Faster bitcoin transaction times

[leemar]

Great presentation from DaveJH on hashing stats, and to hear someone armed with the qualifications and statistics recommend reduced confirmation times.  Not sure how recently this was but hope the core devs have a chance to absorb and respond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aBKLmJ2ebM

Graphs are practically impossible to see but the content is really good.

[1714864184]

1714864184

[1714864184]

1714864184

[1714864184]

1714864184

[1714864184]

1714864184

[instagibbs]

Great presentation from DaveJH on hashing stats, and to hear someone armed with the qualifications and statistics recommend reduced confirmation times.  Not sure how recently this was but hope the core devs have a chance to absorb and respond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aBKLmJ2ebM

Graphs are practically impossible to see but the content is really good.

Great talk. I'd really like to see some responses.

I feel like he kind of glossed over the issue of infrastructure being the most important thing, then saying we can just crank up transaction times/volume as much as the economics allow. Sounds like an overhead-intensive optimization.

That said, as computers/networks improve, I'm getting much more amenable to decreasing block times versus increasing block sizes.

[leemar]

Great presentation from DaveJH on hashing stats, and to hear someone armed with the qualifications and statistics recommend reduced confirmation times.  Not sure how recently this was but hope the core devs have a chance to absorb and respond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aBKLmJ2ebM

Graphs are practically impossible to see but the content is really good.

Great talk. I'd really like to see some responses.

I feel like he kind of glossed over the issue of infrastructure being the most important thing, then saying we can just crank up transaction times/volume as much as the economics allow. Sounds like an overhead-intensive optimization.

That said, as computers/networks improve, I'm getting much more amenable to decreasing block times versus increasing block sizes.

Agreed on skimming certain bits, but to be fair I think the presentation was more focused on hashing stats than network infrastructure.  It is nice to see numbers backing up what seems intuitively correct about the accuracy of derived hashing power measurements and pool diversification.   It was also good to get some numbers on the probability of outliers in terms of block resolution times.

Dave said in the presentation that he does contribute to these boards, and I am sure the bitcoin tech world is small enough still for this to be noticed and taken seriously.

[Anders]

Would it be possible to use Open Transactions on top of Bitcoin for fast transactions?

"A financial crypto and digital cash software library. The software's author likens it to "PGP for money".

Open Transactions (a centralized transaction system) is complementary to Bitcoin in that it provides some features that Bitcoin cannot, such as untraceable anonymous (versus pseudonymous) transactions, no latency (instant finality of settlement / no risk of double spending) and more." -- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Open_Transactions

The quote says centralized transaction system, but it's actually decentralized:

"IS IT CENTRALIZED?

The vision is not of a central server that you must trust.
Rather, the vision is of federated servers you don't have to trust." -- http://opentransactions.org/docs/md__r_e_a_d_m_e.html

[Anders]

I have changed my mind. To have a layer on top of Bitcoin for faster transactions is not such a good idea after all, because if the Bitcoin network remains slow in terms of transactions per second then it would remain vulnerable of being unable to handle all transactions.

I read somewhere that 0-confirmation transactions can be made fairly safe with a mathematical calculation. So that in combination with simple changes in the Bitcoin software to increase the number of transactions per second is a better solution.

And a bloated block chain is probably ok, since most wallets would then use the truncated block chain or what it's called.

[CryptoHeaven]

That's great news, should only increase the value of btc in the long term. Also I seem to have noticed that transactions are generally faster the last week or so, maybe it's just me, but does anyone else have the same feeling?

[Dabs]

Trivial transactions, like those lower than 0.0001 would be better served in an off-chain solution. Game sites typically do this.

There is also the supermarket credit card solution. The store has its own credit card, which can then be paid in bitcoin.

Or similarly, something like a starbucks bitcoin card. You can buy your coffee with that card, which can then be paid in bitcoin at the end of the month. Or typically it will be prepaid, so you store enough balance to afford a few days worth of coffee, depending on your use.

You don't typically use your cell phone like a payphone, where you insert coins for every call.

