Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:24:56 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 ... 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 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010823 times)
fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 08:22:41 PM
 #26421

If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.

This is really what MRL-0004 deals with (the section on Temporal Association attacks).

A lot of this changes with the recommendations MRL4 made, which will come in a hard fork later this year (once we've established a forking strategy, per this forum post).

I don't check this thread, so if you reply and don't hear back from me in a couple of days just send me a PM nudging me:)

1511281496
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281496

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281496
Reply with quote  #2

1511281496
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 08:31:48 PM
 #26422


In case it escaped you, large entities will happily give you a reach-around if you allow them to fuck you in the ass.


You mean I should be afraid that Mcdonald's may send a hitman instead of a cheeseburger?

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 08:41:13 PM
 #26423


In case it escaped you, large entities will happily give you a reach-around if you allow them to fuck you in the ass.


You mean I should be afraid that Mcdonald's may send a hitmen instead of a cheeseburger?

Cheeseburger IS, in essence, a hitman (it will only kill you slowly)... Wink

majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
June 13, 2015, 08:47:39 PM
 #26424


In case it escaped you, large entities will happily give you a reach-around if you allow them to fuck you in the ass.


You mean I should be afraid that Mcdonald's may send a hitman instead of a cheeseburger?

Cheeseburger IS, in essence, a hitman (it will only kill you slowly)... Wink

As Voltaire said when he was informed by his physician that coffee was a “slow, steady poison”: “Yes, it must be a slow poison, it has been poisoning me for over seventy years!”   Cheesy

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 13, 2015, 08:53:14 PM
 #26425

If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.

This is really what MRL-0004 deals with (the section on Temporal Association attacks).

A lot of this changes with the recommendations MRL4 made, which will come in a hard fork later this year (once we've established a forking strategy, per this forum post).

I don't check this thread, so if you reply and don't hear back from me in a couple of days just send me a PM nudging me:)

The MRL4 imperfect heuristic mitigations notwithstanding, the only absolute solution is to require that sets of outputs be mixed with and only with each other (and the number of inputs per ring must be constant). This also enables pruning the Cryptonote block chain. There I have just given away one of my prior design "secrets" (that I no longer need to keep secret because I stumbled onto a consensus network design which no longer needs pruning and is transaction technology agnostic). Perhaps others already suggested this?

P.S. for those who have already spent their coins to a third party, your hard fork will come too late. Hope you can make necessary improvements sooner.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 12:01:38 AM
 #26426

Changing the supply limit fundamentally destroys bitcoin, but increasing the blocksize limit is absolutely needed to make it successful.

Thanks for the distilled wisdom!

I have updated my sig.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 12:13:20 AM
 #26427

Changing the supply limit fundamentally destroys bitcoin, but increasing the blocksize limit is absolutely needed to make it successful.

Oh the strawmen strive for a world with only two opposing choices.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 12:15:53 AM
 #26428

Changing the supply limit fundamentally destroys bitcoin, but increasing the blocksize limit is absolutely needed to make it successful.

Oh the strawmen strive for a world with only two opposing choices.

The perfect is the enemy of the good

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 12:22:23 AM
 #26429

One of the reasons I think it's important to be cautious here is so that we can have CT (or a superior successor technology) in the Bitcoin network and not just in a sidechain.

And when the 50% attack has been rendered impossible by some new design, then it no longer becomes necessary to retrofit the Core Bitcoin network. That will radically alter the impact of what you are about to unleash.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 12:38:06 AM
 #26430

But to reach 100k tps will still be tough regardless of implementation.

My design has no theoretical limit on TPS. It will be published this year and I hope within a couple of months.
There always is bottleneck as long as there is physics

My consensus network PoW design places no theoretical limit on the TPS. Physics will still place a limit else where (i.e. aggregate bandwidth of the entire internet), but that limit won't be at the layer of the consensus network. In short, I don't see any practical limit yet, but I caution there has been no peer review. And I've been pretty much overloaded while making this discovery, so it is possible I've overlooked a flaw. I don't think so. The one flaw I'm contemplating is how to set the minimum transaction fees to avoid a Sybil attack while retaining decentralization of that adjustment. But Bitcoin has the analogous dilemma in that if block size is unlimited then attacks are possible (unless also set a minimum transaction fee) and these constants are not set with a decentralized process. So at least my design seems to have the potential of a great leap forward, even if the Holy Grail of decentralization will never quite be entirely devoid of politics.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 01:10:40 AM
 #26431

It's possible that the covert power grab of the manufactured "governance crisis" by gavin and the MIT g-men may have unintended consequences of their own. (I never took gavin for a blockhead or a hot-head, as he has come across in this debate, but now it is clear there are ulterior motives that fit the observed behaviour much better. Now he just seems like a regular, Machiavellian, conniving politician, it's like he has been media-coached by Hearn.)

Red-team blue-team politics is cat-nip for attracting and fostering interest. We even have referee Garzik to keep the fight clean.

Go at it guys but careful you don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:26:12 AM
 #26432

It's possible that the covert power grab of the manufactured "governance crisis" by gavin and the MIT g-men may have unintended consequences of their own. (I never took gavin for a blockhead or a hot-head, as he has come across in this debate, but now it is clear there are ulterior motives that fit the observed behaviour much better. Now he just seems like a regular, Machiavellian, conniving politician, it's like he has been media-coached by Hearn.)

