Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 12:09:06 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1373 1374 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806588 times)
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:26:12 AM
 #26461

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.

1481242146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242146
Reply with quote  #2

1481242146
Report to moderator
1481242146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242146
Reply with quote  #2

1481242146
Report to moderator
1481242146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242146
Reply with quote  #2

1481242146
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481242146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242146
Reply with quote  #2

1481242146
Report to moderator
1481242146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481242146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481242146
Reply with quote  #2

1481242146
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
 #26462

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
 #26463

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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 06:42:00 PM
 #26464


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: 659


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 07:32:21 PM
 #26465

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
 #26466

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
 #26467

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: 808


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 08:25:04 PM
 #26468

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
 #26469

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.
Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
 #26470

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

They hide only the mantissa part of the number and take 2.5KB to achieve that.

My confidential values technique hides the whole number in 0.4KB (subject to ongoing peer review, positive so far).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085436.msg11597427#msg11597427

Can confidential values be implemented without a sidechain/directly on the mainchain?

Yes.

Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
 #26471

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 14, 2015, 09:41:49 PM
 #26472

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:43:23 PM
 #26473

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

i too think that Gavin has to explicitly state that he will be the lead core dev for XT.  i don't have as much of a problem as you seem to have with Hearn being a core dev for XT as long as Gavin has the last word.  the other good thing is that Gavin can bring in a whole new core dev crew with more academic expertise with more of a like mind towards sound money, which is a big part with how i see these differences btwn Gavin and Greg. 

the checkpoint thing Hearns was talking about was only if there were 2 persistent chains with XT being a minority.  i don't think that will happen.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:51:01 PM
 #26474

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

I'm still open to XT, just not sure he's a good "Linus Torvalds"

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 09:58:12 PM
 #26475

I think Gavin should de-hitch his wagon from Mike Hearn after hearing how Mike proposed centralized checkpointing. The blacklisting thing was his one free pass at a really horrible idea. Now it just looks like he doesn't get what Bitcoin is really about.

I can see why Gavin would utilize XT as an end-run around the political gridlock in core, and I also see that Mike Hearn has a unique perspective and background that is useful, but he should not be a core committer in my opinion. Gavin is the only person qualified to (provisionally) lead the project as far as I can see now, but I think "palling around with Mike Hearn" will be viewed with suspicion, especially if it's unnecessary. Why not just just add in the patch to Core and fork off if necessary?

I'd agree if you're referring to that interview he did, he didn't do the goal of decentralized control any good.

If you've been paying attention there is nothing new in Mike's recent activities.  Granted, they have become a little more audacious of late.  Probably an artifact of getting pretty much complete control of Gavin and an element of desperation given the fairly amazing progress made by the Blockstream folk.  His half-decade long hopes for the system (a monitoring tool controllable by his beloved leaders in mainstreamland) are fluttering away.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 10:18:45 PM
 #26476

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:

thebigtalk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196

Bitcoin and co.


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 10:32:05 PM
 #26477

not starting off the week well.  they got 15 hrs to rescue this:



I don't want this ending up stable in 220-ish again. Hope they'll be able to pull it up again. There's a thread I just saw around about the upcoming rise. What do you guys think about that?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:34:20 PM
 #26478

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?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:39:27 PM
 #26479

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?

Perhaps it is time you declared what Monetas's position is on blocksize? And if there is anything in your contracts that allow opt-out "for the betterment of bitcoin" if you become conflicted? You know the same clauses that key blockstream employees have that cypherdoc has glossed over many times in his persistent smearing, defamation and character assassination that you seem to be supporting curiously ...

cypherdoc: how's the hashfast debacle progressing? Been sued for your involvement in that scam yet?

at least i have the self control not to become as venomous as you.

is this a crusade for you?  you honor me for putting me up on such a pedestal.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 14, 2015, 11:48:31 PM
 #26480

If you're not catching flak, you're not over the target.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1373 1374 ... 1560 »
  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!