[mczarnek]

Actually, I'm in the process of patenting a decentralized, secure, fast instant transaction system.. should be easily able to be integrated into Bitcoin at which I'll have to see if Bitcoin is willing to buy the patent off of me.  We're sticking it into Nxt first though, partially to test if it works.  Should provide sub second transaction confirmations and works nicely with the current blockchain implementations.

[gmaxwell]

Actually, I'm in the process of patenting a decentralized, secure, fast instant transaction system.. should be easily able to be integrated into Bitcoin at which I'll have to see if Bitcoin is willing to buy the patent off of me.  We're sticking it into Nxt first though, partially to test if it works.  Should provide sub second transaction confirmations and works nicely with the current blockchain implementations.

Patenting your idea will almost certainly guarantee its complete failure, patented cryptosystems are almost never deployed and there is a long history proving this out. Your patent will also likely be invalid, since it was almost certainly anticipated by the years a public work in support of the community done by people here and in other places. Even ignoring the situation specific factors, in the US a majority of patents have claims struck down on review; for small inventors the patent system is a scam to make money for attorneys and the patent office: the patents they get are usually unenforceable for legal (invalidity) or economic (patent litigation costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and ruins good will, so a small inventor can almost never afford it and everyone knows it) reasons.

If your idea is actually useful, you should make it available publicly where it can be reviewed and refined and have some chance of adoption and building your professional credibility. If you instead go the route of patenting it, then even if the idea is unworkable (which it likely is, most cryptographic proposals turn out to be flawed) you will have only been successful as identifying yourself as a thief who has taken from the enormous body of work in Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency and cryptographic ecosystem given to your freely and attempted to lock up part of it for your personal profit at the expense of everyone else who you've benefited from.

I read somewhere that 0-confirmation transactions can be made fairly safe with a mathematical calculation. So that in combination with simple changes in the Bitcoin software to increase the number of transactions per second is a better solution.

I read somewhere that the moon is made of green cheese. ... you might want to be a bit more specific.

Zero confirmations are inherently somewhat unsafe-- inherently due to physics, a decentralized system cannot have an instant consensus because light has a finite speed. As far as I am aware zero-conf cannot magically be made substantially more safe without invoking a trusted party in some manner. There are many proposals for instant payments that involve things like escrowed coins (E.g. micropayment channel hubs), but they all make some additional security compromise (though potentially a small one).  I am not aware of any magical mathematical calculation that helps you.

Federated servers are a form of centralization, an improved one-- for sure, which may be suitable for many applications. Man would it be nice if they weren't.

[mczarnek]

Actually, I'm in the process of patenting a decentralized, secure, fast instant transaction system.. should be easily able to be integrated into Bitcoin at which I'll have to see if Bitcoin is willing to buy the patent off of me.  We're sticking it into Nxt first though, partially to test if it works.  Should provide sub second transaction confirmations and works nicely with the current blockchain implementations.

Patenting your idea will almost certainly guarantee its complete failure, patented cryptosystems are almost never deployed and there is a long history proving this out. Your patent will also likely be invalid, since it was almost certainly anticipated by the years a public work in support of the community done by people here and in other places. Even ignoring the situation specific factors, in the US a majority of patents have claims struck down on review; for small inventors the patent system is a scam to make money for attorneys and the patent office: the patents they get are usually unenforceable for legal (invalidity) or economic (patent litigation costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and ruins good will, so a small inventor can almost never afford it and everyone knows it) reasons.

If your idea is actually useful, you should make it available publicly where it can be reviewed and refined and have some chance of adoption and building your professional credibility. If you instead go the route of patenting it, then even if the idea is unworkable (which it likely is, most cryptographic proposals turn out to be flawed) you will have only been successful as identifying yourself as a thief who has taken from the enormous body of work in Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency and cryptographic ecosystem given to your freely and attempted to lock up part of it for your personal profit at the expense of everyone else who you've benefited from.

Many people have looked at it.. no worries, it should work and provide fast, secure transactions.  I have spent a lot of time looking into prior art, I'm pretty sure it is unique.. though that is a risk of course.

And if it really does work as well as it seems it should, then I think that Bitcoin will be willing to pay a little bit for it.. either that or be beaten by Nxt which will have this feature working.  Which is fine by me too.

