Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2017, 09:42:53 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 ... 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 [1168] 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1981761 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
May 02, 2015, 03:59:29 PM
 #23341

As gold's price history shows, "hard money" is still always subject to the market. If the market decides Bitcoin needs 23 million coins instead of 21 million, it will be done. You can keep your coins on the original 21M fork as their price plummets because, ex hypothesi, the market only endorsed the change if it was absolutely necessary, meaning the old fork is pretty useless. None of this should be disturbing, though, because almost everything in our lives already depends on the market. People don't push you into traffic, even though they could. The free market doesn't price for your daily necessities at tens times more than usual, at least without a damn good reason that you would ultimately agree with.

Bitcoin will be restructured as necessary to make it work, to preserve the value of the Universal Ledger of Civilization at all costs. Because that's what the market wants. Insofar as that means no change, it will undergo no change; insofar as it means change, there will be change.

Every classic document of Voice and Exit references this reality. In the Declaration of Independence it says, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." This is analogous to the fact that the market will not readily deviate from what was set in stone by Satoshi at the start, but that this should not be mistaken for an absolute guarantee. The market simply guarantees that changes will only be made when they are beneficial, according to the wisdom of the entire investing population weighted by those best understand it, which has the legendary accuracy of a prediction market (for example, in 2012 the Intrade prediction market correctly predicted 49 out of 50 electoral outcomes in the US states).

Good post, but the crypto sector (unlike intrinsically monopolistic government) is not zero sum.  Canonical Bitcoin doesn't need to be devalued and abolished in order for innovation to occur.  Supplementation by forks/altcoins is already well underway, and those processes are functionally (albeit externally) a deviation from Satoshi's magic numbers.

Also, the "Universal Ledger of Civilization" paradigm is flawed by its pretentious Tower of Babel/Third Temple hubris.  With rare exception, the phrase 'natural monopoly' is an oxymoron (given time and free market competition/substitution).

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  LocalMonero.co  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
1506418973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506418973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506418973
Reply with quote  #2

1506418973
Report to moderator
1506418973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506418973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506418973
Reply with quote  #2

1506418973
Report to moderator
1506418973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506418973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506418973
Reply with quote  #2

1506418973
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506418973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506418973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506418973
Reply with quote  #2

1506418973
Report to moderator
1506418973
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506418973

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506418973
Reply with quote  #2

1506418973
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 02, 2015, 04:04:23 PM
 #23342

Good post, but the crypto sector (unlike intrinsically monopolistic government) is not zero sum.  Canonical Bitcoin doesn't need to be devalued and abolished in order for innovation to occur.  Supplementation by forks/altcoins is already well underway, and those processes are functionally (albeit externally) a deviation from Satoshi's magic numbers.

Also, the "Universal Ledger of Civilization" paradigm is flawed by its pretentious Tower of Babel/Third Temple hubris.  With rare exception, the phrase 'natural monopoly' is an oxymoron (given time and free market competition/substitution).

There is no problem with alt-protocols. The problem with altcoins is that they are not just alt-protocols, but also alt-ledgers. That's a no-no from the market's perspective. To make an alt-protocol, you fork Bitcoin as it stands, not fork it and start all over with a new ledger.

As for Tower of Babel hubris, you'd need to show specifically how a market-chosen standard has any of the ill effects of a monopoly on power. That sounds like arguing that gold is a monopoly so we need silver and platinum as well or something bad will happen. As a backup in case gold becomes counterfeitable, sure, that makes sense, but anything beyond that seems pointless (excepting some niche uses, which may be your point).
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
May 02, 2015, 04:22:02 PM
 #23343

There is no problem with alt-protocols. The problem with altcoins is that they are not just alt-protocols, but also alt-ledgers. That's a no-no from the market's perspective. To make an alt-protocol, you fork Bitcoin as it stands, not fork it and start all over with a new ledger.

As for Tower of Babel hubris, you'd need to show specifically how a market-chosen standard has any of the ill effects of a monopoly on power. That sounds like arguing that gold is a monopoly so we need silver and platinum as well or something bad will happen.

Airdrops patterned on current BTC distribution have been tried, and have been soundly rejected by the market.  GavinCoin is still highly controversial vaporware with a rough road ahead of it.

New ledgers are valuable for their hot swappable backup utility and as platforms for innovation.

