Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[kazuki49]

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.

We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.

The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

Actually, the best path to a safe balance is not having a public balance at all.

https://i.imgur.com/fUVBvXK.png

https://i.imgur.com/FY7q54I.png

https://i.imgur.com/MUOwbae.png

[1714093974]

1714093974

[1714093974]

1714093974

[Odalv]

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on.  

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

[lunarboy]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise.

the ole S/N has been lots better since i put them all on ignore. Although there has been the odd entire page of "This user is currently ignored." looking at you TBTP. 

[tvbcof]

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

---

Another edit:

Hearn said famously about tainting:  'There is no difference between confiscating someone's BTC and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  His example was Qaddafi.  The 20 year figure comes from the Independent miners who were assumed to be priced out of the market by those operating on economies of scale and exploiting revenue streams not available to any but the largest entities on the global internet.

Non-trivial revenue from fees would throw a huge monkey-wrench into that plan, and in particular because a blacklisted (or non-whitelisted) transaction instigator could and would pay even higher fees.  I wonder (and suspect) that that is part of what is driving the desperation to not have transaction fees become a significant part of infrastructure support.

[Odalv]

...
Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

I pay around $10 per transaction and am happy to do it.  Bitcoin is vastly faster and less hassle than wire transfers, and more reliable than mainstream banking in my experience (having accounts silently shut down with no (written) explanation and no interaction but with a fully licensed and compliant entity (Coinbase).)  Edit:  BTW, my bank charges me $25 or so for wires.

In that case the revenue is more like a quarter-million dollars per hour, and my rough guess without researching it much is that at 1MB Bitcoin could already consume most of the world market for wire transfers.  Or at least international ones.

With these kinds of numbers, even running a pretty small mining setup solo would be better odds than playing the lottery.  If pools were attacked successfully most of the participants would fragment and those who could still obtain access to the Bitcoin network (receive transactions successfully) would likely keep right on chugging away.  In fact, in such an event the large mining farms who are not protected by the state would probably be off-line making the difficulty less.  Of course some of them might keep chugging away working on attacks (specifically, tainting.)

Combine this 1 MB backbone with thousands of SC where you can make micro-payments instantly
  - we can handle 100,000 transaction/sec.
  - all you need is phone
  - you can run full node and 2-3 preferred fast-wallet services on tihs phone.

[cypherdoc]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

interesting points.  no, i haven't done anything formal but i do know that the popularity is growing.  for instance, at the end of February 2015 the view count was approximately 800K.  four months later we're here at 1.2M.  and i'm very sure of that as i made a mental note at the time for a particular reason.  so 400K equals 3333 views per day or 2.31 views per minute.  the previous mental check, which is much more fuzzy cuz i was only roughly keeping track was from Oct 2014 to Feb 2015 when i believe the starting pt was at 400K very roughly.  i remember that time especially well b/c that was precisely when the SC WP came out and brg444 entered the thread.  all of you must remember him and how he spammed the heck out of me just like the current guys. i even remember complimenting him on driving the view rate so high so fast single handedly.  so overall the growth rate was roughly the same from Oct to now or 100K/mo.  the significant metric though is how it took from the beginning of the thread, which was March 13, 2012 all the way to Oct 2014 for it to go to 400K.  the last 8 mo the thread has grown by 200% alone.  in other words, the recent pace of the last 8 months has been increasing at a torrid rate.

[Odalv]

This site http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=350000

reports 67,723,836 (96.97%) spam addresses -> is this true ?

[Adrian-x]

geezuz crimony.  look at the blocks filling up.  and this is NOT a spam attack. it's from use:

http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/

yet Cripplecoin.

blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on.  

who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers?

According to https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html there are 2,794,041 (53.24%) addresses with value less than 0.0001 btc.

If we have enough space for this shit https://blockchain.info/tx/73026d18b0b3e627c7b1b84bea69496963b91d7e2ddb1b9efab9622836e6c6c8 then we do not need increase in block size.

Let them pay $1 per transaction.

Agreed.

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

You have a lot in common with Luke Jr.

[iCEBREAKER]

Quoted for truth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bajai/by_expecting_a_few_developers_to_make/cskk0vq

The fact that they some take sides (side with people rather than support solutions), get personal, threaten to up and leave/sell their coins, and spread FUD, rather than state their case logically and technically is not what any developer should be doing.

We've all seen Dr. Frappuccino

-side with gavin@mit.tla.gov and hearn@google.mil rather than support a specific solution
-get personal with the core devs, esp. Blockstreamers and GMax in particular
-threaten to up and leave/sell his coins
-spread FUD ("strangle/choking/Cripplecoin") about the sky falling if the block size stays at 1MB

Let's remember this thread is obviously intended to troll gold bugs with insufficiently undivided loyalty to Bitcoin, so his whining about cyber-thugs is just performative drama queening, not actual offense.