Also, I love cryptocurrency and I think it's got a bright shiny future ahead of it.. I'll be honest I'm mostly invested in it because I wanted to make money and the reason I invented this algorithm was because I was looking to make money and help out Nxt, and I don't think that's selfish.. you got in early right?  Why haven't you sold your Bitcoins and worked on Bitcoin for minimum wage in order to be selfless?

[gmaxwell]

Also, I love cryptocurrency and I think it's got a bright shiny future ahead of it.. I'll be honest I'm mostly invested in it because I wanted to make money and the reason I invented this algorithm was because I was looking to make money and help out Nxt, and I don't think that's selfish.. you got in early right?  Why haven't you sold your Bitcoins and worked on Bitcoin for minimum wage in order to be selfless?

I've worked on Bitcoin for years without payment, and made no magical "early money" on account of having worked on it (it isn't like working on the software results in it paying you... outside of some scammy premined alts , I think I've probably collected a dozen or so in donations, on account of open source work on Bitcoin), and made a conscious and intentional decision to not patent or restrictive license many piece of novel technology used in the ecosystem. Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology which has the potential to improve people's personal freedom and autonomy and allow more of the world to interact as equals. This potential cannot be realized-- cryptocurrency has no future-- if the system is owned or monopolized through state granted artificial property rights. Bitcoin is also the logical progression of the work of thousands of people over many years, without which Bitcoin would not have been possible.

I think that it's unfortunate that providing freedom to the world also includes greedy parasites who think it's acceptable to go around trying to take small (and usually obvious) extensions of a system that was shared freely with them and take them away from the public for their personal gain. But fact that you're based on NXT at all suggests that you don't actually have the technical background to gauge a secure system from an insecure one, so, well, good luck with that. In the unlikely event that what you've done is at all worthwhile, I'll personally endeavour to ensure that it's replaced with superior unencumbered alternatives so that they only thing you receive on account of your anti-social behaviour is lost income.

If anyone is threated on patent grounds by mczarnek or anyone else involved with the seedy "NXT" project now or in the future and finds this message, please feel free to reach out to me for technical, legal, or financial assistance. I've worked on defending against patents successfully for many years and would be glad to help anyone work around, uncover prior art, or otherwise invalidate patents in this space. Cheers.

[mczarnek]

Also, I love cryptocurrency and I think it's got a bright shiny future ahead of it.. I'll be honest I'm mostly invested in it because I wanted to make money and the reason I invented this algorithm was because I was looking to make money and help out Nxt, and I don't think that's selfish.. you got in early right?  Why haven't you sold your Bitcoins and worked on Bitcoin for minimum wage in order to be selfless?

I've worked on Bitcoin for years without payment, and made no magical "early money" on account of having worked on it (it isn't like working on the software results in it paying you... outside of some scammy premined alts , I think I've probably collected a dozen or so in donations, on account of open source work on Bitcoin), and made a conscious and intentional decision to not patent or restrictive license many piece of novel technology used in the ecosystem. Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology which has the potential to improve people's personal freedom and autonomy and allow more of the world to interact as equals. This potential cannot be realized-- cryptocurrency has no future-- if the system is owned or monopolized through state granted artificial property rights. Bitcoin is also the logical progression of the work of thousands of people over many years, without which Bitcoin would not have been possible.

I think that it's unfortunate that providing freedom to the world also includes greedy parasites who think it's acceptable to go around trying to take small (and usually obvious) extensions of a system that was shared freely with them and take them away from the public for their personal gain. But fact that you're based on NXT at all suggests that you don't actually have the technical background to gauge a secure system from an insecure one, so, well, good luck with that. In the unlikely event that what you've done is at all worthwhile, I'll personally endeavour to ensure that it's replaced with superior unencumbered alternatives so that they only thing you receive on account of your anti-social behaviour is lost income.

If anyone is threated on patent grounds by mczarnek or anyone else involved with the seedy "NXT" project now or in the future and finds this message, please feel free to reach out to me for technical, legal, or financial assistance. I've worked on defending against patents successfully for many years and would be glad to help anyone work around, uncover prior art, or otherwise invalidate patents in this space. Cheers.