Red-team blue-team politics is cat-nip for attracting and fostering interest. We even have referee Garzik to keep the fight clean.

Go at it guys but careful you don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Maybe that's what they were after involving Gavin in this game after all. Or maybe we're chasing ghosts here, for that matter. Only time will tell.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
 #26433

If the actual input to a transaction (in Monero terminology this is the output of the prior transaction) is not also an input to another transaction's ring signature (and when all the other inputs to the ring are spent) or if it is also the input to a subsequent ring in which all the other inputs were outputs created after the said transaction was created, then the anonymity of the said transaction is entirely unmasked.

This is really what MRL-0004 deals with (the section on Temporal Association attacks).

A lot of this changes with the recommendations MRL4 made, which will come in a hard fork later this year (once we've established a forking strategy, per this forum post).

I don't check this thread, so if you reply and don't hear back from me in a couple of days just send me a PM nudging me:)

The MRL4 imperfect heuristic mitigations notwithstanding, the only absolute solution is to require that sets of outputs be mixed with and only with each other (and the number of inputs per ring must be constant). This also enables pruning the Cryptonote block chain. There I have just given away one of my prior design "secrets" (that I no longer need to keep secret because I stumbled onto a consensus network design which no longer needs pruning and is transaction technology agnostic). Perhaps others already suggested this?

P.S. for those who have already spent their coins to a third party, your hard fork will come too late. Hope you can make necessary improvements sooner.

The following should have been implied, but let me make it more explicit, which may also resolve the issue with exchanges and getting this fix into Monero asap (although I have not studied that issue, only heard about it second hand).

The only sane way my above suggestion can be implemented is that outputs eligible for fixed size mixins must be marked as such by the transaction that created them, otherwise if the fixed size (and outputs) mixins were global then there is no way to merge the leftover change from several transactions into one transaction. I believe BoolBerry had a conceptually similar mechanism to mark outputs with some specific attribute for mixing. So the marked outputs must be mixed with and only with the "next N outputs of same denomination on the block chain" when they are spent.

Thus when you want to mix your outputs with assurance against unmasking due to Combinatorial Cascade and Temporal Association, then you mark the output for fixed size mixing.

In my opinion, this is an emergency fix because afaics the anonymity is broken as it is now, but I can't say that I've done any deep analysis on how likely the unmasking is on existing patterns in the Monero block chain.

Hope this helps, displays my gratitude to those who rewarded me for my effort during the BCX incident, and most importantly hope Monero can implement it asap because I would like to make my best attempt to create a use case gift to XMR HODLers soon and this fix may be required. Perhaps someone else had already suggested this idea, I don't know.

The pruning comes from the fact that if the mixes are fixed size then after N transactions of the same ring have been seen, those outputs (that are inputs to those N rings) can be pruned from the UXTO.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 06:25:51 PM
 #26434

Nash:

http://www.coindesk.com/did-john-nash-help-invent-bitcoin/?utm_content=bufferc4078&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 06:42:00 PM
 #26435


Suddenly today I am really sensing a sea-change as people wake up to what the Hearn and the bloat push is all about.

I'm just curious about whether the poll in this thread is configured to allow people to change their vote or not (cypherdoc?)


greenlion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 667


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 07:32:21 PM
 #26436

It's possible that the covert power grab of the manufactured "governance crisis" by gavin and the MIT g-men may have unintended consequences of their own. (I never took gavin for a blockhead or a hot-head, as he has come across in this debate, but now it is clear there are ulterior motives that fit the observed behaviour much better. Now he just seems like a regular, Machiavellian, conniving politician, it's like he has been media-coached by Hearn.

The only concrete ulterior motives that I'm seeing is that Blockstream's profitability entirely depends on scoring consulting clients to support implementing the technologies that they're working on, whose necessity to implement quickly depend on the blocksize not increasing. But if the blocksize simply must be increased, Adam Back's ultra-complicated Rube Goldberg-esque extension block proposal is there to ensure that practically every enterprise in the space has massive incentive to employ Blockstream to have a smooth implementation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 07:57:36 PM
 #26437

It's possible that the covert power grab of the manufactured "governance crisis" by gavin and the MIT g-men may have unintended consequences of their own. (I never took gavin for a blockhead or a hot-head, as he has come across in this debate, but now it is clear there are ulterior motives that fit the observed behaviour much better. Now he just seems like a regular, Machiavellian, conniving politician, it's like he has been media-coached by Hearn.

The only concrete ulterior motives that I'm seeing is that Blockstream's profitability entirely depends on scoring consulting clients to support implementing the technologies that they're working on, whose necessity to implement quickly depend on the blocksize not increasing. But if the blocksize simply must be increased, Adam Back's ultra-complicated Rube Goldberg-esque extension block proposal is there to ensure that practically every enterprise in the space has massive incentive to employ Blockstream to have a smooth implementation.

LOL, that's the only thing I see getting crystal clearer today.

Adam is co-founder and President of Blockstream with $21M riding on his back expecting at minimum 10x returns. That's a lot of pressure.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 14, 2015, 08:02:54 PM
 #26438

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 899


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 08:25:04 PM
 #26439

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?
Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 08:55:52 PM
 #26440

The one good thing to have come out of Blockstream is the confidential values technique for blinding output amounts.

What if that technique outlives sidechains and Blockstream?

Very good chance at that happening.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 ... 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!