Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 08:58:12 PM *
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 ... 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 [1313] 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:40:40 PM
 #26241

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.
1513630692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630692
Reply with quote  #2

1513630692
Report to moderator
1513630692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630692
Reply with quote  #2

1513630692
Report to moderator
1513630692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630692
Reply with quote  #2

1513630692
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513630692
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630692

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630692
Reply with quote  #2

1513630692
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 09, 2015, 11:44:14 PM
 #26242

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


well, the ppl i define as normally social that leave to go work somewhere else stop in to say hi every once in a while.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 12:18:46 AM
 #26243

blocks filling up again  Roll Eyes
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 12:48:38 AM
 #26244

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?   Grin

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

i'll be damned.  i was gonna just post exactly this based on that quote that popped into my head.

which goes back to a previous concern of how nullc spends inordinate amounts of time politicking on forums.  amazing actually.

You and Frap.doc are confusing the process with the products.

Of course, in the zero-sum time-limited world of the process, defending BTC against the GavinCoin attack necessarily costs time at the expense of sidechain dev.

What nullc and pwuille were referring to as orthogonal are the functions of the end-result products.

Despite their best efforts, people are still "getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

Nullc's time educating the drooling Reddidurr masses is well spent IMO.  Frap.doc's POV differs, but he's not the boss of nullc.  He doesn't pay nullc's salary nor contribute code to nullc's projects.

At least at this point the Gavinistas' gloves are off and their teeth are bared.  They sense their loss of forward momentum, and are in desperation turning the rage up to 11.  As if the "calm down and stop exaggerating" elders of Bitcoin are impressed with their foot stomping and huffy ultimatums!   Grin Grin Grin Grin


blocks filling up again  Roll Eyes

Good!  We need to chase the spam tx off the Mother Chain and grow the hitherto subsidized and thus underdeveloped fee marketplace into a mature, self-sufficient equilibrium.

I told you social pressure from full blocks would incentivize development of true orthogonal scaling in the form of sidechains, etc.  Et voila!   Cool Cool Cool Cool


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

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 01:02:36 AM
 #26245

Gavin: We can ADD another horse harness to a wagon.
Greg: Let's build a truck.

GavinCoin:




Sidechains:



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

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2015, 01:05:18 AM
 #26246

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue


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

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
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
 #26247

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

[static]

One interesting quote there:
"The blocksize debate if anything substantially slowed the release, absorbing mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time, and also having avoid including some scaling tools to avoid people getting confused that sidechains themselves were a scaling answer."

In the process of trying to show how they are not a conflict of interest, he uses a conflict of interest (time devoted).
The thing is, he is right sidechains are only a factor in scaling, but they aren't the answer.  They do provide for some scaling, but not at all a full solution.

They waste a lot of time trying to claim that there isn't a conflict of interest.  The better method is to simply acknowledge it and move on.  People are fairly accepting of the risk for now, but their efforts to fight it and claim it doesn't exist both make them look foolish and waste their time.

No one asked that mindbogglingly enormous amounts of time be wasted. That was their free decision. The simple approach was to let Gavin proceed with handling the block-size issue while they focused on side-chains, instead of being a ball-and-anchor chain hampering dealing with the single most serious threat to Bitcoin's network effect and ecosystem growth.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:28:16 AM
 #26248

Of course, in the zero-sum time-limited world of the process, defending BTC against the GavinCoin attack necessarily costs time at the expense of sidechain dev.

that's precisely right.  i am quite sure sidechain dev is their first priority. Angry
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:40:17 AM
 #26249

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue

iceblow seems lost.  i think he is so entrenched he doesn't even know what he's rooting for.  meanwhile:

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 01:45:48 AM
 #26250

...
but as even staunch supporters as tvbcof have said, he will only bounce in and out of a SC with small amts to prevent from getting trapped by what is a relatively high friction 2wp that we know takes at least 2d or 144 blocks to clear on the SC. ...

I think you are putting words into my mouth, but not on purpose for a change.

I would bounce in and out of various sidechains based on what they would do for me (and others who's goals I may support) and to balance my risk.  I don't leave myself open to more than I can afford to lose unless it is a last resort.  This includes Bitcoin which is, in my opinion, still in it's infancy and very far from rock solid.  If/when Bitcoin becomes a proven foundation upon which scaling can realistically occur (sidechains ecosystem as one example) then I do hope to feel as confident in it as I do in other property.

The 'high friction' is absolutely not something I fear being trapped by.  It is almost unheard of that I cannot and do not plan a few days ahead for financial activity and usually I plan years in advance.  Indeed, this 'high friction' and my own systems analysis related to it is one of the big reasons I have hope and confidence in the way sidechains are shaping up.  I don't buy things from people who promise me the world.


Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 02:24:21 AM
 #26251

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

At least Nick Szabo agrees: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/605890791991410690

Quote
Au will eventually be replaced by cryptocurrency as reserve currency, but like beads still used as jewelry.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 03:11:41 AM
 #26252

Something's brewing...

Quote

av123
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 04:04:55 AM
 #26253

Interesting new post by Jeremy Rubin of MIT excerpted below:

8 Problems for the Bitcoin Community to Solve Before Block Size:

https://medium.com/@jeremyrubin/8-problems-with-bitcoin-to-solve-before-block-size-6b4d35e0c6f9

Recently the debate around block size has been getting a huge amount of attention, and it is easy to think this is the most important issue for scaling Bitcoin. For context, currently the Bitcoin network can process only a few transactions per second. A proposal suggests increasing this 20 fold. While Bitcoin should eventually be able to handle increased volume, there is much debate about how and when to make this increase. It’s certainly an important issue, but it’s not as pressing as other issues. Here’s a list of 8 problems that are more important to solve than block size, and why I think so. My hope is that this article will provide the Bitcoin community with fresh targets for discourse on issues which are not getting the attention they deserve.

1: Privacy

Privacy is fundamentally important for the freedoms of Bitcoin users. While a globally public ledger is useful for certain applications, broader privacy guarantees are critical for Bitcoin’s success as an empowering tool for both the developed and the developing world. Technology which is private-by-default with opt-in publishing is under development. This is more important than block size because, while it would be nice to support all of humanity’s transactional volume in Bitcoin, it is meaningless if that information can easily be stolen as we’ve seen with the numerous data breaches over the last few years or if that information can be weaponized against the population.

2: Testing & Simulation

Developing more robust and accessible methods for testing and simulating the Bitcoin protocol and extensions to it is paramount because it gives us assurances that the software is doing what we intend for it to do. We can talk all day about what we would like the protocol to do, but without rigorous testing and simulation we can’t be sure that it actually does what we want. This is more important than block size because many of the properties we like to talk about are incredibly hard to reason about. Good simulation would allow for more evidence of behaviors under game theoretic conditions, and testing would allow us to be sure that a desired change does what we like. An upsizing to 20mb is not even guaranteed to be 20mb if a bug prevents this size from actually being utilized.

3: Formalization

Formalization is a similar goal to testing, but in a more rigorous sense. Under formalization, code can be mathematically proven to be correct. Advancements in formalization technology today allows for code to be structured with mathematical proofs to be computer checked and extracted into executable programs. With formally proven code, the need for testing is drastically reduced as failure is essentially impossible. While it might be difficult to formalize all of Bitcoin, decomposing the code into a more modular form would allow for certain components, such as the script processing engine, to be proven. Formalization, while difficult, can reduce the friction in the development of patches as they can be authoritatively shown to not modify other functionality. While it may be premature to fully prove, refactoring the code base to be more amenable to such proofs is a vastly important goal as it will ensure a path forward for a more robust Bitcoin. These major restructuring changes will be much more difficult to accomplish in the future as more software is written and platforms built which expect Bitcoin to behave in a specific manner, which is why it is more important than block size.

4: Usability of Crypto

Bitcoin heavily relies on users properly managing their crypto; the basis of its guarantees is digital signatures. However, managing keys is basically unusable for the end user. As a result of this usability fault, Bitcoin has seen the rise of services which “own” the private keys of their customers. Some of these services seem benign, such as Circle or Coinbase, others are infamous for violating their user’s expectations such as Mt. Gox. Developing more friendly interfaces for key management is critical for Bitcoin because otherwise use of the network will be mediated by these companies and user freedom will be all but eliminated. Non-Bitcoin companies such as Facebook have recently made great strides by supporting PGP keys as a profile attribute. Bitcoin companies like BitGo make a nice middle ground, where valuable features and services are added without taking custody over a user’s assets. This is more important than block size because otherwise Bitcoin isn’t much more interesting than PayPal.

5: Developer Education & Resources

Bitcoin development is centralized to a select few with an immediately apparent lack of diversity. This is not through any fault of the community being inherently exclusionary, however access to the education necessary to be competent enough to meaningfully contribute is not widespread. Focusing on lowering the barriers to entry and getting more diverse participants is more important than block size because otherwise major design decisions will be made in a prescriptive sense rather than getting to the root of what would actually be best for society at large.

6: Systematization of Knowledge

There are a lot of amazing ideas floating around in Bitcoin. It’s largely what makes the community such an incredible place. The development of these ideas is ill documented and needs a better platform. Not only would more accessible and systematized knowledge go a long way in terms of providing better educational resources, whose need has already been established, but it would also help address a major existential threat to Bitcoin: patents. Recently, several patents have been filed in the cryptocurrency space which has greatly upset the community, and there has been some outlash at the organizations which are pursuing them. While I understand the sentiment, software patents are majorly flawed, there needs to be a better response than anger. What is needed is for the community to defensively patent the algorithms behind Bitcoin so that innovation will not be blocked by patent suits. The development of these patents would serve a dual purpose in also making high quality information more accessible. Without this process, large corporations would be able to lob suits against fledgling startups cutting them off from the market completely or otherwise draining their funds with legal fees.