Well, if they are using the algorithm I wrote, then I feel like it is reasonable to expect to be paid for it.  After all, I have spent a year learning all I could about blockchains and at least half a year figuring out how to make decentralized instant transactions work in the context of a blockchain and years before that learning about computer software, hardware, and math.  And patents are a good thing, because I will now be able to share this algorithm and provide Bitcoin with something very good in the process.  But I wouldn't have spent that much time working on it, if my intention wasn't to try to figure out how to make money off of it.  So in this case, patents are providing something new to the system that may have not been discovered for years to come.  If it was so obvious, then surely someone would have figured it out, right?

NXT's algorithm is actually very secure, I'm in the process of writing a paper explaining how Nxt solves the Nothing At Stake Problem.  Which let's face it, is only an issue if over approximately 50% of the forging stake is running a version of the software that tries to be selfish and work together to form attacking branches.  I would be happy to run it by you and hear your thoughts.  I suspect you haven't heard one key part of the algorithm that fixes the nothing at stake issue and provides 90% protection to the network.

Congrats on working for donations only..  but did you invest early yourself?  Maybe not the only reason, part surely part of your reason for working on Bitcoin is in order to increase the price of the Bitcoin you own. Maybe you actually are that selfless.. it's nice to have those kinds of people in the world.  But I've spent the last 6 months surviving off of less than minimum wage, specifically because I had and initial idea and wanted to flesh it out, analyze it from all angles and figure out how to do this.

And why do I want money?  Because most of my life I haven't had enough of it and have had to pinch pennies and scrounge to make sure that I could maintain a reasonable quality of life, it would be really nice to have a nice financial cushion.  At that point, I will likely be a lot more generous.  For me it's not about being greedy or wanting a nice fancy sports car.

It's funny that people working on money believe that money can be evil.. money can be a good thing and a good incentive for getting things done.

[gmaxwell]

I don't believe that money can be or is evil. And getting paid is something that I'd never begrudge people for. What you're attempting to do there, however, is not to get paid for your work: You're attempting to get paid for other people's work (including mine, as a matter of fact), which made whatever you done possible and for which you did not pay a single bitcent. You are also attempting to get paid for the work other people may do in the future completely independently of you.  I consider this to be despicable and many other in our ecosystem will as well.  If you'd like to do useful work you can certainly find people to pay you to do so... if you're willing to actually do work, rather than spin your wheels encumbering the work others have done, I've certainly never complained about being unable to earn a living. (I thought I was clear that donations only amounted to a tiny amount? I've really tried to call for them.)  I worked on Bitcoin prior to having any expectation that it would make any money for me, it's an interesting technology which I believe is important for human freedom in the future (including my own and my families: my community work is not selfless, it's just merely not exploitive either).

Which let's face it, is only an issue if over approximately 50% of the forging stake is running a version of the software that tries to be selfish and work together to form attacking branches.

Ah, this demonstrates you don't actually understand the issue there at all. Sad. I think it's explained quite clearly, but then again I've been working in this space for many years. It's a bit much to ask people to have a strong understanding of anything new to them in only six months.

Considering your lack of understanding of the basic technology, this tangent is probably uninteresting (that it's unlikely that you've found anything which is new and interesting or even secure in a meaningful sense). I recommend you confine your posts to the NXT thread rather than cropping up here to pump it and irritating others.

I'd demand that you stop pumping and actually post your design-- except since you've announced an intention obtain a monopoly ownership interest in the idea (and, accordingly, any cryptocurrency that used it), I wouldn't want to encourage anyone else in the ecosystem to review it and provide you with even more free labor to exploit for your personal gains.

[mczarnek]

I don't believe that money can be or is evil. And getting paid is something that I'd never begrudge people for. What you're attempting to do there, however, is not to get paid for your work: You're attempting to get paid for other people's work (including mine, as a matter of fact), which made whatever you done possible and for which you did not pay a single bitcent. You are also attempting to get paid for the work other people may do in the future completely independently of you.  I consider this to be despicable and many other in our ecosystem will as well.  If you'd like to do useful work you can certainly find people to pay you to do so... if you're willing to actually do work, rather than spin your wheels encumbering the work others have done, I've certainly never complained about being unable to earn a living. (I thought I was clear that donations only amounted to a tiny amount? I've really tried to call for them.)  I worked on Bitcoin prior to having any expectation that it would make any money for me, it's an interesting technology which I believe is important for human freedom in the future (including my own and my families: my community work is not selfless, it's just merely not exploitive either).