The gold standard is inferior to a bimetallic one including silver; that's why the Founding Fathers you quoted in their supreme wisdom choose to specify both as legal tender:

Quote
The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

Your mention of novel, exotic platinum is a straw man, but yes, copper/nickle/zinc are important as 2nd tier monetary metals.  They also kill/deactivate pathogens via the oligodynamic effect, just not as effectively as silver.  Hence the phrase 'health is wealth.'

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  LocalMonero.co  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 02, 2015, 05:28:32 PM
 #23344

It is true that we can't simply rely on charity for full nodes. There has to be an incentive structure.

Justus wrote about it at length and even propose a brilliant (imho) solution:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 02, 2015, 06:30:07 PM
 #23345

It is true that we can't simply rely on charity for full nodes. There has to be an incentive structure.

Justus wrote about it at length and even propose a brilliant (imho) solution:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Ultimately, I think Justus will be right: no block size limit.

The whole above discussion regarding UTXO commitments should convince any skeptics against the future need for outsized storage space. That is a big relief.

As far as bandwidth, if the TX throughput grows to a size that pushes the limits, that will be a great problem to have. I'm sure the network and technological improvements will quickly respond to that demand.

Furthermore, we NEED that type of TX volume to support the miners and to further hash rate growth. The profit incentive does need to be there.

 
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 02, 2015, 07:11:39 PM
 #23346

Airdrops patterned on current BTC distribution have been tried, and have been soundly rejected by the market.

I'm not aware of any major altcoin (of those deemed useful/promising even by some bitcoiners) that has tried bootstrapping off Bitcoin's ledger. I hear Stellar did a partial, but I wouldn't consider that major since its market cap is grossly inflated. It will have to be tried on a popular altcoin and executed effectively, which by the way is not a trivial problem, before we can know what the market will think of it.

As for gold and silver, sure it's in the Constitution, but why? Presumably because of limitations in sizing, like you don't want to use teensy gold dots to pay for a loaf of bread, and you don't want to lug around a kilo of silver to pay for a business suit. It's a hard trade-off: gold was too valuable for small transactions, while silver was too heavy for large transactions. Similarly, in Bitcoin there will only be a persistent fork if there is a hard trade-off that must be made. For example in the blocksize limits.

Whether or not this requires a protocol fork, it doesn't require starting a bran new ledger. At the time of the fork, every BTC holder will have their coins in both ledgers. They can sell one for the other if they way to take sides, but they can simply sit tight and have the value of their money fully retained whichever fork wins, or however their market shares split.
Jungian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 904


View Profile
May 02, 2015, 10:27:17 PM
 #23347

Airdrops patterned on current BTC distribution have been tried, and have been soundly rejected by the market.

I'm not aware of any major altcoin (of those deemed useful/promising even by some bitcoiners) that has tried bootstrapping off Bitcoin's ledger. I hear Stellar did a partial, but I wouldn't consider that major since its market cap is grossly inflated. It will have to be tried on a popular altcoin and executed effectively, which by the way is not a trivial problem, before we can know what the market will think of it.

As for gold and silver, sure it's in the Constitution, but why? Presumably because of limitations in sizing, like you don't want to use teensy gold dots to pay for a loaf of bread, and you don't want to lug around a kilo of silver to pay for a business suit. It's a hard trade-off: gold was too valuable for small transactions, while silver was too heavy for large transactions. Similarly, in Bitcoin there will only be a persistent fork if there is a hard trade-off that must be made. For example in the blocksize limits.

Whether or not this requires a protocol fork, it doesn't require starting a bran new ledger. At the time of the fork, every BTC holder will have their coins in both ledgers. They can sell one for the other if they way to take sides, but they can simply sit tight and have the value of their money fully retained whichever fork wins, or however their market shares split.

Clams bootstrapped using BTC, LTC and DOGE I think.

I think Monero (XMR) is very interesting.
https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 02, 2015, 11:39:06 PM
 #23348

Snowden:

https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2015/05/02/meeting-snowden-in-princeton/
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


@theshmadz


View Profile
May 02, 2015, 11:50:49 PM
 #23349

It is true that we can't simply rely on charity for full nodes. There has to be an incentive structure.

Justus wrote about it at length and even propose a brilliant (imho) solution:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Ultimately, I think Justus will be right: no block size limit.

The whole above discussion regarding UTXO commitments should convince any skeptics against the future need for outsized storage space. That is a big relief.

