Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2017, 11:20:56 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   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 ... 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] 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1904038 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 07:53:40 PM
 #16081

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?
1495797656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495797656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495797656
Reply with quote  #2

1495797656
Report to moderator
1495797656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495797656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495797656
Reply with quote  #2

1495797656
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495797656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495797656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495797656
Reply with quote  #2

1495797656
Report to moderator
1495797656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495797656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495797656
Reply with quote  #2

1495797656
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 07:56:36 PM
 #16082

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:02:33 PM
 #16083

lol.  what a crack up.  ready for launch:

https://finance.yahoo.com/tumblr/blog-rouble-collpase-could-fuel-next-bitcion-run-153153403.html?.tsrc=applewf
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 08:03:11 PM
 #16084

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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:08:36 PM
 #16085


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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:23:08 PM
 #16086

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: 1120



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:25:47 PM
 #16087

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: 756



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:39:26 PM
 #16088

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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:43:01 PM
 #16089

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: 1120



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
 #16090

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: 1358



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
 #16091

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
 #16092

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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:09:38 PM
 #16093

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: 1120



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
 #16094

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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:18:39 PM
 #16095

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: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:22:47 PM
 #16096

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: 1120



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:28:41 PM
 #16097

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: 1708


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:34:13 PM
 #16098

....
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
 #16099

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: 2156


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 09:40:04 PM
 #16100


 - 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:


Pages: « 1 ... 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] 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 ... 1559 »
  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!