Which let's face it, is only an issue if over approximately 50% of the forging stake is running a version of the software that tries to be selfish and work together to form attacking branches.

Ah, this demonstrates you don't actually understand the issue there at all. Sad. I think it's explained quite clearly, but then again I've been working in this space for many years. It's a bit much to ask people to have a strong understanding of anything new to them in only six months.

Considering your lack of understanding of the basic technology, this tangent is probably uninteresting (that it's unlikely that you've found anything which is new and interesting or even secure in a meaningful sense). I recommend you confine your posts to the NXT thread rather than cropping up here to pump it and irritating others.

I'd demand that you stop pumping and actually post your design-- except since you've announced an intention obtain a monopoly ownership interest in the idea (and, accordingly, any cryptocurrency that used it), I wouldn't want to encourage anyone else in the ecosystem to review it and provide you with even more free labor to exploit for your personal gains.

I'll address history key attacks as well, which I assume is what you are talking about.  Nxt has thought of those as well and has solutions.

Please stop trying to make me out like I don't know what I'm talking about.

You know, if you'd had a reasonable discussion with me, instead of dinging my reputation, and believing that there is no way that I could possibly understand how blockchains work..  you may have actually been able to convince me not to patent.  A discussion might change my mind.. but putting me down and telling me I don't "understand basic technology"? Forget about it. Back to work on the patent.

I will agree that there are a lot of generous people in this field.  You also realize that you have no idea how much I'm willing to sell it for.  I wasn't planning on being unreasonable but if this is the kind of reception I get?  I actually thought that I was being helpful to Bitcoin by announcing that I've solved one of your biggest problems.

Sure, let me finish up this patent and as soon as it's patent pending I can throw something up and let people analyze it and attack it.

[gmaxwell]

Please stop trying to make me out like I don't know what I'm talking about.

You keep making claims that strongly support that you don't know what you're talking about; e.g. the completely brain-dead claim that there is an assumption of majority of participants in the problems with PoS.  Perhaps you do actually understand things, if so, kudos to you. But it certainly doesn't appear to be the case... and it would surprise me genuinely consider that past inquiries to NXT's creators (like come from beyond) for even simple things like "What are your security assumptions?" have resulted in technobabble and even threats.

Considering that fact that you're yabbering on about NXT (in the wrong subforum) and patents without even bothering to disclose the idea it's seeming to me it's just more garbage altcoin hype. I used to be more tolerate of this stuff, but my patience is wearing out after encountering the 1000th person to pull this kind of nonsense.

Sure, let me finish up this patent and as soon as it's patent pending I can throw something up and let people analyze it and attack it.

You realize that you're continuing to demonstrate poor character here, right?  The only purpose not disclosing your grand idea at this point serves is to preserve hype in order to profit from asset speculators or fools who would pay you for an unsound unreviewed idea (when they can get neigh-infinite unsound ideas just going through the forum history).

Feel free to try to justify your abusive behaviour because you feel slighted by me personally if it helps you sleep at night... but everyone else knows that you and only you are responsible for your actions.

[gmaxwell]

Great talk. I'd really like to see some responses.

Transcribe it. Watching an hour long video intended for a general audience is too much to ask given zero information.

[mczarnek]

I was saying that this algorithm was something that Bitcoin could use as well.. yes, I happened to mention Nxt.  It's a great coin.  You insulted it, so I defended it.  I was not going out of my way to advertise it.  In fact I specifically said I was implementing it there first as a test case.. though to be honest it's because it's a great coin, with a great community, and because I promised them I'd implement it and I want to stay true to my word.  Also because I have received a lot of help from the Nxt community with this idea, so I feel it's fair to give back.  I haven't gotten any help from Bitcoin on this project.. I don't feel I need to give them my idea for free. And yes, my signature does advertise Nxt.  Because it's a great coin that doesn't get the credit it deserves and I want people to see that there are supporters out there.  Just because this isn't a Nxt thread doesn't mean that I should sit back, as you attack Nxt and not defend it.