7: Mining Decentralization

Bitcoin is touted as a fully decentralized protocol, and to an extent it is. One of the major points of centralization in Bitcoin is the mining process. Mining is the process by which new bitcoins are generated and the network is secured. In Bitcoin’s original conception, this was decentralized because the only way to mine was to have a computer and all computers were essentially equal. However, special purpose hardware was developed which is many orders of magnitude more efficient and more quick than general purpose computers. The supply chains to produce this hardware are limited, so mining is controlled by a much smaller group of individuals than is desirable. Furthermore, it is desirable for miners to pool their resources together to reduce the variance in the amount of reward they get. This is problematic because these miners or pool operators could be more easily censor behavior they, or their governments, dislike. It is also problematic because Bitcoin is a fixed supply asset, which means that mining (which is the only way to make “new bitcoin” supports the centralization of value and economic power (perhaps a fixed supply asset is not best for a decentralized economy). There is some work which provides very interesting solutions to this centralization conundrum such as Peter Todd’s Treechains proposal, which is explained nicely here. As I’ve written about previously, control over mining presents a significant centralization bottleneck which can severely limit the freedoms of users. Increasing the decentralization of Bitcoin mining is an important goal, and deserves to be addressed before Bitcoin sees significantly more adoption, otherwise it will entrench the small number of current players.

8: Fork Support Protocol

Forks are the process by which new features make there way into the Bitcoin protocol. There are two main classification of fork, a hard fork and a soft fork. The main difference is that a soft fork is backwards compatible whereas a hard fork is not. Soft forks are easier to roll out, but harder to implement. Currently, soft forks are the preferred way to roll out changes. However, it is still a very difficult process. There has been work done recently which proposes a robust way to perform soft forks. Even though soft forks are preferred, hard forking cannot be ignored. For instance, if a crucial security vulnerability is exposed such as a faulty signature algorithm it would be imperative to quickly fork as clients running the old code would be able to be fooled and Bitcoin could be stolen. It is important to understand that forking, soft or hard, is not so much a technical problem as it is a political problem. Forks which are favored by a minority of users will have a difficult time being adopted. Even if they add very desirable features, much of the task is in educating all users neutrally about what the pros and cons are of supporting such a fork. Putting some thought behind new mechanisms for understanding and managing forks is more important than the block size debate because the block size debate is a proof that the current process is subvertible.

These aren’t the only issues or problems worth looking at. I selected them because they are a real issues and take a higher precedence in my book than block size. The number of transactions that can be confirmed per second will, eventually, go up. What is being debated is how, and when these changes take place. There are many important factors to take into consideration. But if we, as a community, can’t agree on increasing the block size right now, let’s cut out the circular debates and focus our energy on fixing these higher precedence issues before making moves to push global adoption.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 05:16:12 AM
 #26254

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue

iceblow seems lost.  i think he is so entrenched he doesn't even know what he's rooting for.  meanwhile:



Price is meaningless at this stage, and so is Bitcoin, serious if you do not depend on it to get rich would you still hold Bitcoin? Answer is maybe yes as novelty but there is nothing exciting about it anymore, it was made obsolete by Monero, and time will prove this right, if the hardware continues to advance soon it will be very cheap to support a (SHA256) network like Bitcoin and also to attack it, but Monero can be mined on every CPU and GPU still and will be mined forever, 5 years from now the people who hear about Monero will appreciate this fact more than you can grasp.
Dotto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 960


No maps for these territories


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 06:09:20 AM
 #26255


Hot curves!
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Zabercoin – An Asset Backed Cryptocurrency


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 08:35:05 AM
 #26256

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


Without Frap.doc making stuff up, this thread would be a ghost town.   Tongue

iceblow seems lost.  i think he is so entrenched he doesn't even know what he's rooting for.  meanwhile:



Price is meaningless at this stage, and so is Bitcoin, serious if you do not depend on it to get rich would you still hold Bitcoin? Answer is maybe yes as novelty but there is nothing exciting about it anymore, it was made obsolete by Monero, and time will prove this right, if the hardware continues to advance soon it will be very cheap to support a (SHA256) network like Bitcoin and also to attack it, but Monero can be mined on every CPU and GPU still and will be mined forever, 5 years from now the people who hear about Monero will appreciate this fact more than you can grasp.

monero has the only advantages of being fully anon(something that will come for bitcoin too, in the worst case via sidechain), their network is already so big for casual miners, even if there are no asic for it(only because it is not profitable for them), their network is not even growing

they are still at x 5 diff of what it was more than one year ago, and there is nothing obsolete about bitcoin, when you consider that it is not even fully completed....


this is a good sign, we are growing in a natural way(like in 2011-2012), and not without fake pump like in late 2013, but people still expect that boom, this is why they are impatience to see it rise fast

THE FUTURE OF
REAL ESTATE
..

