Bitcoin Forum
July 27, 2017, 06:58:27 AM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   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 ... 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 [458] 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1939182 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 02:17:56 PM
 #9141



The way the percentage is measured is more or less, after the fact.
Its done by looking at who solved the blocks.  You are proposing a way of measuring the hash power that went into that solve other than just estimating based on time and averages, numbers of have shes submitted, etc.


I thought it was measured  by who relayed the block?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501138707
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501138707

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501138707
Reply with quote  #2

1501138707
Report to moderator
1501138707
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501138707

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501138707
Reply with quote  #2

1501138707
Report to moderator
1501138707
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501138707

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501138707
Reply with quote  #2

1501138707
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 02:28:29 PM
 #9142

but isn't the speed (7 tx/s) different than the block size limit (1MB/block)?
The block size determines the transactions per second. Allowing a larger block size means that more transactions can be included per block.
thx for making me review that. i was getting confused with data rates.  is there a maximum MB/s that constrains the network speed?

At least there is no hard limit. There seems to be a soft limit depending on the network bandwidth of single nodes, though. If a single node has not enough bandwidth to download the next block within 10 minutes, it can't catch up with the blockchain. E.g. a typical private residential internet connection has about 2 MB/s (?) receiving bandwidth. When blocksize is larger than 2 MB/s * 10 * 60 s = 1200 MB, home nodes can't download the blocks in time and will be left behind. Luckily it's the receiving speed that is relevant here, which is a lot faster than sending speed on the typical home internet line.

EDIT: There is nothing stopping an organisation having 2 pools at 20% = centralization by a different name, but at least there would be no danger of a 51% attack.

The danger of attacks possible by controling more than 50% of hash power are still there, even if a single organization decides to operate 2 pools. The organization simply has to coordinate the attacks across both its pools.
I think having one organization operating 2 pools is even worse than having one organization operating one pool. More so, if it's not known by the public, that both pools belong to the single organization. The real danger is hidden in this case, which is worse, than a danger the public knows about.

So right now with ghash at 37%, you'd have to assume Discus, at 15%, was owned or influenced by ghash.  That's pretty far fetched.
chriswilmer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2014, 02:43:07 PM
 #9143

Something that critics (or hysterical enthusiasts) miss about 51% attacks is the possibility of defensive mining.

Basically, as long as you have a large stake in Bitcoin (or the Bitcoin economy), then you would be willing to mine at a loss to thwart any entity from approaching 51%. Think companies like BitPay or Coinbase, or people who hold 10,000+ bitcoins. Those entities could invest significant resources in mining and make it that much harder for a malicious super-miner. It's always economically irrational for a super-miner to be malicious, but this would make it even more painful.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 02:49:46 PM
 #9144

I found it interesting to read the comments of the ghash owner who said that pulling a  double spend is actually quite difficult from an  internal technical stand point.

I  wonder what he was talking about?  
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 04:33:29 PM
 #9145

Pool miners solve blocks; how do pool owners hold back blocks secretly without the miner who solved the block noticing?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 05:08:29 PM
 #9146

Something that critics (or hysterical enthusiasts) miss about 51% attacks is the possibility of defensive mining.

Basically, as long as you have a large stake in Bitcoin (or the Bitcoin economy), then you would be willing to mine at a loss to thwart any entity from approaching 51%. Think companies like BitPay or Coinbase, or people who hold 10,000+ bitcoins. Those entities could invest significant resources in mining and make it that much harder for a malicious super-miner. It's always economically irrational for a super-miner to be malicious, but this would make it even more painful.

Quoted because this is important yet often ignored.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 05:38:15 PM
 #9147

Something that critics (or hysterical enthusiasts) miss about 51% attacks is the possibility of defensive mining.

Basically, as long as you have a large stake in Bitcoin (or the Bitcoin economy), then you would be willing to mine at a loss to thwart any entity from approaching 51%. Think companies like BitPay or Coinbase, or people who hold 10,000+ bitcoins. Those entities could invest significant resources in mining and make it that much harder for a malicious super-miner. It's always economically irrational for a super-miner to be malicious, but this would make it even more painful.

