What the expense of mining buys you is censorship-resistance. So they can "unspend" their own bitcoins, as follows: Bitcoin paper ownership exchange change hands. The maaku ledger history is exposed. If you have ideas for the remaining BTC, see here for more info.
He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth. The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted. Freimarkets solves a superset of the problems BitShares seeks to solve, although the implementation pathway is completely different extensions to bitcoin instead of a new system entirely. A gold standard makes debt deflation routine whereas fiat money systems make it much easier to adjust to systemic capital flows. But if too much of the network is controlled by a minority, then it's not automatically more secure. You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki:
Maaku Bitcoin network exchange a steal by comparison. I understand that bitcoin turbines can maaku that kind of power, in fact I used to work on some pretty large turbines and turbo bitcoin in the MW range. Reload to refresh your session. I exchange I will be forced to do it. Therein lies the problem:
buy bitcoins with credit card anonymously В»
As described by Pieter Wuille[8] the 1-of-N scheme is particularly useful for constructing honeypots. The desire is to put a large bounty on a server, larger than the value of the server itself so that if the server is compromised it is highly likely that the hacker will claim the bitcoin, thereby revealing the intrusion. However if there are many servers, e.
It would be desireable if the same bounty was shared across multiple servers in such a way that the spend would reveal which server was compromised. This is accomplished by generating 1, different keys, building a hash tree of these public keys, and placing each key and associated Merkle path on separate servers.
When the honeypot is claimed, the previous owner of the coins can tell which server was compromised from the key and path used to claim the funds.
Good don't want to rush it like the other shitcoins, this beast need slow and methodical testing. I can think of two fuckups that have already happened off the top of my head. To be fair, letting them have veto power for Pareto improvements is a good idea, in case a bug is discovered. But Segwit wasn't a Pareto improvement.
They are paid to mine not think! Its one thing to rush, its another to take so fucking long the chain dies. Devs need to step on the fucking gas and start doing things already. You realize bitcoin is open source correct? This is the most entitled fucking comment I have encountered on here, and I've been here for a long time.
What the fuck makes you feel you can tell the "devs" what they need to do and don't need to do? Do it yourself or sit back, shut the fuck up, and enjoy the free ride. If you want to avoid per tx fees then you need to move to second layer solutions like lightning. The next step is for a few people to review it who have been contacted privately, then to make a pull request against bitcoind.
It'll take time to get into the bitcoin code repo let alone activated. MAST improves Bitcoin in three main ways: Bitcoins script language is very limited by design. Ethereums solidity is essentially turing complete and the Ethereum network is a giant virtual machine. There are plans to implement smart contract features on bitcoin either as extensions to the new segwit system or as separate chains tightly connected to the bitcoin blockchain.
Everything that bitcoin smart contracts can ever be able to do Ethereum will probably do slightly better due to Ethereum being made as a smart contract platform from the start.
This is of course conditioned on Ethereums ability to survive some rather complex challenges in the near term. If eth manages to transition to proof of stake and sharding it will become extremely powerful in a way that bitcoin just can't compete with directly. But then again the atomic cross chain currency swaps that are coming up will make jumping between chains a breeze.
It might even be useful to have a store of value chain like bitcoin and a smart contract chain like eth separate. The potential for both is only bound by the imagination of the developers and the needs of the future economy. I'm not familiar with rootstock, but what could take the wind out of ethereum is smart contacts with strong formal verification capabilities. To many people wanting to do the easy thing and getting burned as a result. MAST is a step in that direction. Did you really take that offensively and downvote me?
Lighten up and have a laugh dude. Would you rather me say "Like my mom" instead? Because happy to do so for your feelings if needed. I don't know your mom. You cannot possibly think I do, so acknowledge that and don't be offended.
Thats actually the point. You setup the worlds most obvious setup and I walked up to the tee-bat and hit a dribbling shot and barely made it to first when most kids would have tried their hardest to hit a home run. Actually, I would love amazon to start selling it. As this is a soft-fork it would be backwards compatible right? I'm assuming the txn 1. Requires segwit and 2. Can be safely ignored by nodes that don't want to update their clients? Given that, what sort of flag day timing would there be?
A year sounds pretty reasonable to me This is pretty early stages still. A lot of the developers are reviewing the BIP and trying to poke holes in the idea from a theoretic stand point. After we feel comfortable with these BIPs abstractly I think will really dive into the implementation details.
Thanks a lot for posting this. We need more every day people aware of these kinds of improvements in the works.
Now for my concern. Imagine a company that has a web wallet service that offers full featured MAST transactions. And the company, at the "request" of some third party, adds one more hash to each Merkle tree in each transaction. Users have no way of knowing about this additional hash. That is until their funds are confiscated. From my understanding, there are no reasons to use MAST for regular transactions.
No quite the opposite. You should be using more complex policy than a single signer signature, for your own safety, like a 2-of-3 trustless 2FA or 2-of-2 with time-out release of funds. But doing that right now fully identifies the wallet software you are using, or worse the specific wallet and thereby deanonymizing you. MAST would allow you to just reveal the spend condition used, which will be a 2-of-2 or 3-of-3 without revealing any of your wallet specific recovery conditions or smart contract contingencies.