║║
║║
║║
▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬ ● ● ▬▬

║║
║║
║║
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 10:26:21 AM
 #26257

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


well, the ppl i define as normally social that leave to go work somewhere else stop in to say hi every once in a while.

Again, I ask, do you know why he left (and have any source whatsoever for that) or are you just making shit up?

iCEBREAKER would probably say to check twitter for satoshi stopping in to say hi.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 10:59:00 AM
 #26258

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


well, the ppl i define as normally social that leave to go work somewhere else stop in to say hi every once in a while.

Again, I ask, do you know why he left (and have any source whatsoever for that) or are you just making shit up?

iCEBREAKER would probably say to check twitter for satoshi stopping in to say hi.



I think maybe the point you are  trying to make here is that you as a core dev for  Monero don't have anything to worry about.

OK, I can accept that.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 10, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
 #26259

I suppose Cypherdoc will hallucinate and postulate the possible possibilities (excluding the impossible impossibilities) that Martin Armstrong was in a thread discussion with Meni Rosenfeld and Adam Back in 2014. Or he will ululate that Armstrong using my name TPTB_need_war is claiming to be AnonyMint who was actually another person. Or any permutation thereof including but not limited to the introduction to the plot some Space Cowboys horseback on UFO pixie dust flying carpets dressed in dainty lace lingerie and rawhide boots singing "I'm Too Sexy, for this coin".

Thanks Meni for sharing that.

On the historical technical level (not applicable to be implemented in Bitcoin), Adam Back did not mention the double-spending solution where the person who double-spends would expose their identity.

Hal Finney summarized it.

The offline double-spend of Chaum reveals identity.  Brands also has a mechanism to do that (reveal private key and all attributes, one of which could be identity).

...

The main problem with doing that in bitcoin is if you accidentally send twice (because your client crashes) you lose money.  And people keep reusing addresses.  These extended addresses would "discourage" address reuse (which some would say is a good thing:)

Note Adam Back replied to me (AnonyMint). The bolded statement (my emphasis) is incorrect. Numerous copies of a signature can be sent without changing the signature. Instead, the reason that penalizing double-spending by revealing the private key won't work for crypto-currency is because we need an ordering of transactions so we know which of the double-spend(s) are invalid, so that the first person paid attains probablistic non-repudiation after waiting for sufficient confirmations. This attribute remains in my radical redesign of mining despite the fact that certain censorship critical attributes can't be 50% attacked as they can be in all existing PoW schemes that I am aware of. In other words, you could create an alternative chain with a 50% attack in my radical redesign of PoW, but if you tried to actually achieve anything with it, the undesired effects would be filtered out. This is what modular design achieves.


In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I think I conflated with the "respendable commited-tx". The homomorphic encryption was 5 slides above that. So perhaps the HE does not have the flaw I assumed. So it hides payment amounts but doesn't mix outputs from numerous entities. You'd still need CoinJoin for that, which is unscalable. And if you add on-chain ring sigs, then you don't need the HE. Also I don't understand how hiding the amount helps when the amount needs to be same for all those who are mixing in CoinJoin  Huh (otherwise analysis of permutations between input and output amounts can decrease the anonymity set).

So far this looks like another one of those half-baked Gregory Maxwell ideas.  Roll Eyes I await clarification.

Links:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509674.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0

I was pushing too hard for too many days (and too many calories feeding those bad bacteria which drive immunological inflammation), M.S. inflammation flaring-up due to it, thus the incorrect "analysis" above was the result of delirium:



I will be posting a new analysis next.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
June 10, 2015, 06:56:01 PM
 #26260

we do know satoshi left b/c he didn't want to get carted away.

We do, or you made that up?

As far as I know he simply said he was going to work on something else.


well, the ppl i define as normally social that leave to go work somewhere else stop in to say hi every once in a while.

Again, I ask, do you know why he left (and have any source whatsoever for that) or are you just making shit up?

iCEBREAKER would probably say to check twitter for satoshi stopping in to say hi.



I think maybe the point you are  trying to make here is that you as a core dev for  Monero don't have anything to worry about.

OK, I can accept that.

That's one of the most bizarre deliberate misreadings I've seen in a while.

No, the point I'm making is that you appear to be making shit up.
Pages: « 1 ... 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 [1313] 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 ... 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!