Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 06:13:56 AM *
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 ... 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] 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 03:59:57 AM
 #16921

On that we agree.  It would be nice to see some controlled experimentation first....


Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain.  

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.  


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).    

You are right, but SPV proofs can be combined using multi-signatures and oracles. => SPV proof and/or oracle/authority signature are valid transactions too.

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

As Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's long-time business partner said: “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome”.

This incentive remains a bit troubling.  There should be a way to defeat it other than requiring multi-sig and oracle/authorities for every SPV transaction.
The troubling part is that it would be insidious.  The incentive would build gradually as the sum of all SPV'd coins' UXTOs would grow over time.

I wasn't particularly pleased with Luke's idea of a test plan on their AMA:

Quote
RaptorXP40 - 23-Oct-2014 17:56
Do you have a plan for testing side-chains before the new script operators are implemented in Bitcoin (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY and the other ones)?
luke-jr60 - 23-Oct-2014 18:00
Yes, that's what the federated peg in Appendix A is for. We can use that to make a sidechain without any changes to Bitcoin today, and implement the pegging opcodes there. When everyone is satisfied the pegging code is complete and stable, we just migrate the main chain over.

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
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513577636
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513577636

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513577636
Reply with quote  #2

1513577636
Report to moderator
1513577636
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513577636

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513577636
Reply with quote  #2

1513577636
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 04:00:34 AM
 #16922

the answer is, there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin.

it's a nascent currency that is going up against the world's greatest powers in both the political and financial world and all we see is increasing adoption globally.  more and more exchanges are coming online along with payment processors.  we've had a record year in merchant adoption and tx volumes are growing and just hit an all time high.  VC capital investments are at record highs and you can feel the increasing momentum in the news if you care to follow closely:







hashrate has experienced record growth and is finally leveling off as it has reached a rate that has successfully secured our precious network.  NOW is the time for all the $ pouring into mining to be diverted into the price.  but SC's threaten to disrupt this delicate equilibrium:



the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:



and as far as volatility of the price goes, this is normal price action.  the fact that we are still way up here at $397 speaks volumes that Bitcoin is here to stay.  everything is going as planned and gold is suffering as i predicted and will soon be a feeder source for Bitcoin.  if we get a financial crisis that will help too.  all we have to do is not fuck it up. and that means having patience.  and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.  it will also send a bad message and establish a precedent for criticism from outsiders.  the business of Money cannot be conflicted if we want nations and all classes of ppl to buy in.

who cares about the 10 min block time?  really?  that's about what it takes for a decentralized network to synchronize worldwide.  the network needs that time to prevent attacks.  who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.  and if you really want you can mix your coins or do a Coinjoin.  no problem.  there are many issues that keep being debated but Bitcoin keeps grinding on.

many, many ppl always call for major changes at the bottom of these cycles.  i've seen it 5x.  brg444 is a newbie around since February.  he has no experience in the Bitcoin arena if we are to believe what he has said.  

we've got a great opportunity to make major changes for the better in the financial system.  just be patient and hodl.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 04:13:52 AM
 #16923

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Gold has been discussed to a point of conclusion.

The new convo is about the magnitude of increased technical/economic attack surface created by scamchains.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 05:31:06 AM
 #16924

the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:



What are you talking about?  Cheesy When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains

and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.

The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.

At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.

It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.

The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.

The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

Please don't make me laugh...

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?


"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 15, 2014, 06:30:16 AM
 #16925

the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:



What are you talking about?  Cheesy When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains

and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.

The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.

At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.

It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.

The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.

The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

Please don't make me laugh...

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?



I'm so glad we got to the bottom of this.

brg444 and Blockstream are here to fix Bitcoin.

All hail to the new Fedstream!
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 07:33:11 AM
 #16926

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. 

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.   


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).   

That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up.

You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand  times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a  result,  then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang,  and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition.

They can't jam anything through.  The developers still need to get miners to run their code.

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

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:12:58 AM
 #16927

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain.  

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.  


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).    

You are right, but SPV proofs can be combined using multi-signatures and oracles. => SPV proof and/or oracle/authority signature are valid transactions too.

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

I agree. Whitepaper gives them name "Co-signed SPV proofs"
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:54:57 PM
 #16928


Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:58:57 PM
 #16929

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 01:00:39 PM
 #16930

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.


is ISIS gog or magog? ^^
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 01:23:25 PM
 #16931


Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.


Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

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 15, 2014, 02:09:52 PM
 #16932


Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.


Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Edit:
 =>  If you fold enough Proteins then you can withdraw this bitcoins :-)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 02:35:29 PM
 #16933


Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.


Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.

Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.

With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.  

The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.

Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about.  Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.

Bitcoin is just an experiment right?  We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we?  So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?

Wink

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 15, 2014, 02:52:08 PM
 #16934


Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.


Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.

Yes, very interesting things bitcoin can do :-).
Did you read comments ?
 - Can proof of computation be used to create forced work that is useful?  e.g. Protein folding instead of hashing?
 - I think there does exist a possibility where the work can be replaced by running another algorithm such as Protein folding and proving through SCIP that a certain number of computational steps were executed. The other nodes then verify this proof, and accept it as work. 

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
The thing of it is... SCIP is way bigger than Bitcoin.
I don't see why folks don't get the trepidation around plugging Bitcoin into this, as the first and biggest thing it is applied to.

Eli describes a process that happens all the time with me.
You hear a new notion, the first response is "Oh, that's easy" & "This is great"
Then after some thought, "Its impossible"
Then after a bunch of really hard work, you might be able to make it possible.

With respect to the complexity implications of this for Bitcoin (and the huge world beyond), I'm in that third phase for quite a while now.  

The way something works is one thing to understand, it is another to understand how something breaks.

Computational ordering and process linking and all sorts of interesting hash collision potentials that could make for some phenomenal weirdness were they to come about.  Sometimes REALLY unlikely things do happen.

Bitcoin is just an experiment right?  We don't really think it is going to change everything, do we?  So its OK to just try it and see what happens....right?

Wink


scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
 #16935

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.

If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 03:01:53 PM
 #16936

Useful proof of work also changes incentives
"Useful proof of work" is an oxymoron.

If the computations are useful, then they are a proof of nothing.

We can do contract using OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY.

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 03:09:23 PM
 #16937


scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
Granted, but that is less the issue.
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)

In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.


At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail.  Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering)  It is not a small thing.


So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental.  And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.

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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 15, 2014, 03:14:46 PM
 #16938

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking. Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
 #16939

1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"  
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains!

How do you want replace all money with SC ?

Quote
Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.

SCs are using Bitcoin as currency.

Quote
Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.

Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.

This is so much better than just having money.

A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 03:43:34 PM
 #16940


scipSC can be started today using
a) oracle
b) Federated Peg: oracle & scip-proof

 => "oracle & scip-proof" can be changed into
c) scip-proof when 70% of nodes adopt OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
Granted, but that is less the issue.
(and BTW SCIP can also deterministically verify what those nodes are running)

In this thread we are sort of assuming that it works, the issue is more about what happens when it works.


At another level "Computational Integrity Verification" is sort of a CompSci holy grail.  Things like "The end of virus", "perfect chip testing", and lots of other breakthroughs will come from this, essentially it hails the end of analog (and there is a whole lot of that in computer engineering)  It is not a small thing.


So in one sense, Bitcoin is the very best thing that it can be applied to and should be first.
However... we have to recognize that it is entirely experimental.  And it does a lot.
It is Robert Oppenheimer level impact on the world of computing.

Not only on the world of computing.  :-) (finance, gov, ...)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 ... 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!