As far as bandwidth, if the TX throughput grows to a size that pushes the limits, that will be a great problem to have. I'm sure the network and technological improvements will quickly respond to that demand.

Furthermore, we NEED that type of TX volume to support the miners and to further hash rate growth. The profit incentive does need to be there.

 

As long as the price continues to increase ten fold every other year , then the block reward will be sufficient for at least the immediate future (next 5-10 years)

Long term, I think justus' proposed payment structure, or something like it, will be necessary for miners and full nodes to continue to be viable.

Might as well give it a try now while the network is *only* worth a few billion... (if this is gonna fail, sooner is better than later)

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 03, 2015, 06:01:57 AM
 #23350

Grinding higher
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 06:13:24 AM
 #23351

It is true that we can't simply rely on charity for full nodes. There has to be an incentive structure.

Justus wrote about it at length and even propose a brilliant (imho) solution:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Ultimately, I think Justus will be right: no block size limit.

The whole above discussion regarding UTXO commitments should convince any skeptics against the future need for outsized storage space. That is a big relief.

As far as bandwidth, if the TX throughput grows to a size that pushes the limits, that will be a great problem to have. I'm sure the network and technological improvements will quickly respond to that demand.

Furthermore, we NEED that type of TX volume to support the miners and to further hash rate growth. The profit incentive does need to be there.

 

As long as the price continues to increase ten fold every other year , then the block reward will be sufficient for at least the immediate future (next 5-10 years)

Long term, I think justus' proposed payment structure, or something like it, will be necessary for miners and full nodes to continue to be viable.

Might as well give it a try now while the network is *only* worth a few billion... (if this is gonna fail, sooner is better than later)


Agreed. And perhaps JR's node services payment structure could be progressed via a Lighthouse funding process. It might get traction if it was divided into broad phases, such as:

detailed technical  specification,
alpha/test version,
beta/production-ready version

The last of which would eventually need integrating with Bitcoin Core.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 03, 2015, 08:13:28 AM
 #23352

Rally rally
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 03, 2015, 08:42:49 AM
 #23353

Oh it feels so good... moar, mosr!
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 08:45:21 AM
 #23354

Oh it feels so good... moar, mosr!

Don't freak your calm, bro. We've only just now stopped collapsing.  Wink

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
zanzibar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 600


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
 #23355

Really doesn't matter the price, BTC cannot be stopped at this point.
fox19891989
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
May 03, 2015, 09:48:22 AM
 #23356

Bitcoin doesn't care about our human concepts of possession and ownership and control.

Bitcoin is a self-contained system of rules. Those rules say that we have a blockchain containing a list of precise, cryptographic conditions which are necessary and sufficient to transform the blockchain in particular ways.

If we want Bitcoin to behave in in a manner that matches our preconceived notions of property and ownership, the onus is on us to use Bitcoin's rules in a way that achieves what we want.

Bitcoin is in no way limited to only behaving in ways that match our expectations. Bitcoin can do anything which is allowed by its rules, including operations that have no equivalent in our existing property and ownership paradigms.

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin DOWN, too.  Sad
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
May 03, 2015, 11:20:07 AM
 #23357

Airdrops patterned on current BTC distribution have been tried, and have been soundly rejected by the market.

I'm not aware of any major altcoin (of those deemed useful/promising even by some bitcoiners) that has tried bootstrapping off Bitcoin's ledger. I hear Stellar did a partial, but I wouldn't consider that major since its market cap is grossly inflated. It will have to be tried on a popular altcoin and executed effectively, which by the way is not a trivial problem, before we can know what the market will think of it.

As for gold and silver, sure it's in the Constitution, but why? Presumably because of limitations in sizing, like you don't want to use teensy gold dots to pay for a loaf of bread, and you don't want to lug around a kilo of silver to pay for a business suit. It's a hard trade-off: gold was too valuable for small transactions, while silver was too heavy for large transactions. Similarly, in Bitcoin there will only be a persistent fork if there is a hard trade-off that must be made. For example in the blocksize limits.

Whether or not this requires a protocol fork, it doesn't require starting a bran new ledger. At the time of the fork, every BTC holder will have their coins in both ledgers. They can sell one for the other if they way to take sides, but they can simply sit tight and have the value of their money fully retained whichever fork wins, or however their market shares split.

Clams bootstrapped using BTC, LTC and DOGE I think.

