Bitcoin Forum
July 11, 2020, 09:11:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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 1219 1220 1221 1222 [1223] 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:01:24 PM
 #24441

I can't say I won that discussion. I am not sure I was entirely convinced I lost it, but I even forgot by now the conclusions (Multiple Sclerosis effect perhaps).

hint:
 N times more blockchain size => N times more information => N times more anonymity ?   ---> in reality same information + (N-1) bytes of shit


1594458700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458700
Reply with quote  #2

1594458700
Report to moderator
1594458700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458700
Reply with quote  #2

1594458700
Report to moderator
1594458700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458700
Reply with quote  #2

1594458700
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594458700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458700
Reply with quote  #2

1594458700
Report to moderator
1594458700
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594458700

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594458700
Reply with quote  #2

1594458700
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:03:07 PM
Last edit: May 19, 2015, 10:43:36 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #24442

So banning cash is banning a most important form of private property. It is  not politically feasible. It is also not practicable at present levels of technological deployment (and neither is crypto ubiquity).

On the next big economic coflagration 2018ish, when 80% of the people in the West are receiving their government survival stipend via Coinbase or Circle in their iPhone and they must have a Facebook login to get government aid, then you tell me it is not politically feasible. And you will be paying for that.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:07:33 PM
 #24443

I may have forgotten the specific details of the unlinkability (been away from that for some months) but afair the IP address can be associated with a total payment amount and the output addresses. The unlinkability only creates a new address for each payee for each payment, but doesn't hide this new address. Thus on the next spend of the change, the input to the ring it likely known. It is these sort of combinatorial attacks (other variations) that I think might breakdown Monero's anonymity. Smooth please do correct me if my recollection has failed me.

You clearly smarter than me but the reason I do not worry is because I2p integration will come to Monero.

I am not sure if I am correct on the IP correlation, but I surely don't trust Tor due to Sybil attack on relays, timing analysis, etc. I don't know if I2P has defeated those issues. I doubt it but everytime I looked for detailed design docs in the past I didn't readily find the information I needed to formulate an opinion.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:08:15 PM
 #24444

It seems reasonable, and afair TPTB have cracked down on exchanges for game currencies because they do realize this threat.

Is Monero ready to resist such crackdowns? Does it have decentralized exchanges? Can the authorities not track down IP addresses and make examples to discourage others from subverting a ban?

Might work.

My idea is an area that is more targeted to the market of those who need anonymity and thus might be more willing to fight. Not sure if game players want to pick an unnecessary fight with the government.

I like your posts but IPs is one of the least worries for privacy in a coin, the "worst" they could ascertain is that you made a transaction to... somewhere, a Monero crackdown would only Straisant effect it, they can't even block torrents, how would a ban take place? They can't ban it everywhere in the world at same time.

I may have forgotten the specific details of the unlinkability (been away from that for some months) but afair the IP address can be associated with a total payment amount and the output addresses. The unlinkability only creates a new address for each payee for each payment, but doesn't hide this new address. Thus on the next spend of the change, the input to the ring it likely known. It is these sort of combinatorial attacks (other variations) that I think might breakdown Monero's anonymity. Smooth please do correct me if my recollection has failed me.

It does hide every new address (in the sense that it is just a random number), and the change is blinded just like any other payee. You can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are change and which are not. You also can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are being spent, so you can't ever be sure that change is being spent.

Wallets do have to be careful how they select coins to avoid skewing probabilities. The best is probably to spend a change output by itself without combining with other outputs (this could be spent back to yourself, but at that point it no longer can be identified as change). It's probably still okay to spend it with other outputs of yours that don't share a near ancestor.

Even so, the worst case is a probabilistic correlation that is still denyable, and which erodes away after multiple transactions. At the IP level it is definitely true that monitoring Monero traffic reveals far, far less useful information than monitoring Bitcoin traffic.

I have no idea what Odalv is talking about, he makes these claims about simultaneous equations but he seems not to understand the math at all. He previously claimed you could steal coins that way, but I guess he's given up on that nonsense now and moved on to some other likely nonsense.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:09:19 PM
 #24445

I am wondering why gamers need anonymity and would fight the government.

Well, I don't want to go deeper here (people in general rightfully feel that CK has very little to do with gold collapsing - especially as CKgold is doing well - sorry I had to..), so let's stop this topic please.

There is no fighting the government here: I told about the shit - if you fight it, your hand gets dirty. If you ignore it and continue walking, it wears off gradually.

