Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 02:40:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 [604] 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 ... 1557 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2032126 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:52:06 PM
 #12061

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.
1711636854
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711636854

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711636854
Reply with quote  #2

1711636854
Report to moderator
1711636854
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711636854

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711636854
Reply with quote  #2

1711636854
Report to moderator
1711636854
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711636854

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711636854
Reply with quote  #2

1711636854
Report to moderator
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711636854
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711636854

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711636854
Reply with quote  #2

1711636854
Report to moderator
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
 #12062

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

+1

i try not to worry about the mountains  of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.

as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun  ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts  Tongue

which is fine.

bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!

which is fine.

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 11:22:10 PM
 #12063

disruption continues:

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 11:47:52 PM
 #12064

once you get the politicians onboard, you know what happens:

http://www.lagop.com/donate
User705
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1006


First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 12:04:30 AM
 #12065

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

+1

i try not to worry about the mountains  of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.

as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun  ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts  Tongue

which is fine.

bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!

which is fine.

Which MANY reasons?  Most altcoins are simply blatant copies of bitcoin.  The only thing separating bitcoin is the network effect.  But bitcoin currently is still tiny compared to real world.  MySpace was around before Facebook but how did it work out in the end?  Western Union could adopt a PoS similar to Nxt and overnight have more users then bitcoin, more points of exchange, greater liquidity and greater foreign exchange convertability.  Heck they can do their own PoW implementation and have every location mining if Nxt type PoS is proven insecure.  Is crypto better then gold?  Sure.  But barely a few years after its invention to claim it will forever be better then what might be invented/implemented next is silly.

notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 12:17:13 AM
 #12066

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

You have not made your point clear. Are you trying to claim Nxt security relies on obscurity? If that is the claim, that is provable false as you can decompile Java and steal Nxt. Given that isn't hapening, what are you trying to claim?

He is simply stating that without source code and deterministic builds you can not be sure someone hasn't decompiled it, modified it to steal your coins, and then recompiled it.  But if you trust the person distributing it has verified it, by all means run it.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1091


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 02:00:22 AM
Last edit: September 16, 2014, 02:22:04 AM by jgarzik
 #12067

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

Point missed completely.

The vast majority of users simply download and run code.  They do not compile it.  A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code.  "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.

Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes.  In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.

Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 02:34:37 AM
 #12068

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

Point missed completely.

The vast majority of users simply download and run code.  They do not compile it.  A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code.  "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.

Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes.  In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.


explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.

is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain?  then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1091


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 03:20:27 AM
Last edit: September 16, 2014, 04:14:34 AM by jgarzik
 #12069

explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.

is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain?  then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?

Simplified example:

Step 1: Similar to the blockchain, git records the hash of the latest commit... and a commit includes the hash(es) of previous commits.  That creates a chain of hashes for the source code.

Step 2: Given the git commit id (a hash), obtain a source code tree.

Step 3: Compile the source code, resulting in one or more binaries (bytecode output, in Java's case).

Step 4: Hash the binaries

Step 5: Post a PGP-signed message containing the hash from step #4.

Just like in biology or chemistry, it is critical that the above process is independently reproducible and yields the same result every time.

If multiple developers perform these steps, and all result in the same hashes in step #4, then you eliminate a Man-In-The-Middle attack where an evil developer or evil malware may insert a backdoor not present in the source code, but present in the binaries that users download and trust with real money.

Finally, at any time, any outside developer may independently reproduce this process, proving that the dev team is not inserting backdoors etc.

Deterministic builds are critical for any software you trust with money.

This is how Bitcoin Core handles every release.  Multiple developers must achieve the same compiled result, or no release happens.  We use https://gitian.org/ to assist with this.

Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 03:49:44 AM
 #12070

explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.

is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain?  then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?

Simplified example:

Step 1: Well, just like blockchain, git records the hash of the latest commit... and a commit records the hash(es) of previous commits.  That creates a chain of hashes for the source code.

Step 2: Given the git commit id (a hash), obtain a source code tree.

Step 3: Compile the source code, resulting in one or more binaries (bytecode output, in Java's case).

Step 4: Hash the binaries

Step 5: Post a PGP-signed message containing the hash from step #4.

Just like in biology or chemistry, it is critical that the above process is independently reproducible and yields the same result every time.