No it didn't. They paid an equal amount per-output not based on output value which has some "interesting" properties. In any case it wasn't a spin off.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 12:26:29 PM
 #23358

It is true that we can't simply rely on charity for full nodes. There has to be an incentive structure.

Justus wrote about it at length and even propose a brilliant (imho) solution:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/01/21/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Justus's seminal work on incentivizing full nodes will take some time to be assimilated into the mainstream of the community, but I think it will have to be. Either through some high-powered explanatory tool or by the market forcing it on everyone when rubber meets road, which will be unsettling for many.

Speaking of high-powered explanatory tools, it would be great if there were a sort of "hard money wiki/FAQ," for lack of a better term, that explains the economic points often raised in this thread for a general (Bitcoin-conversant) audience. Not just why Bitcoin is replacing gold, though that's a core part of it, but all the points about incentives and economics that are are typically misunderstood in the wider community. Things like Money as Memory, the role of investors ("who controls Bitcoin?"), why Bitcoin is more valuable as a store of value than as a digital currency, how and why to introduce market economics to fee payment, node incentivization, etc. etc. Instead of a traditional wiki format, I'm a big fan of prezi.com's platform for visual explanations. In that format it could serve as a visual background for hundreds of easy-to-produce videos where someone is simply explaining a bite-sized point while using one small aspect of the larger Prezi wiki, effectively narrating it.

Without such a visual communication medium and readily-producible videos, I think the explanatory load to actually educate the larger community about economics and such is just too much. The Nakamoto Institute is doing pretty well, but relying solely on essays is too slow in Bitcoin time for the permeation of understanding that it would be ideal to have.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 05:39:27 PM
 #23359

Justus's seminal work on incentivizing full nodes will take some time to be assimilated into the mainstream of the community, but I think it will have to be. Either through some high-powered explanatory tool or by the market forcing it on everyone when rubber meets road, which will be unsettling for many.

Speaking of high-powered explanatory tools, it would be great if there were a sort of "hard money wiki/FAQ," for lack of a better term, that explains the economic points often raised in this thread for a general (Bitcoin-conversant) audience. Not just why Bitcoin is replacing gold, though that's a core part of it, but all the points about incentives and economics that are are typically misunderstood in the wider community. Things like Money as Memory, the role of investors ("who controls Bitcoin?"), why Bitcoin is more valuable as a store of value than as a digital currency, how and why to introduce market economics to fee payment, node incentivization, etc. etc. Instead of a traditional wiki format, I'm a big fan of prezi.com's platform for visual explanations. In that format it could serve as a visual background for hundreds of easy-to-produce videos where someone is simply explaining a bite-sized point while using one small aspect of the larger Prezi wiki, effectively narrating it.

I don't even know if core the developers and other "inner" influential community members have the right level of awareness, I've even asked Justus if he had the chance to talk with some of the aforementioned people  about is proposal, this is Justus'  answer:

Secondly, as of your knowledge, are the core devs aware of this issue? Do they agree with the given definition of the problem? And more to the point, is there a plan to develop something along the line of your proposed solution?
To the best of my knowledge, they are aware of it. None of them have commented, however.

I don't know of any immediate, specific plans to implement this.

Without such a visual communication medium and readily-producible videos, I think the explanatory load to actually educate the larger community about economics and such is just too much. The Nakamoto Institute is doing pretty well, but relying solely on essays is too slow in Bitcoin time for the permeation of understanding that it would be ideal to have.

I agree we need to accelerate the assimilation and the understanding of those concepts at least among those people that can influence bitcoin development trajectory.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
May 03, 2015, 05:46:02 PM
 #23360

Speaking about recent Justus' activity I forgot to mention "Reusable payment codes":

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

Quote from: Justus on bitcon core mailing list http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34014801/
This link contains an RFC for a new type of Bitcoin address called a "payment code"

Payment codes are SPV-friendly alternatives to DarkWallet-style stealth addresses which provide useful features such as positively identifying senders to recipients and automatically providing for transaction refunds.

Payment codes can be publicly advertised and associated with a real-life identity without causing a loss of financial privacy.

Compared to stealth addresses, payment codes require less blockchain data storage.

Payment codes require 65 bytes of OP_RETURN data per sender-recipient pair, while stealth addresses require 40 bytes per transaction.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Pages: « 1 ... 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 [1168] 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 ... 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!