Gamers are just people, and it's just normal to prefer keeping stuff to you. Also we have to remember that CK is not a standalone business idea, it was purposefully designed to increase and strengthen Monero economy and adoption, so they cannot be separated. Most games also are not valued at $5k per player. So yes there is something special in CK, which I am not telling you here. Thank you for interest, and welcome to join Smiley  

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:10:58 PM
 #24446

I may have forgotten the specific details of the unlinkability (been away from that for some months) but afair the IP address can be associated with a total payment amount and the output addresses. The unlinkability only creates a new address for each payee for each payment, but doesn't hide this new address. Thus on the next spend of the change, the input to the ring it likely known. It is these sort of combinatorial attacks (other variations) that I think might breakdown Monero's anonymity. Smooth please do correct me if my recollection has failed me.

You clearly smarter than me but the reason I do not worry is because I2p integration will come to Monero.

I am not sure if I am correct on the IP correlation, but I surely don't trust Tor due to Sybil attack on relays, timing analysis, etc. I don't know if I2P has defeated those issues. I doubt it but everytime I looked for detailed design docs in the past I didn't readily find the information I needed to formulate an opinion.

i2p is somewhat better because of what they call garlic routing where multiple separate messages are deliberately combined to frustrate timing/traffic attacks. I don't know of a careful analysis of how effective that is, but at least they try.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:14:46 PM
 #24447

rpietila I wasn't phrasing it as "you are wrong". I was wondering what the natural synergy is. Perhaps gamers are rebellious enough by nature. My son is a game aholic  and he doesn't seem to be phased by anything. He does exactly what he damn pleases, including refusing to get a job or go see the sunshine (sounds like somebody I know around my age except the refusing to hold a job part although my job is like a game to me). Surely he is not your demographic though as he doesn't have $100.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:15:15 PM
 #24448

Zerocoin is an example of a true innovation as I see it. Zerocoin does not rely on mixing as Monero does, but implements true removal of all history.  This is something that neither Bitcoin nor Monero can do. If someone made this, I'd seriously consider it.

http://zerocash-project.org

https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark

http://www.scipr-lab.org/

Quote from: zerocash q&a website section
How are Zerocash transactions checked for correctness?

For a mint transaction, the commitment cointained therein is constructed so that that anyone can verify that the committed coin has the claimed value.

For a pour transaction, anyone can verify that the zero-knowledge proof contained therein is valid (and that a few other simple invariants hold). For efficiency, however, Zerocash does not use "any" zero-knowledge proof, but leverages zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARguments of Knowledge (zk-SNARK) systems, which are zero-knowledge proofs that are particularly short and easy to verify. Specifically, Zerocash uses zk-SNARKs constructed by SCIPR Lab described in BCTV13; such proofs are less than 300 bytes long and can be verified in only a few mmilliseconds.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:19:26 PM
 #24449

I'll be sure to make a small hedge in Zerocoin too and I'll be using my Bitcoins not Moneroj, there is clearly of pattern of innovation to legacy that Monero will skip even with Zerocoin because of its optionally transparent features Wink

edit: first I'll have to be relatively sure zercoin/zerocash is not a scam and no one can create infinite coins like said before.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:21:56 PM
 #24450


I have no idea what Odalv is talking about, he makes these claims about simultaneous equations but he seems not to understand the math at all. He previously claimed you could steal coins that way, but I guess he's given up on that nonsense now and moved on to some other likely nonsense.


Yes, you are right. I was wrong with my claim I can compute Monero private key. -> I'm not so good :-) ... nevermind.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:24:27 PM
Last edit: May 19, 2015, 10:39:47 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #24451

It seems reasonable, and afair TPTB have cracked down on exchanges for game currencies because they do realize this threat.

Is Monero ready to resist such crackdowns? Does it have decentralized exchanges? Can the authorities not track down IP addresses and make examples to discourage others from subverting a ban?

Might work.

My idea is an area that is more targeted to the market of those who need anonymity and thus might be more willing to fight. Not sure if game players want to pick an unnecessary fight with the government.

I like your posts but IPs is one of the least worries for privacy in a coin, the "worst" they could ascertain is that you made a transaction to... somewhere, a Monero crackdown would only Straisant effect it, they can't even block torrents, how would a ban take place? They can't ban it everywhere in the world at same time.

I may have forgotten the specific details of the unlinkability (been away from that for some months) but afair the IP address can be associated with a total payment amount and the output addresses. The unlinkability only creates a new address for each payee for each payment, but doesn't hide this new address. Thus on the next spend of the change, the input to the ring it likely known. It is these sort of combinatorial attacks (other variations) that I think might breakdown Monero's anonymity. Smooth please do correct me if my recollection has failed me.

