the and of month return btc to all participants and start fresh blockchain.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:34:13 PM
 #16075

....
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.

pg 20 Implementation

why would an attacker have to fake a block when faking a SPV proof (tx)?  blocks are created by miners...

still don't see a section 8 on pg 5

A cursory rereading of that section still leaves me with some questions, but I'll try to remember to come back and look into the reference Pug90 when I'm not busy.

An SPV proof is a tx + block headers that prove the tx has been accepted by SC miners.  They can't fake a proof without forging the transaction into a SC block.

bitcoin.pdf section 8

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:36:22 PM
 #16076

brg444, how do you want to implement fastBTC using MM ?

In all honesty that type of design question is out of my technical range.

I understand from your posts there are different ways to go about it and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know which one would be best.

I'm certainly interested in hearing what you have in mind though..

I think that this service will use HUGE amount of small transactions
1) split into 1000 local providers
2) or maybe at the and of month return btc to all participants and start fresh blockchain.

for a particular scBTC A that originates from SPV proof A, doesn't that scBTC A have to go back thru SPV proof A to get back to BTC?  in other words, scBTC A couldn't go back thru SPV proof B and aren't fungible in terms of the proofs?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:40:04 PM
 #16077


 - snip - image of mining rigs (?) in a barn of some sort -  makes post to big -


I think that's more a case of a wealthy amateur job going wrong

Gone right in my opinion.  I would feel vastly more confident in my BTC with 10,000 of these spread all over the globe than I would with five of these spread around the U.S. and a few in Western Europe for backup:


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:42:43 PM
 #16078


A cursory rereading of that section still leaves me with some questions, but I'll try to remember to come back and look into the reference Pug90 when I'm not busy.

An SPV proof is a tx + block headers that prove the tx has been accepted by SC miners.  They can't fake a proof without forging the transaction into a SC block.

bitcoin.pdf section 8

@cypherdoc  
Notme is using
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
 (I do not know it is same SPV proof as SC whitepaper uses)

Edit:
yes, it is same
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 725


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 09:44:18 PM
 #16079

Side chains per se, do not solve all the problems Bitcoin has today, nor are they a guarantee of anything.
What they are is a mechanism.  They may have the potential to solve problems.  That will depend entirely on what people do with them.  They are another tool in the tool belt.  It can be used to build or destroy.  The existence of this mechanism does not guarantee the success of Bitcoin.  It would be nice if it did, and we could all just sit back and wait for the magic to happen.
I completely agree, I'm sorry if I used a worse wording, I think the problem is I'm not a native English speaker and this has effects Smiley

Quote
Instead there is a new tool, a new mechanism.  It may be used by all sorts of people, and groups.  This is great, it is the nature of open source collaboration.  However we must recognize that only some people may share common goals with you or me, and others may not.  And you may not know whether any particular SC creator does or doesn't.  There may be wolves in alpaca clothing.
Again, I agree... and "wolves in alpaca clothing" is fantastic Cheesy I'll take this expression as mine henceforth, if you don't mind Smiley

Quote
These are the sorts of things that I (and presumably CypherDoc and others) consider with caution.  What makes this even more of a concern is when we see these posts that essentially say "there is nothing to worry about", "this fixes everything" or "the details of the cryptography don't matter".
Those sort of statements are either (a) just misunderstood word choices (and something else was meant by the author), or (b) maybe the author is simply misguided or exuberant , or (c) perhaps they may be malicious attempts to misguide others.
[...]
What you wrote here below is sensible.  We may disagree on some matters of preference, but I like that you say what side chains "can" do rather than what they "will" do.  It is important to understand that they can be used and also can be abused.
Again, I completely agree.

The problem is that while I understand they can be abused, I also understand that the problem they can create is one of these two types:

1) an altcoin. Yes, that can be a problem, but it's not a different problem than the one we have right now.

2) a service that fails. Let's remember that a 2wp sidechain is a service completely analogous to the one offered today by a coinbase or a mtgox. We know they can add value to the network, and we know they can fail bringing enormous problems to their users, but they can't harm bitcoin, the network. That's why I consider SC an improvement to the actual situation, and it's because we have an algorithm to programmatically move coins between the chain.
And that movement can be done without requesting permission.
That's not a minor improvement: that's the difference between day and night, and one that can solve a lot of problems, like for example the fractional reserve of mtgox.

Quote
I think Cypherdoc is understanding the function and capabilities pretty well.  I also think his caution is reasonable.
I agree that caution is reasonable, and I'm eager to understand the failure cases, but simply I don't find any evidence, not from cypherdoc, in any case.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:58:24 PM
 #16080

brg444, how do you want to implement fastBTC using MM ?

In all honesty that type of design question is out of my technical range.

I understand from your posts there are different ways to go about it and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to pretend to know which one would be best.

I'm certainly interested in hearing what you have in mind though..

I think that this service will use HUGE amount of small transactions
1) split into 1000 local providers
2) or maybe at the and of month return btc to all participants and start fresh blockchain.

for a particular scBTC A that originates from SPV proof A, doesn't that scBTC A have to go back thru SPV proof A to get back to BTC?  in other words, scBTC A couldn't go back thru SPV proof B and aren't fungible in terms of the proofs?

If you move your scBTC into address you do not own pKeys you cannot reclaim this btc back.

a) so service could start new side-b-blockchain
b) you can swap into new side-b-blockchain  or reclaim btc (but you must own sidePKey)

fastWallet can ask you and offer -> reclaim BTC or swap in new side-blockchain

edit:
You will have to sign in SC-a   move to BTC(use btc address) or move to SC-b(use scBTC-b address)

edit2:
Or service automatically use their own bitcoin to create new 2wp BTC to scBTC-b and automatically swap to your original scBTC-a address.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 ... 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!