Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

yawn.  getting ready to Moon:

http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/nasdaq-launches-enterprisewide-blockchain-technology-initiative-20150511-00485

[sickpig]

Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.

Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.

I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.

[cypherdoc]

Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.

Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.

I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.

yeah, i read that.  Collison fail.

[inca]

Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.

Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.

I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.

Probably talking it down while he does the opposite and acquires.

[Adrian-x]

Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press.

Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.

I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed.

He just failed to see Bitcoin's killer app, bitcoin the currency.

[cypherdoc]

...

Grandma and moma aren't you. And that is entire point of this drive to push Paypal, Circle, Coinbase, etc onto the masses.

If you are arguing the masses will have the slightest clue that they need to move their wallet because of some obscure Digital Kill Switch that doesn't affect them, then you are disingenuous and absurd.

So let's assume for a moment you have a functioning brain and you're right that the gvt teams up with all the banks and retail companies all within a giant cabal and the masses all are in Bitcoin.

They hit the dreaded Digital Kill Switch. What happens then?

Dissidents and competitors are targeted and eliminated (Digital Kill Switch one of the important tools of discipline on anyone who doesn't conform). The masses huddle into the NWO one world reserve currency and Global Technocracy fascist economy.

1984.

It is a slow burn eugenics paradigm to achieve Ted Turner's 500 million population goal.

you're a whack job.

[cypherdoc]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

As Odalv already said tx size can be really big. If you go over the 100KB a transaction
is considered non-standard though, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L603-L611
and  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L55-L56

Code:

    // Extremely large transactions with lots of inputs can cost the network
    // almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
    // computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
    // to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
    unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
    if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
        reason = "tx-size";
        return false;
    }

Code:

/** The maximum size for transactions we're willing to relay/mine */
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;

That said as long as you find a miner/poll that accept to include your tx
in the next block you're golden.

As soon as I have time I'll look for the actual txs that Peter Todd was referring to.

thanks for that.  but even if a miner tries to incl a non std tx into his solved block, it's quite probable that the majority of nodes/miners  still reject the block as a result, no?

[cypherdoc]

here's Sergio Lerner agreeing with me on the futility of creating bloated blocks:

Most methods proposed to reduce the block propagation delay do it only
on the average case. Any kind of block compression relies on both
parties sharing some previous information. In the worse case it's true
that a miner can create and try to broadcast a block that takes too much
time to verify or bandwidth to transmit. This is currently true on the
Bitcoin network. Nevertheless there is no such incentive for miners,
since they will be shooting on their own foots. Peter Todd has argued
that the best strategy for miners is actually to reach 51% of the
network, but not more. In other words, to exclude the slowest 49%
percent. But this strategy of creating bloated blocks is too risky in
practice, and surely doomed to fail, as network conditions dynamically
change. Also it would be perceived as an attack to the network, and the
miner (if it is a public mining pool) would be probably blacklisted.

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07663.html

[leezay]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

[msin]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

Many of the older generation hold paper gold in their brokerage accounts and have no problem with that.  I believe once "paper" BTC is readily available on the market, the older generation will have no problem investing some amount.

[cypherdoc]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

this is why Bitcoin needs to scale as a payment network to push usage and acceptance out to the geographic periphery where even African kids mining for gold are discouraged from going down 3' wide holes 100 yds deep to pull up a useless heavy metal.  Once that happens, Bitcoin becomes universal money and the old white folks won't have any choice.

[cypherdoc]

Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.

this is why Bitcoin needs to scale as a payment network to push usage and acceptance out to the geographic periphery where even African kids mining for gold are discouraged from going down 3' wide holes 100 yds deep to pull up a useless heavy metal.  Once that happens, Bitcoin becomes universal money and the old white folks won't have any choice.

the other way to look at this is that Africa is the epicenter of gold mining production.  do you think they will stop mining for the stuff if they don't get an opportunity to work/transact with Bitcoin?  well, they won't with a 1MB limit.  we want to get them to stop and realize there is a better alternative form of sound money that doesn't involve sacrificing your kids.

[tvbcof]

...
It is a slow burn eugenics paradigm to achieve Ted Turner's 500 million population goal.

you're a whack job.

I have a theorem which is not even a total joke any more:

Any 'conspiracy theory' to which most people (including oneself unless they just got in from being raised by wolves) have a visceral negative reaction is for THAT reason something worth paying some attention to.  Some of these 'theories' (which are at best hypothesis (unless they are documented facts which a surprising number are)) are absurd enough to be rejected out-of-hand to be sure.

The hypothesis that there are eugenicists who would at least tolerate a mechanism which brought the worldwide population of the homo sapien species to a small fraction of our current number is not one of those to be rejected out of hand as far as I am concerned.  Further, some of them have amassed significant capabilities in some areas.  Ted Turner's case is one of those which is a documented fact unless some of his utterances have been invented out of whole cloth.

There are other things not to love (in my opinion) about Mr. Turner:



I'd give at least even odds that the story is bullshit however.  I'd withhold judgement until confirmation or rejection of some sort.

[cypherdoc]

grinding higher.  MACD going positive:

[bassclef]

I've been watching the MACD centerline crossover as well. Historically it has been a good confirmation of trend continuation.

[cypherdoc]

I've been watching the MACD centerline crossover as well. Historically it has been a good confirmation of trend continuation.

more importantly, it's a long term momentum indicator much less susceptible to manipulation.

[bassclef]

I've been watching the MACD centerline crossover as well. Historically it has been a good confirmation of trend continuation.

more importantly, it's a long term momentum indicator much less susceptible to manipulation.

