Bitcoin Forum
June 24, 2017, 12:23:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 [1406] 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1920972 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:24:15 AM
 #28101

So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.

I have no issue with ICOs in theory. In practice I don't believe anonymous coin ICOs can ever be done in a manner that avoids the appearance of potential manipulation (insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins). In traditional finance, and possibly a tiny number of above-board coin ICOs, there is transparency as to the identity of the investors and disclosure of ownership on later rounds (of course there are exceptions and frauds), which prevents, or at least discourages, this type of self-dealing.

I'd rather see an actual premine at least honestly disclosed as such. I might not buy into such a coin, but I won't call it fraudulent at least, as I would and do various deceptive and/or fraudulent (or fraud-prone) schemes such as hidden premines and most or all altcoin ICOs in practice.

Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.

You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.
1498263799
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498263799

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498263799
Reply with quote  #2

1498263799
Report to moderator
According to NIST and ECRYPT II, the cryptographic algorithms used in Bitcoin are expected to be strong until at least 2030. (After that, it will not be too difficult to transition to different algorithms.)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:29:36 AM
 #28102

insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins

There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.

I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:31:37 AM
 #28103

Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.

You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.

How is greater aggregate value flow versus greater transactions flow going to impact that? Not likely.

Rather I will buy an argument that says Cryptonote implementations are more mature (and Monero apparently heavily refined with many eyeballs) than for example CT implementations which is only in alpha afaik. And the cryptographic code may be much less complex in CN than CT.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:33:49 AM
 #28104

insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins

There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.

I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.

Not unless you assume the controlling group can print money out-of-thin air after the size of the premine has been locked into stone.

If you are saying the controlling group can't have more than 100% of the premine, sure I agree, but don't consider that very interesting.
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


Twitter: @wpalczynski


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:40:27 AM
 #28105


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


@theshmadz


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:41:29 AM
 #28106


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...
Is it possible to prove that someone is full of shit if he never reveals the secret of the shit he is full of?

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
ssmc2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:41:52 AM
 #28107


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...

Hopefully he's at least revealing these things to his psychiatrist.
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


Twitter: @wpalczynski


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:45:42 AM
 #28108


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...
Is it possible to prove that someone is full of shit if he never reveals the secret of the shit he is full of?

The thing is he has some good ideas from time to time and I'm sure if he joined an good open source project he might actually be able to contribute something meaningful instead of all this innuendo.

pa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 502


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:44:46 AM
 #28109

This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


cryptokingdom.me


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 03:46:45 AM
 #28110

Well I can guarantee you that someone who has posted on this thread within the last two pages, is aware of the mathematical proof of such. It isn't rocket science, and I am sure you could think of it, if you contemplated for a while how you would do it.

Note, I will probably in the near future be deleting many of my posts such as this one which are just noise.

Really? It's pretty obvious that you are fine with publicly scrutinizing other's ideas, but when it comes to your own work, feel that it is beneath him to deign to the criticisms of mere mortals. You're like a movie critic who fixes the flaws of others with his supreme powers of refinement, taste and technical prowess, but only lets his friends and family see select outtakes from his magnum opus.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:38:34 AM
 #28111


The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 04:59:49 AM
 #28112

Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:34:26 AM
 #28113

‎Sun Tzu 孫子兵法.

generalizethis et al, I submit to your criticism is valid on the asymmetry of my sharing (w.r.t. your area of specific concern, not my liberal sharing of my general economics insights).

Blasts from the past...

My goals are much wider in scope and I don't want to get bogged down in politics over which coin will win.

I am just stating that competition will bring out the best.

And I am saying that the anonymous coin and chain that has a wide distribution paradigm is not only more likely to win, but also more likely to be resilient (but I don't mean giving coins away that users dump for fiat).

Smooth is apparently being facetious as he is not convinced my idea can work.

I'm not convinced it can work nor that it can't.

Thanks. That would be my same opinion about Monero. Fair.

...I believe the only way to build an innovative ecosystem for ALL OF US (remember I want to put anonymity and remove the master-servant model on the entire internet, not just cryptocoins) that won't just be subsumed into Bitcoin's venture capital model, is to get a jumpstart in ecosystem momentum. I don't believe that jumpstart can be accomplished by giving your ideas away for free such that either venture capitalists can fund an Inverse Commons of open source to have the ideas implemented in their Bitcoin ecosystem or the capital interested in your design gets squandered on copycoin pumps that waste the capital and don't build out a competitive, innovative ecosystem.

In other words, I think open source Inverse Commons works very well, but it also falls prey at the start to the chicken-or-egg dilemma when trying to compete with an ecosystem that has turned us geeks into dogs who chase our own tail (working for the enemy to enslave us).

...

Edit: give away half-baked designs, those which are incomplete in terms of what the market will buy, or those which require more resources than you can bear to bring to market. To give away the golden egg is to assert the golden goose is dead. I am not dead yet.

Edit#2: as in all things one must weigh the probabilities. Thus it is also possible someone like myself might sell such a design, choosing to take the least risky route to compensation. Taking into account the factors that I am 50 and sick with a severe progressive illness (Multiple Sclerosis), and have nearly no assets to retire on. And am entirely unwilling to return to any Western country to work.

Edit#3: implicit in what I wrote above is the assumption that some percent of us are not happy about the future of the internet, Bitcoin, and the world on its current trajectory. Some of us want a decentralized internet, and not one owned by a few large fascist corporations. Some of us don't believe that Bitcoin won't end up with the same fate that the internet has. In short, some percent of us do believe a slide into an NWO is underway and we need a different trajectory. Additionally some of us think a micropayments coin could accumulate network effects exponentially faster Bitcoin and afaik the Lightning Networks (LN) on Bitcoin proposal won't enable the same N^2 network effects because it is not a decentralized model.