I get your point but do exchanges support withdrawal to P2SH address today? I believe tell me if I'm wrong they don't, so they will probably not support MAST either and it will be up to you to setup such protection for your coin after a P2PK withdawal.
Til But could this be a problem? It's up to you to create a script, hash it and send the address to the exchange, so there is no way an exchange can add a hidden condition to your MAST script right? Participants of MAST transactions can verify there are no hidden spending conditions by requiring to see each hash pre-image of each hash. It's essentially a smart contract - read the fine print, so to speak.
This makes for big transactions, data-wise, and for expensive transactions, fee-wise. By only requiring users to include the script that is actually used in the end, MAST improves scalability.
It reduces the amount of data that must be transmitted, validated and stored by all nodes on the network. Very little at the moment. MAST is intended to free up capacity which would be used by complex authentication schemes or complex smart contracts.
Currently, every transaction from this wallet would require the entire script to be included in the blockchain. All those different options with different numbers of public keys, or public keys which can only be used in certain combinations, require additional lines of code in the script.
So even for a normal spend by the customer, the "in case of death" contingency plan also needs to be published. Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: August 24, , The specification is now reasonably complete enough that we would like to receive input from the community.
The full specification is available for download as a PDF document - what follows is a high level summary. Furthermore, we have a crowd-fund in progress to help pay for the necessary development to implement this. Any feedback from the technical people here would be especially welcome. Herein we propose a new transaction format which enables hierarchies of independently verified sub-transactions, additional validation scripts and introspective opcodes, strict currency controls for user assets, as well as relaxation of the rules regarding coin generation via coinbase transactions for the purpose of supporting user-defined assets on the block-chain.
We also introduce the concept of private centralized accounting servers to perform transactions of off-chain assets that cam interact with each other as well as with in-chain assets. These changes necessarily require a hard-fork, and will be deployed to the Freicoin chain first merged mined against bitcoin.
Here are some example applications we've worked out in detail: Issuing new assets by means of asset definition transactions coinbase transactions other than the usual first transaction of a block. Issuing unique and indivisible assets that are transferred in sets instead of numeric amount, and allow fast look ups on their current ownership to enhance smart property use cases and manage some permissions of the regular custom assets.
Atomic exchange of assets of differing types through inclusion of inputs and outputs of both types in a single transaction. Signing orders partial-transactions giving up one asset in exchange for another that are binding but not completed until they get into the chain as part of a balanced transaction, and have attached expiration dates or can be explicitly cancelled by double-spending the signed inputs. Executing an arbitrary number of these orders atomically by creating a complete valid transaction where the orders are included as nested sub-transactions , thereby executing an atomic trade without requiring each of the parties to be online or in direct communication with each other.
Composing orders from separate markets into an atomic trade with intermediate assets enables payments based on transitive trust relationships. Destruction of coins, tokens, or assets when no longer needed by a special class of non-spendable, prunable output script. Restricting the conditions by which a transaction or sub-transaction may be selected for inclusion by specifying validation scripts , which are run when the enclosing block is validated. Introspection of the block chain from within the bitcoin scripting environment is enabled by the introduction of new opcodes.
Running accounting servers as private chains with centralized rather than distributed consensus, in which off-chain assets can be issued, transferred and traded in the same way they are in the public chain, with the private block chain providing an audit log.
This requires the ability to extract proofs from the observed chain in order to validate conditional transactions. Restrict the usage of a custom asset by assigning to it rotatable signing keys which that must sign all transactions involving the restricted assets prior to inclusion support for KYC regulatory compliance. This proposal adds primitives to bitcoin necessary for implementing non-currency financial constructs, such as dividend-yielding bonds, asset ownership tokens, credit relationships, a variety of forms of smart contracts, and distributed marketplaces for exchanging all of the above.
Private accounting servers provide a mechanism to support unlimited volume of off-chain transactions while being able to interact with in-chain assets through atomic cross-chain trade and an integrated peer-to-peer market. Coins created in such generating transactions are not bitcoins, but rather user-issued asset shares which represent fungible ownership of the underlying asset type, or asset tokens identified by per-asset unique bitstrings.
Such coins and tokens can be included in transactions containing regular p2p-issued coins, which in this proposal is sometimes called the host currency or fee currency. The quantity issued may be fixed or he may define a list of issuance tokens that permit their owners issue new units of the asset being defined.
The creator of the asset definition transaction may also specify a list of authorizer tokens. The signature of an authorizer is required every time a transaction involves inputs or outputs of that asset. It also allows issuers to charge fees when the assets are traded or moved.
Using unique tokens to manage new issuance and authorizers allows the creator to follow his own key cycling policy or security protocols. By utilizing multisig or multiple signatures, it is possible for transactions to remain valid even across one or more key rotations. This proposal extends the transaction format with an optionally empty nested level of sub-transactions.
Sub-transactions differ from regular, top-level transactions in that their inputs and outputs are not required to balance and they have associated with them a quantity and granularity allowing for fractional redemption.