It does hide every new address (in the sense that it is just a random number), and the change is blinded just like any other payee. You can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are change and which are not. You also can't tell by monitoring at the network level which outputs are being spent, so you can't ever be sure that change is being spent.

Wallets do have to be careful how they select coins to avoid skewing probabilities. The best is probably to spend a change output by itself without combining with other outputs (this could be spent back to yourself, but at that point it no longer can be identified as change). It's probably still okay to spend it with other outputs of yours that don't share a near ancestor.

But my point was that if the IP is the same (or different IP correlated to the same individual) for transaction that created outputs and that spends any of those outputs (without needing to know which is the change), then analysis can presume the output(s) being spent in the ring are those which match the correlated IP address.

Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:36:58 PM
 #24452

Zerocoin is an example of a true innovation as I see it. Zerocoin does not rely on mixing as Monero does, but implements true removal of all history.  This is something that neither Bitcoin nor Monero can do. If someone made this, I'd seriously consider it.

http://zerocash-project.org

https://github.com/scipr-lab/libsnark

http://www.scipr-lab.org/

Quote from: zerocash q&a website section
How are Zerocash transactions checked for correctness?

For a mint transaction, the commitment cointained therein is constructed so that that anyone can verify that the committed coin has the claimed value.

For a pour transaction, anyone can verify that the zero-knowledge proof contained therein is valid (and that a few other simple invariants hold). For efficiency, however, Zerocash does not use "any" zero-knowledge proof, but leverages zero-knowledge Succinct Non-interactive ARguments of Knowledge (zk-SNARK) systems, which are zero-knowledge proofs that are particularly short and easy to verify. Specifically, Zerocash uses zk-SNARKs constructed by SCIPR Lab described in BCTV13; such proofs are less than 300 bytes long and can be verified in only a few milliseconds.

If I recall correctly, the Bitcoin dev team was really excited about Zerocoin, until they saw that computational overhead which rightfully scared them away.

Now a zerocoin sidechain that is merged mined with Bitcoin and only lives off of it's own transaction fees, would enable people to fully clean any coin they have for a modest fee.
phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:38:32 PM
 #24453

And this is a critical point. If you can move the worlds CPUs into your coin decentralized, you can beat Bitcoin because you can move more hardware value into your coin. Especially if you can give the mined morsels to be so small that no one sells and they instead circulate those morsels on a use-case that Bitcoin can't do.

+1

This is exactly what 21 Inc. will be doing…adding bitcoin miners to devices like cellphones, thereby giving "mined morsels" to potentially millions of new devices.  I'm very excited to see how this plays out!


yeah, i thought of that too.

i think it's going to be a huge win.

Ok, perhaps you can help me understand, as I am really stuck on this one. Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market, and if it is not, how can this be a cost-efficient way to mine? I get that the network effect of so many devices mining would be hugely beneficial for BTC, and the 'free BTC' could be a PR/adoption coup, but is there a 'sleight of hand' going on here? Will consumers be receiving what they perceive as 'free BTC' through their toasters or phones, but in reality end up paying more than the market rate for BTC due to the higher electricity costs of running/charging these devices? Surely a toaster-miner has to be more expensive to use than a regular toaster, even if only at the margin, where it is not noticed as a small increase in the electricity bill.
In a market economy the most cost-efficient mining ought to win out, but this seems like a possible (intentional) way to 'distort' that.
Apologies if I am missing something completely obvious

EDIT: Also, as I understand it, a percentage of these mined morsels will go directly to 21Inc, making them yet more expensive for Joe Public.
It almost seems like a legal mining bot-net

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:48:57 PM
 #24454

Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.

It is irrelevant.

They do not gain the popular acceptance to collect information and enforce stuff based on it on such a high level without a civil war. And if you are not careful, they will round you up in the early stage, just as they did in Russia starting 1917 (see, 100 years!). So they either have the technology but not the means to legally use it against you, and you are safe. Or there is a war and you are dead. Or you move away and don't care shit.

Sorry to bother the other readers but it really gets on my nerves that an intelligent guy bothers himself with the government so much. It is their job to bother you, not yours to bother yourself with them.

The battle is not technical (although it helps). If the aim is that people forsake government, it is accomplished by forsaking government, not by developing stuff while caring about government.

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 10:58:12 PM
 #24455

And this is a critical point. If you can move the worlds CPUs into your coin decentralized, you can beat Bitcoin because you can move more hardware value into your coin. Especially if you can give the mined morsels to be so small that no one sells and they instead circulate those morsels on a use-case that Bitcoin can't do.