He's that good.

It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).

This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.

Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.

Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins.



To demonstrate that I am trying to be objective and not biased against CN, note that afaik in public documents that neither CT nor CCT can do on chain (i.e. autonomous, end-to-end principle compliant) hiding of input address as CN does, thus at least w.r.t. on chain anonymity are not untraceable and thus don't guard against breakage of fungibility (i.e. they don't make it impossible to do blacklisting, whitelisting, Hearn's redlisting, etc). Both CT and CCT can apparently do off chain (non-autonomous, not end-to-end principle compliant, suffer from simultaneity requirement, can be DoS jammed[1] as I first pointed out in Gmaxwell's CoinJoin thread) address hiding such as CoinJoin:

Most importantly, this scheme is compatible with pruning and does not make the verification state for Bitcoin grow forever. It is also compatible with CoinJoin and CoinSwap, allowing for transaction graph privacy as well while simultaneously fixing the most severe limitation of these approaches to privacy (that transaction amounts compromise their privacy).

Taint tracking is inherently against the fungibility property of money.  

Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values.  And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.

Perhaps you've not caught on that this makes coinjoins and coinswaps tremendously more private and useful; since joining with anyone at any time improves your privacy, with no need to coordinate values. Smiley

You can think of it in these terms:  CoinJoin and CoinSwap are efficient metadata privacy protection systems, but their effectiveness is undermined by the content not being private.  CT is a content privacy system. The two compose very nicely. (And the RPCs in elements should be all setup to integrate with external coinjoin.).

Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values.  And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.

[1] Unless you allow a trusted masternode such as in DRK's design, but this another form of threat to anonymity.

P.S. If you notice this thread getting shorter, it is because I am deleting some of my past posts which I feel were not important and/or referred too strongly to vaporware. I am cleaning house and am on page 10 of my post history, so hurry if you want to quote any older post that I might delete in the next minutes.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:40:59 AM
 #28114

Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks.

This.

The problem is that miners, or at least a large part of them, SPV mining i.e. they mine on top of previous block without performing full validation on it.

In this case even if you were mining along with the lastest version of Bitcoin core you would have been vulnerable.

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

Activity: 1176


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:50:26 AM
 #28115


The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!


since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

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

Activity: 1582



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 08:38:43 AM
 #28116

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)[/b]

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version

John 8:44 (KJV):
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Paraphrasing added "banksters", because it is logically not true that ALL jews are such hateful murderers and liars. I know jews who don't follow evil (and whites and blacks who do). Murderers was changed to liars, which was included because of context. The whole burst was because there are rules in banking, and old ladies put their money in expecting the rules to be followed.

I have been advised to delete the original post because "it does not reflect well on me". It is too late anyway, it is been discussed and quoted, and 8:44 did not reflect Jesus well either, up to the point that it is believed to be a Hitler addition!  Cheesy

John 8:45-47:
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

And naturally it ended up with the jews trying to kill Jesus, just as they do these days to people who acknowledge them as who they are (again: only the bankster jews and goyim who lick their boots are targeted here, any of my jew-friends are not included, and I don't mean that jews are exempt of chastisement, I will tell to face if a jew I know is a hateful liar, and have told, as well as every man)

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself - -


There is no known mechanism how being an experimental natural scientist in the field of gravity could make these words become untrue, perhaps the critic should examine if his logic has other voids as glaring as this...  Roll Eyes

If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 08:54:49 AM
 #28117

If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.

Nah, you've said more than I ever could. Terviseks!
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 849



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 08:55:18 AM
 #28118

How did this religious bullshit end up in this informative thread?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708


https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/1203


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
 #28119

How did this religious bullshit end up in this informative thread?

Well, Frap.doc joined the heretical efforts to undermine orthodox 1MB blocks, and so the Great Schism moved over here.

Perhaps last night's fork reminded him how lucky we are to have core devs keeping our moon rocket on course?

Things we learned:

-ostensible "95%" compliance with BIP66 was actually 64% (implying GavinCoin's "75%" threshold will be a disaster)

-the free folk must be able to run their own full nodes, because SPV is a cool toy but not reliable for anything critical

-larger blocks, by taking longer to verify, increase private incentive for header-only mining while exacerbating its socialized negative consequences

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

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


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

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

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

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

Activity: 1036



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:40:57 PM
 #28120


The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!


since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

This is not quite true.  It's important we understand exactly what happened to prevent people from spinning this incident to strengthen their blocksize limit position.

Here's what happened:
   - BTC Nuggets mined block #363,731.  It was not BIP66 compliant.
   - F2Pool began mining on this block before they had validated its contents (SPV mining).
   - F2Pool should have orphaned block #363,731 as soon as they realized it was invalid.
   - However, F2Pool kept mining on this invalid block.
   - F2Pool hit a lucky streak and mined two more blocks (#363,732 and #363,733), pulling this invalid chain further ahead.
   - AntPool seemed to act similarly, and mined block #363,734 ontop of the invalid chain.
   - F2Pool quickly mined two more blocks on this chain (6 confs).
   - Finally, the rest of the network "pulled ahead" (the valid chain became longer) and F2Pool and AntPool finally orphaned their invalid chain.  



The incident was not caused by SPV mining for the few moments it takes to validate the latest block.  It was caused by F2Pool (and AntPool) never getting around to actually validating the blocks.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 [1406] 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 ... 1559 »
  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!