cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:02:51 PM |
|
This is the concept I have been trying to push for a long time especially as it relates to UST's. I think it's accurate and this guy agrees: In other words, we’ve reached the limit of what can be accomplished and with NIRP creating new market perversions on an almost daily basis, the unintended consequences of continuing to delve deeper into the new paranormal are making the game ever more dangerous as we now ow have central banks accidentally creating deflation while simultaneously embedding enormous amounts of risk in fixed income markets by sapping every last vestige of liquidity. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-01/are-central-banks-creating-deflationIt is in there, but it could be said simpler: Fucking with the interest rate produces distortions in the investment signals, therefore a misadapted capital structure, which means lower prosperity. you're right. i left out the word "f*cking".
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:20:16 PM |
|
Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.
To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the miner has to unwind the chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.
not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable. that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished. the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating.
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:31:25 PM |
|
That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses) If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count)
|
|
|
|
lebing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:45:06 PM |
|
Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.
To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the miner has to unwind the chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.
not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable. that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished. the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating. indeed. not to mention being incredibly vulnerable to DDOS/ hacking, etc.
|
Bro, do you even blockchain? -E Voorhees
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:53:03 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 05:56:42 PM |
|
That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses) If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count) well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier.. plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price.
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:01:33 PM |
|
That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses) If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count) well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier.. plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price. I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell).
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:02:51 PM |
|
silver leading to the downside; again. i'd like to see this cycle break to new lows:
|
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:07:06 PM |
|
Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.
To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the miner has to unwind the chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.
not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable. that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished. the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating. Sure, but the purpose with this one is not to be money, just to create a tamper proof history. Add distributed mining on a small scale to make the system relatively failsafe.
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:07:49 PM |
|
That's not cost scaling, what Moores Law is about. (The costs per transistor go down as time progresses) If anything it hints in the same direction we are already seeing, higher density is becoming more expensive than low density. (Based on price / transistor count) well, no, it is exactly what moore's law is about: this same 200Gb micro SD woulda cost about 2 times more 2 years earlier.. plus you can also blame it on the inflation for today's price. I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell). the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:08:07 PM |
|
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts. http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:12:26 PM |
|
Here is a thought for those who think the bitcoin blockchain should be used for all kinds of notary stuff.
To guarantee the timestamp and the integrity of documents, only a single miner would be needed, which in that case would not need to expend energy, just create the blocks in a timely manner. Why is this enough? Because the whole chain is known at all times, and to cheat, the miner has to unwind the chain down to the document he wants to tamper with, and recreate the rest of the chain. This will then be obvious to all.
not sure what you're trying to get at but that would be totally unworkable. that sole miner would have 100% of the consensus which would allow unfettered rewriting of the entire BC if he so wished. the community has to prevent any such tampering and the only way to do that is to distribute the ledger across space and across many different miners to enforce against that type of cheating. Sure, but the purpose with this one is not to be money, just to create a tamper proof history. Add distributed mining on a small scale to make the system relatively failsafe. how much distribution? 10 nodes, 20 nodes, 100 nodes? how do you motivate them to process the documents? how do they get paid? or do the volunteer miners have a collective interest to "do it for free" which then puts into question the possibility of collusion for fraudulent purposes?
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:13:57 PM |
|
-snip-
I could get 4pcs 64GB microSD cards below $100 each two years ago. For the third and last time moores law is about cost per transistor (Which is analogous to cost per flash cell). the 4 x 64GB would not have the same transistors density (since split into 4 separate sd cards) as the 200GB. ergo moore's law. Ergo you don't understand moores law, but it's not your fault education has failed you. nuff said
|
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:15:26 PM |
|
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts. http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank). The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor!
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:19:41 PM |
|
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts. http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank). The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor! Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login. it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept.
|
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:21:20 PM |
|
Finally, this is one more demonstration that proposals to require telecommunications providers and device manufacturers to build law enforcement backdoors in their products are a terrible, terrible idea. As security experts have rightly insisted all along, requiring companies to keep a repository of keys to unlock those backdoors makes the key repository itself a prime target for the most sophisticated attackers—like NSA and GCHQ. It would be both arrogant and foolhardy in the extreme to suppose that only “good” attackers will be successful in these efforts. http://www.cato.org/blog/how-nsa-stole-keys-phone?utm_content=buffer4a05b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Currently, both with sim-cards and one-time-password systems like password generating devices and the google authenticator, the secret must be shared between the card/device and the service provider (telecom/bank). The time has now come for devices where the user generates the secret, it never leaves the device, and the identification is served by signing a challenge message. For security, the device should have a screen and some minimal input capability. Hey! I just reinvented the Trezor! Steve Gibson's SQRL project works along this line whereby users login to websites using a private key on their device after being presented a new, freshly generated QR code at each login. it gets rid of the entire username/pwd concept. I am sure useful devices will arrive on the market the next few months.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:41:22 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
lebing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
|
|
March 02, 2015, 06:55:28 PM |
|
nice, what page was that?
|
Bro, do you even blockchain? -E Voorhees
|
|
|
Wekkel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531
yes
|
|
March 02, 2015, 07:05:48 PM |
|
and where is the next page?
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2015, 07:11:37 PM |
|
grinding higher. i love grinding.
|
|
|
|
|