A patent isn't an attack, it's a protection to make sure that I don't do the hard work so someone else can profit off of it. Just because nobody else around here is patenting things, doesn't make it a bad thing.  I'm grateful that a lot of work has been done in this field by people who are truly committed, but yes I want to make money off of my ideas.  I've only been out of college a few years, and I love the idea of being an entrepreneur and helping make the world a better place.  That doesn't

And you notice that you never just asked what the idea is?  But yes after you announce that you want to help invalidate my potential patent, then I don't exactly feel like sharing the idea with you and helping you do so.

And the issue with 'Nothing at stake' is that everyone argues that you could forged you could forge along multiple chains.  But in order to do that you have to get a stronger chain than the competition to have the network accept it or else they will discard it. In order to do this, probabilistically 50+% of the forging power would have to participate in this to sustain it for any reasonable about of time.  So yes, you do need a majority of the forging power to participate.  There are other attacks as well.

If this is the kind of reception Come-From-Beyond recieved, then I don't blame him for not having a great attitude.  Maybe something got lost due to this being done via text instead of in person.  I'm defending myself and the coin I'm involved with, I have not criticized Bitcoin or attacked you, and in fact was offering to help out by fixing one of Bitcoin's biggest problems.  You mean while have implied I'm a parasite, called alt-coins scammy, insulted my intelligence, etc.

And no, I didn't 'pay a single bitcent' for your knowledge.. I spent months and months working and thinking and trying to solve a problem, which is a form of payment itself.

If you have really done this much great work, you should ask the Bitcoin Foundation or people if you can be paid for it.  How do you keep yourself alive off for years off of the donations of a dozen Bitcoins?

If someone else thinks I'm being unreasonable there, please tell me so.

[gmaxwell]

I was saying that this algorithm was something that Bitcoin could use as well.. yes, I happened to mention Nxt.  It's a great coin.  You insulted it, so I defended it.

Your first post in this thread was advertising that NXT was implementing an unspecified, undescribed, instant transaction system which you have/are patenting.  Your posting history and signature are plugging NXT in many inappropriate places.

A patent isn't an attack, it's a protection to make sure that I don't do the hard work so someone else can profit off of it.

That isn't what a patent does. A patent invokes the state to prohibit people from freely communicating and acting on ideas which they invented completely independently of you. It grants you a monopoly ownership over an idea and, in the rare cases where they're actually successful (as mentioned a _majority_ of patents lose claims on review), allows you to extract rent from others who have worked hard to invent and build the infrastructure that your work rests on.

I'm grateful that a lot of work has been done in this field by people who are truly committed,

Funny, you're surely not expressing it. Instead you're promoting competing systems which have ripped off ideas from Bitcoin (and broken them), and claim to be working on extensions which you plan to exclusively control for your personal profit.  Foolishly too, since as I've mentioned: we have decades of experience that patents completely suppress the adoption of cryptosystems, even very useful and powerful ones (like Chaum's invention of digital cash).

And you notice that you never just asked what the idea is?

Why would I have? If you wanted to discuss an idea you would have. Instead you wanted to promote NXT and try to ring up customers for your patent based purely on the promises that it will do something useful. I'm not interested in giving you free review for you to further go and turn a private profit off my back and the backs of others who worked for years (and even decades) inventing the things you just learner about in the last few months... though you should review my very first response to you: "If your idea is actually useful, you should make it available publicly where it can be reviewed and refined and have some chance of adoption and building your professional credibility."

But yes after you announce that you want to help invalidate my potential patent, then I don't exactly feel like sharing the idea with you and helping you do so.

You can't stop me from doing so, any patent application will be made public, My ability to make your patent commercially worthless is not reduced. All keeping what you're doing now secret accomplishes is reducing the risk that someone points out the the ideas are old (thus making it harder for you to engage in the inequitable conduct of hiding the actual prior art), or that they're unsound (stifling your ability to pump NXT or sell the ideas to an unsophisticated buyer).