+1

This is exactly what 21 Inc. will be doing…adding bitcoin miners to devices like cellphones, thereby giving "mined morsels" to potentially millions of new devices.  I'm very excited to see how this plays out!


yeah, i thought of that too.

i think it's going to be a huge win.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/18/bitcoin-startup-21-unveils-product-plan-embeddable-mining-chips/?mod=rss_Technology



Quote
Larry Summers, former U.S. treasury secretary, has joined the advisory board of bitcoin startup 21. Bloomberg News

The plan is to have users pay for their phones and/or services by contributing their electricity. This is a way embedding usury into the masses' digital life. And it is a way of implementing the 666 system. Larry Summers who is leading the way towards a cashless, NWO is onboard.

Smooth, as I told you we are losing network effects race. You all over at Monero need stop fucking around with delusion about complacency and get serious.

phoenix1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 11:07:52 PM
 #24456

<snip>
The plan is to have users pay for their phones and/or services by contributing their electricity. This is a way embedding usury into the masses' digital life.

This is exactly what I am asking about
'Contributing their electricity' seems a polite way of phrasing it

Whilst the cost of running any electrical device ought to fall over time, any device with embedded mining will be relatively more expensive to run and less efficient, no ?

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves"  - Confucius (China 551BC-479 BC)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 11:09:14 PM
Last edit: May 19, 2015, 11:23:52 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #24457

I think you are misunderstanding the paradigm being used now is a slowburn. By the time the frogs realize they are boiling, they are already dead.

Note I am presuming the NSA can obtain the records from your ISP to ascertain it was you on shared IP address and not another user of the same ISP.

It is irrelevant.

They do not gain the popular acceptance to collect information and enforce stuff based on it on such a high level without a civil war.

Apparently they are doing it already. And I don't see any civil war. How do you explain this discrepancy?

I don't understand why you are angry at me when I am doing everything I can think of to devise a technological and marketing coup to this battle which is nearly lost for certain.

And if you are not careful, they will round you up in the early stage, just as they did in Russia starting 1917 (see, 100 years!). So they either have the technology but not the means to legally use it against you, and you are safe. Or there is a war and you are dead. Or you move away and don't care shit.

Or they have the means and have strategically decided to store it all up now and begin the war in a few years from now when their timing is ripe, so as to prevent premature adoption and network effects development of technological counter measures.

OPEC observed that raising oil prices led to increase conservation and efficiencies. Markets do react. TPTB are surely aware they must maximize the concentration of their collapse and war.

Sorry to bother the other readers but it really gets on my nerves that an intelligent guy bothers himself with the government so much. It is their job to bother you, not yours to bother yourself with them.

Why does it bother you that I want to want fight technologically and marketing-wise to attempt to provide a frontier for more people versus what I perceive to be their plans, strengths, and weaknesses. I am playing chess. What is wrong with that?

The battle is not technical (although it helps). If the aim is that people forsake government, it is accomplished by forsaking government, not by developing stuff while caring about government.

The majority are not going to forsake the government. Thus you give up? I refuse to give up and instead hope that with a technological solution, a segment of the population can be emboldened to resist the will of the majority.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 11:11:20 PM
 #24458

Ok, perhaps you can help me understand, as I am really stuck on this one. Is it possible for a toaster/phone + mining chip to be as/more efficient than the best ASIC's on the market ?

Absolutely yes. Phone, maybe not. That's more of monetization play, and a long shot on creating a distribution vehicle for micro-BTC that could be used for micro-payments.

But for any device that produces heat (toaster, portable heater, hair dryer, clothes dryer, towel warmer, dishwasher dry cycle, etc.), the efficiency of mining is infinite.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 11:12:42 PM
 #24459

<snip>
The plan is to have users pay for their phones and/or services by contributing their electricity. This is a way embedding usury into the masses' digital life.

This is exactly what I am asking about
'Contributing their electricity' seems a polite way of phrasing it

People in the developing world have no concept of what makes their electricity bill change every month. They will ignorantly feel they are getting something for free, when in fact they are being enslaved yet again. These banksters are very clever.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 11:17:21 PM
 #24460

But for any device that producesrequires heat (toaster, portable heater, hair dryer, clothes dryer, towel warmer, dishwasher dry cycle, etc.), the efficiency of mining is infinitemitigated.

The efficiency isn't going to be perfect because the nature of the heat may not be fully fungible with the original source of the heat in such devices.

Phone absolutely not.

Thus (unless they don't really expect to scale this into mobile phones) I think it is more of a play on the fact that small changes in electricity bill are uncorrelated in the minds of the users.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1219 1220 1221 1222 [1223] 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 ... 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!