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.  His premises, analysis, and conclusions are flawed but his heart is in the right place.   

[ssmc2]

Ulterior States [IamSatoshi Documentary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo

Good stuff.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I read that comment and thought the same thing.

I think it would be a tragedy for them to miss that lesson, and then lose the ability to make beneficial contributions to Bitcoin in the future.

I'd love to see the blinded output amounts from Confidential Transactions make it into Bitcoin, but I don't think their current approach to this debate is a viable way of ensuring they'll be in a position to advocate for that in the future.

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

This might be relevant. It's posted in altcoins. But still...

(1) people who send BTC in the "ring signature sidechain" (RSSC), taint their BTC who are not entering the RSSC. If their identity is matched with the same identity as who put BTC in the RSSC, this person can become "flagged".

No, it's possible to trustlessly coinswap in and out of such a system, with no detectable connectivity.  And there are many reasons to use such a sidechain, such as improved smart contracting.  I consider improved fungiblity to be an essential basic feature.

Unfortunately, it's appears that it isn't possible to trustlessly swap in and out of monero because the developers of bytecoin didn't carry across smart contract functionality which they didn't understand.  Perhaps the capability could be added later.

[tvbcof]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

I don't use ignore lists myself since I find it easy enough to do so in real-time.

One problem with ignore lists is that an ignoree might make an ignorer look like a jackass and the ignorer has no clue unless the injury is quoted and thus no ability to defend themselves and try to repair the damage.  I've seen what I believe to be this phenomenon a fair bit over the years.

[gmaxwell]

There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.

That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.
We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.
The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.

We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.

Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).

[tvbcof]

...

You have a lot in common with Luke Jr.

I figured he may be vlad from the days of yore.  If that was before your time, the guy was a fairly big-time miner.  Also one of the first people to talk seriously about ASICs, but supposedly he gave up on the pursuit.  Possibly unfortunately.  In any event, he was a person of much better than average ability.

[cypherdoc]

I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.  His premises, analysis, and conclusions are flawed but his heart is in the right place.   

i thank you for this iCE.  deep down we are still brothers with a similar vision.  we just vehemently disagree who to follow to get there.

i still think i'm right.

[lebing]

tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?

i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point.  the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.

get with the character assassinations you thugs.

Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread.

bingo. I stopped watching this thread as closely because he engages the trolls. Makes the ignore button worthless =(

[Bagatell]

bingo. I stopped watching this thread as closely because he engages the trolls. Makes the ignore button worthless =(

This.

[iCEBREAKER]

bingo. I stopped watching this thread as closely because he engages the trolls. Makes the ignore button worthless =(

This.

You must be meta-trolling to complain about trolling in a thread intended to troll goldbugs.   

Or, less exotically, you subscribe to the idea that anyone who disagrees with you (especially about the blocksize) is a troll.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

With Bitcoin, we now have a new set of tools, that are not based on the law of the state, but based on the laws of mathematics. This enables us to create decentralized law, digital governance, and a wide scope of means for trade and business.

Then why is the narrative so important in and of itself?

Because the design of Bitcoin is not set in stone. It evolves and morphs through the actions of people. There’s this silly honey badger meme going around, like, “Bitcoin doesn’t give a f*k, Bitcoin is the honey badger of money”, but that’s false. Bitcoin is a consensus-system subject to all the different power groups acting upon it. And Bitcoin certainly can be corrupted. In very big ways.

Is Bitcoin being corrupted right now?

In some ways, yes. The Bitcoin Foundation is trying to establish itself as a central point of Bitcoin through which it can fund and steer development, while at the same time working together with the state and Wall Street. What’s going to happen, is that governments will use the Foundation to pressure Bitcoin development in certain directions.

Chief scientist and former lead-developer Gavin Andresen is paid by the Bitcoin Foundation, while his friends are the big Bitcoin-corporations. So, naturally, he’s more favourable towards their outlook of Bitcoin. And if you look at his actions and decisions…

He talks about Bitcoin as a payments-innovation, he developed the payments protocol, and now he’s pushing to increase the blocksize limit which would raise the maximum number of transactions on the network at the cost of even further centralization of mining. That is in effect in direct opposition to the idea of Bitcoin as a decentralized, private and uncensored system.

True Bitcoiners understand this is a revolution, not a way to tip your barista for that mocha.

[Bagatell]

bingo. I stopped watching this thread as closely because he engages the trolls. Makes the ignore button worthless =(

This.

You must be meta-trolling to complain about trolling in a thread intended to troll goldbugs.   

Or, less exotically, you subscribe to the idea that anyone who disagrees with you (especially about the blocksize) is a troll.

Time is tight and I prefer to spend it on the makers rather than the breakers. And I'll go with whatever blocksize maintains the value of my coins.