If multiple developers perform these steps, and all result in the same hashes in step #4, then you eliminate a Man-In-The-Middle attack where an evil developer or evil malware may insert a backdoor not present in the source code, but present in the binaries that users download and trust with real money.

Finally, at any time, any outside developer may independently reproduce this process, proving that the dev team is not inserting backdoors etc.

Deterministic builds are critical for any software you trust with money.

This is how Bitcoin Core handles every release.  Multiple developers must achieve the same compiled result, or no release happens.  We use https://gitian.org/ to assist with this.


thanks for the explanation.

keep up the great work.  we're lucky to have you.
aljunking
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:01:51 AM
 #12071

Are you sure that bitcoin "UP" bitcoin is still down right now. Smiley
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:06:01 AM
 #12072

Are you sure that bitcoin "UP" bitcoin is still down right now. Smiley

we're getting close to the end of this prolonged correction.  volatility is damping down and several of the large ask walls have been wiped out by buyers or short coverers (which is just as good).  my guess is that we'll break up hard somewhere along here.  we'll see.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:15:43 AM
 #12073

it's not uncommon to retest the broken support level from the underside that is now resistance:

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:38:23 AM
Last edit: September 16, 2014, 04:52:44 AM by sidhujag
 #12074

There is no way id buy gold here.. need a bullish engulf to end a downtrend.

We probably go below 1181 since there was a fake uptrend that we see is broken now. No engulf no good.

Should test 1310ish before the slide
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 04:59:10 AM
 #12075

Paging Carlton Banks!

just saw you on Dance With The Stars!  lookin' gud!  best dance of the nite!

yeah baby!
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:07:03 AM
 #12076

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

At least now we all agree there is source code, that's a good start Smiley

Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

In terms of 99.99999% of the population it's irrelevant, they have to buy it, doesn't matter if it's PoW or PoS.
And you're right, it's not fiat that is the enemy, it's uncontrolled money printing that is the enemy. Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control. And because most of the population can't be miners and have to buy it, they don't care how exactly that crypto is produced.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:19:37 AM
 #12077

Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control.
PoS is in no way comparable to PoW and it's misleading and deceptive to market as such.

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

PoS is the central bank/Federal Reserve system with a different set of masters. Fuck that.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:23:23 AM
 #12078

Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control.
PoS is in no way comparable to PoW and it's misleading and deceptive to market as such.

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

PoS is the central bank/Federal Reserve system with a different set of masters. Fuck that.

We don't need to discuss that masters of Bitcoin are two-three biggest mining pools, do we? While in NXT over 300 individual accounts successfully generate blocks. Well, who is more centralized?

99.9999% of the population don't care which crypto they'd buy and which algo it runs on. Prime example of this is Dogecoin users. Exactly, they say 'fuck that' to expensive Bitcoin and use their own coin, and their community is large, check reddit.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:25:42 AM
 #12079

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

At least now we all agree there is source code, that's a good start Smiley

Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

In terms of 99.99999% of the population it's irrelevant, they have to buy it, doesn't matter if it's PoW or PoS.
And you're right, it's not fiat that is the enemy, it's uncontrolled money printing that is the enemy. Well, both PoW and PoS models have that under control. And because most of the population can't be miners and have to buy it, they don't care how exactly that crypto is produced.

You're attempting to equate POW & POS by saying they are both just code.

Wrong. POW involves a huge network of miners that have paid blood, sweat, tears, and money to build and maintain.  You can't replace that.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 05:27:26 AM
 #12080

We don't need to discuss that masters of Bitcoin are two-three biggest mining pools, do we? While in NXT over 300 individual accounts successfully generate blocks. Well, who is more centralized?
We don't, because it doesn't matter.

In a PoW system, if the three largest mining miners decide to misbehave it's at least possible in principle for somebody else to build out more hashing power and compete with them. The miners can not block competition via any other method than expending more real opportunity cost to do so.

In a PoS system, if the majority of the stakeholders decide to misbehave then the system is fucked. Stakeholders are insulated from competition because they only lose stake if they choose to sell their coins to their competitors.

In a PoW system, if a cartel forms it's an annoyance.

PoS systems are inherently designed to form and protect cartels.
Pages: « 1 ... 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 [604] 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 ... 1557 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!