And the issue with 'Nothing at stake' is that everyone argues that you could forged you could forge along multiple chains.  But in order to do that you have to get a stronger chain than the competition to have the network accept it or else they will discard it. In order to do this, probabilistically 50+% of the forging power would have to participate in this to sustain it for any reasonable about of time.  So yes, you do need a majority of the forging power to participate.  There are other attacks as well.

This isn't true. Please take the time to actually read Andrew's paper on this.  One of the points that you're missing is that "50% of the forging power" is defined _inside_ the chain and is meaningless outside of it, so your security definition is circular. Likewise, any probabilistic process repeated enough times where only one success is required tends to probability one, there is no reasonably retying limit external to the system, so the protection is, again, circular.

and in fact was offering to help out by fixing one of Bitcoin's biggest problems.  You mean while have implied I'm a parasite, called alt-coins scammy, insulted my intelligence, etc.

No, if you were actually offered to do these things you would have actually helped instead of bragging about vaporware proprietary technology, which you helpfully provided no details on except to promote NXT. Give it up.

If you have really done this much great work, you should ask the Bitcoin Foundation or people if you can be paid for it.  How do you keep yourself alive off for years off of the donations of a dozen Bitcoins?

I've worked full time for close to 20 years doing good and valuable work on technology that has helped people solve real problems, much of it shared with the public, and none of it abusively encumbering the ideas and work of third parties via patents (rather, I've done a fair amount of patent busting along the way). I'm not asking here for money from anyone because I don't need to, I've made money by doing work and not preventing other people from working, and as a result I don't need any more (though more is always appreciated and put to good uses). I don't begrudge you for wanting to get paid: good work deserves pay, but locking up ideas isn't work, and it doesn't deserve pay-- quite the opposite. Instead, it marks you as a wanna-be-thief in my book who would seek to profits of my own efforts and would use litigation to prevent me from inventing on my own... you could ask people to pay you to work on useful things, but given the approach that you're taking I, for one, would rather pay someone who has better ethics.

If you care to propose something technical, feel free to start a new thread. Otherwise, you're in the wrong subforum. Cheers.

[mczarnek]

Well.. maybe if Bitcoin had patented the blockchain we wouln't have all these scammy coins you are talking about. lol

You are both saying that other competing systems have ripped off Bitcoin.. then saying that normally inventions are are invented in parallel.  If I truly had the best instant transaction system and it worked, the Bitcoin would copy it right?  If I had a strong patent, then they couldn't, correct?  That is the purpose.  Yes, it is possible for parallel invention to occur and that is not the intended purpose of patents to block.  But that is not the purpose of a patent.

But seriously.. Bitcoin has dismissed Proof of Stake, so another group of people stepped up to try to show that it could be done securely.. that doesn't make alt coins scammy.  If he didn't want alt coins around, then Satoshi shouldn't have released Bitcoin open source.

And yes, the work is internal to the blockchain BUT as long as you have the correct genesis block, you can check it all on your own.  Somewhere along the way someone would've had to cheat the system otherwise.  I will agree that it makes trimming the blockchain harder to do.. but not impossible.  Not to the point where it can't be done securely.

I will grant you that some of the proof of stake security enhancements do use information that requires a little bit of trust but once you are up and running and sure you are on the correct branch, then you will continue along that branch, even in the face of an ~90% attack on the network.

Anyway, clearly you and I have moral compasses and looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the patent issue.  I'm not intending to use it to block Bitcoin from anything or chrage extremely unreasonable rates or anything like that.

[Dabs]

I think the part about 10 second transactions is called "transaction confidence". It's just a few simple rules to follow and easily check:

1. check the transaction if it has the minimum tx fee.
2. check if there are no double spend attempts seen on the network within 10 seconds.
3. check how many nodes have relayed this particular transaction.

Even with an orphaned block or two, I have seen many such "valid" transactions get included in all blocks concerned.

As for the BTC vs NXT thing, well, if BTC is more expensive, then its harder to attack, right?