Next hurdle is the 200 day / 30 week MA. That's a biggie for the pro technical traders out there.

[rocks]

I think there's two ways to look at it:

1.  Clearly, if an attacker has 50.0001%, then he has a 100% chance of eventually forging the longest chain.  If the attacker has 49.9999% instead, it makes sense that he'd have almost 100% chance, but not quite (why would it suddenly drop to less than 50%?).

2.  It's the attacker who gets to choose when to broadcast the attack chain.  Just by random luck, there's a good chance that at some point the attacker will hit a lucky streak and mine several blocks in quick succession.  When he hits this lucky streak and pulls ahead of the honest chain, he broadcasts his attack chain.

Thanks for the explanation guys. OK, now understand that the equation calculates how likely it is that at some point after 6 confirmations an attacker will gain the longest chain, publish it, and get the rest of the network over to that chain. This is just the odds though, not the cost.

It would be interesting to see the expected cost of such an attack though. If an attacker with 45% hash rate has a 96% chance of eventually gaining the lead for a moment, then a good portion of that probability is most likely in the long tail of many blocks from now. There should be an equation that calculates the average or expected cost of such an attack, such as by 50 blocks the attacker has x probability of succeeding, by 100 blocks y chance & by 10000 block z chance. And of course there is the possibility that the attacker has spent months without gaining the lead, and has lost all of those block rewards.  

I think we'd see that the expected cost is quite high, even for a 45% attacker. i.e. Even if you knew that the counter party to your bitcoin transaction had 45% hash rate and would use it against you, then 6 confirmation would still be enough for the value of a car or house, since an attack would cost more than that, half a day of confirmations would be enough for a skyscraper, and a day of confirmations for an island. This seems OK to me.

[Peter R]

I think there's two ways to look at it:

1.  Clearly, if an attacker has 50.0001%, then he has a 100% chance of eventually forging the longest chain.  If the attacker has 49.9999% instead, it makes sense that he'd have almost 100% chance, but not quite (why would it suddenly drop to less than 50%?).

2.  It's the attacker who gets to choose when to broadcast the attack chain.  Just by random luck, there's a good chance that at some point the attacker will hit a lucky streak and mine several blocks in quick succession.  When he hits this lucky streak and pulls ahead of the honest chain, he broadcasts his attack chain.

Thanks for the explanation guys.

My pleasure.

OK, now understand that the equation calculates how likely it is that at some point after 6 confirmations an attacker will gain the longest chain, publish it, and get the rest of the network over to that chain. This is just the odds though, not the cost.

It would be interesting to see the expected cost of such an attack though. If an attacker with 45% hash rate has a 96% chance of eventually gaining the lead for a moment, then a good portion of that probability is most likely in the long tail of many blocks from now. There should be an equation that calculates the average or expected cost of such an attack, such as by 50 blocks the attacker has x probability of succeeding, by 100 blocks y chance & by 10000 block z chance. And of course there is the possibility that the attacker has spent months without gaining the lead, and has lost all of those block rewards.  

I think we'd see that the expected cost is quite high, even for a 45% attacker. i.e. Even if you knew that the counter party to your bitcoin transaction had 45% hash rate and would use it against you, then 6 confirmation would still be enough for the value of a car or house, since an attack would cost more than that, half a day of confirmations would be enough for a skyscraper, and a day of confirmations for an island. This seems OK to me.

Meni Rosenfeld does something similar to what you're suggesting in his "Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending" paper from December 2012.  I haven't looked into this paper in detail, but this table from Section 6 caught me eye.  It allows you to figure out how many confirmations you should wait depending on how large the transaction is in addition to the attacker's hash rate.



I'd be interested if you can think of ways to extend this work.

[cypherdoc]

I think there's two ways to look at it:

1.  Clearly, if an attacker has 50.0001%, then he has a 100% chance of eventually forging the longest chain.  If the attacker has 49.9999% instead, it makes sense that he'd have almost 100% chance, but not quite (why would it suddenly drop to less than 50%?).

2.  It's the attacker who gets to choose when to broadcast the attack chain.  Just by random luck, there's a good chance that at some point the attacker will hit a lucky streak and mine several blocks in quick succession.  When he hits this lucky streak and pulls ahead of the honest chain, he broadcasts his attack chain.

Thanks for the explanation guys. OK, now understand that the equation calculates how likely it is that at some point after 6 confirmations an attacker will gain the longest chain, publish it, and get the rest of the network over to that chain. This is just the odds though, not the cost.

It would be interesting to see the expected cost of such an attack though. If an attacker with 45% hash rate has a 96% chance of eventually gaining the lead for a moment, then a good portion of that probability is most likely in the long tail of many blocks from now. There should be an equation that calculates the average or expected cost of such an attack, such as by 50 blocks the attacker has x probability of succeeding, by 100 blocks y chance & by 10000 block z chance. And of course there is the possibility that the attacker has spent months without gaining the lead, and has lost all of those block rewards.  

I think we'd see that the expected cost is quite high, even for a 45% attacker. i.e. Even if you knew that the counter party to your bitcoin transaction had 45% hash rate and would use it against you, then 6 confirmation would still be enough for the value of a car or house, since an attack would cost more than that, half a day of confirmations would be enough for a skyscraper, and a day of confirmations for an island. This seems OK to me.

i posted earlier how the incentives in Bitcoin continue to screw up every major theory about mining cartels colluding to cheat.  yet, we continue to get them.  here's Ed Felten again:

ES-miners can’t agree to cheat, because it’s too easy for them to cheat on that agreement.

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/bitcoin-isnt-so-broken-after-all/