Quoted because this is important yet often ignored.

i don't think an economic 51% attack scenario is a problem.  the incentive structure is too well set up for it to happen.

it's the non-economically driven one thats interesting to consider altho even that one is difficult to imagine given the repercussions of attempting it.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 04, 2014, 07:42:21 PM
 #9148

it's the non-economically driven one thats interesting to consider altho even that one is difficult to imagine given the repercussions of attempting it.
It's impossible to secure against all possible non-economically driven attacks.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, the US military could defeat Bitcoin by using nuclear weapons to end all human life on the planet.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is an adversary who is willing to lose a maximum of 1 Satoshi in order to attack the network.

Somewhere between those two extremes there's a boundary between the attacks which we can successfully defend against, and the attacks we shouldn't even bother defending against.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 08:06:34 PM
 #9149

accelerating to the downside on volume:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 08:08:26 PM
 #9150

likewise with Litecoin:

Colonel Panic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
July 04, 2014, 08:26:04 PM
 #9151

Alt players moving out of risky sideshows, now that its time to strap back onto the confirmed bull.
Dragonkiller
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 08:56:36 PM
 #9152

Litecoin getting destroyed.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 09:04:41 PM
 #9153

back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 09:18:24 PM
 #9154



actually, i really mean this.

i don't think the gold/silver bimetallism historical example, as it relates to Litecoin, really applies today.  back then, the means for physical metals to transmit themselves seamlessly over wide geographical regions was severely hampered and the supplies of these metals were short.  hence, silver needed to supplement gold in certain regions as it's similar properties were close enough to that of gold's to make them viable alternatives.

contrast with what we have with Bitcoin.  an infinitely divisible supply (if necessary) for all our needs, instant and seamless transmission worldwide that can touch anyone with a cellphone, and a programmable nature that if and when a new market driven feature is advanced that is in significant demand, it can and will be grafted onto the main Bitcoin protocol.

we only need one.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 09:23:10 PM
 #9155

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2014, 09:53:34 PM
 #9156

Code:
// START_DEFINITION
/**
 * Fingerprint Tor authoritative directories enacting the directory protocol.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/node/authority') = $tor_authority
  and ($tor_directory or preappid(/anonymizer\/tor\/directory/));
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
Global Variable for Tor foreign directory servers. Searching for potential Tor
clients connecting to the Tor foreign directory servers on ports 80 and 443.
*/

$tor_foreign_directory_ip = ip('193.23.244.244' or '194.109.206.212' or
'86.59.21.38' or '213.115.239.118' or '212.112.245.170') and port ('80' or
'443');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
this variable contains the 3 Tor directory servers hosted in FVEY countries.
Please do not update this variable with non-FVEY IPs. These are held in a
separate variable called $tor_foreign_directory_ip. Goal is to find potential
Tor clients connecting to the Tor directory servers.
*/
$tor_fvey_directory_ip = ip('128.31.0.39' or '216.224.124.114' or
'208.83.223.34') and port ('80' or '443');
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Identify clients accessing Tor bridge information.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/tls') =
ssl_x509_subject('bridges.torproject.org') or
ssl_dns_name('bridges.torproject.org');

/**
 * Database Tor bridge information extracted from confirmation emails.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/email') =
email_address('bridges@torproject.org')
  and email_body('https://bridges.torproject.org/' : c++
  extractors: {{
    bridges[] = /bridge\s([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}):?([0-9]{2,4}?[^0-9])/;
  }}
  init: {{
    xks::undefine_name("anonymizer/tor/torbridges/emailconfirmation");
  }}
  main: {{
    static const std::string SCHEMA_OLD = "tor_bridges";
    static const std::string SCHEMA_NEW = "tor_routers";
    static const std::string FLAGS = "Bridge";
    if (bridges) {
      for (size_t i=0; i < bridges.size(); ++i) {
        std::string address = bridges[i][0] + ":" + bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_OLD]["tor_bridge"] = address;
        DB.apply();
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_ip"] = bridges[i][0];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_port_or"] = bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_flags"] = FLAGS;
        DB.apply();
      }
      xks::fire_fingerprint("anonymizer/tor/directory/bridge");
    }
    return true;
  }});
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
The fingerprint identifies sessions visiting the Tor Project website from
non-fvey countries.
*/
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/torpoject_visit')=http_host('www.torproject.org')
and not(xff_cc('US' OR 'GB' OR 'CA' OR 'AU' OR 'NZ'));
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Aggregate Tor hidden service addresses seen in raw traffic.
 */
mapreduce::plugin('anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion') =
  immediate_keyword(/(?:([a-z]+):\/\/){0,1}([a-z2-7]{16})\.onion(?::(\d+)){0,1}/c : c++
    includes: {{
      #include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
    }}
    proto: {{
      message onion_t {
        required string address = 1;
        optional string scheme = 2;
        optional string port = 3;
      }
    }}
    mapper<onion_t>: {{
      static const std::string prefix = "anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address/";

