|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
proudhon
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1311
|
 |
May 31, 2012, 05:32:37 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen:  |
Bitcoin Fact: the price of bitcoin will not be greater than $70k for more than 25 consecutive days at any point in the rest of recorded human history.
|
|
|
|
niko
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:17:03 AM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
|
They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
|
|
|
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:22:48 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen: I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood. Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it. |
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:32:05 AM |
|
Relatedly, this is the coolest bitcoin infographic I've seen: I really like this as well. Look forward to infographics like these and more in the Bitcoin Magazine in the future. We were a bit too busy last month to include more than 2 into the first issue. I agree with our marketing lead Mihai Alisie that they are crucial for bringing new blood. Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
Love it. My guess is that Post #3 will be addressed and Matthew will have this as the centerfold in some upcoming issue of Bitcoin Magazine. ~Bruno~ |
|
|
|
|
LightRider
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1021
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
|
|
May 31, 2012, 06:55:38 AM |
|
I used to love reading Spectrum when I was a young EE/CS student. I also like the graphic.
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:18:18 PM |
|
Awesome graphic.
|
|
|
|
ThomasV
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1896
Merit: 1353
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:20:50 PM |
|
I'd like to know what Glenn exactly wears
|
Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
May 31, 2012, 01:20:58 PM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently. |
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1174
|
|
May 31, 2012, 02:10:56 PM |
|
Seems decent, except for the "public key cryptography 101" box: analogy with a pair of keys is confusing and wrong. My favorite explanation is the one I stumbled upon on this forum (not sure if Netrin came up with it or he adopted it) -
Yeah. Here's a magical analogy for public key cryptography: I generate a private key and numerous public unlocked treasure chests. I give these open treasure chests to all of my friends (it's easy to copy them). Whenever a friend wants to send me a message, they just put the message in my public treasure chest and close the lid. Now even they can not open it again. Only I, with my unique private key, can open the chest.
After I generated the public keys, I don't really need them any more, unless I want to send messages to myself. But no one needs the private key to lock a message. The private key is only required to open a message.
I don't see anything that is technically incorrect about the PKI explanation in the graphic. Do you care to explain what is wrong with it? netrin's quote is cool for the noobs, but it doesn't mean that what is in the graphic is incorrect at all. Both quotes are very correct and explained differently. It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing. |
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
May 31, 2012, 02:14:45 PM |
|
It's also not really relevant, as it describes public-key encryption (which isn't used in bitcoin) instead of signing.
OK I can see the confusion then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