      onion_t onion;
      size_t matches = cur_args()->matches.size();
      for (size_t pos=0; pos < matches; ++pos) {
        const std::string &value = match(pos);
        if (value.size() == 16)
          onion.set_address(value);
        else if(!onion.has_scheme())
          onion.set_scheme(value);
        else
          onion.set_port(value);
      }

      if (!onion.has_address())
        return false;

      MAPPER.map(onion.address(), onion);
      xks::fire_fingerprint(prefix + onion.address());
      return true;
    }}
    reducer<onion_t>: {{
      for (values_t::const_iterator iter = VALUES.begin();
          iter != VALUES.end();
          ++iter) {
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_address"] = iter->address() + ".onion";
        if (iter->has_scheme())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_scheme"] = iter->scheme();
        if (iter->has_port())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_port"] = iter->port();
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_count"] = boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(TOTAL_VALUE_COUNT);
        DB.apply();
        DB.clear();
      }
      return true;
    }});

/**
 * Placeholder fingerprint for Tor hidden service addresses.
 * Real fingerpritns will be fired by the plugins
 *   'anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion/*'
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address') = nil;
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
appid('anonymizer/mailer/mixminion', 3.0, viewer=$ascii_viewer) =
        http_host('mixminion') or
        ip('128.31.0.34');
// END_DEFINITION

kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 01:37:35 AM
 #9157



actually, i really mean this.

i don't think the gold/silver bimetallism historical example, as it relates to Litecoin, really applies today.  back then, the means for physical metals to transmit themselves seamlessly over wide geographical regions was severely hampered and the supplies of these metals were short.  hence, silver needed to supplement gold in certain regions as it's similar properties were close enough to that of gold's to make them viable alternatives.

contrast with what we have with Bitcoin.  an infinitely divisible supply (if necessary) for all our needs, instant and seamless transmission worldwide that can touch anyone with a cellphone, and a programmable nature that if and when a new market driven feature is advanced that is in significant demand, it can and will be grafted onto the main Bitcoin protocol.

we only need one.

theres a lot of in demand features but nothing has ever been grafted onto the bitcoin protocol?

kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 01:40:14 AM
 #9158

back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 01:54:56 AM
 #9159

back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

the POS initial distribution is deemed unfair by the market and the fact that mining favors those same creators will discourage new players from entering.
kodtycoon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
July 05, 2014, 02:02:16 AM
 #9160

back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

the POS initial distribution is deemed unfair by the market and the fact that mining favors those same creators will discourage new players from entering.

nem has 3000 original stake holders and a new proof importance algo which means that the nodes that are more important to the network "mine/forge" more than those with simply more coins. which fixes the hoarding issues inherent in nxt. 3000 stake holders will get equal amounts, there was not an ipo, its was a "pay a fee, join the movement" sort of thing. so even the ipo does no favor those with better finances. also the stake holder list went through weeks of taint analysis and auditing to remove sock puppets.

edit: i think the market deems nem fair seeing as it was trading at 2k dollars per stake, pre alpha. i say "was" because the dollar value has fallen as btc and nxt fell. nem has stayed perfectly stable in term of nxt<>nemstake (stakes are traded on nxt AE @ 25-30k nxt per stake)

Pages: « 1 ... 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 [458] 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 ... 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!