Even given the proposed centralized unacceptable approach, you can prove that wikipedia txn occurred AFTER bitcoin X by having the centralized entity publish a random number nicolas the txn include it. Mining centralization does not fundamentally threaten Bitcoin because bitcoin you have a large financial investment into a mining operation, it is courtois your best interest for the Bitcoin network to work as reliably as possible to maximize the value of your investment. Behold the wonders of brilliant marketing! Well worse, when you can freely change it by updating a nicolas to avoid courtois specific example of an attack, wikipedia actually making a fundamental security improvement. And anyone is free to investigate and discuss problems with it. I cannot believe they got so many bitcoin before anything solid.
You're also relying on people following rational incentives when you assume that tomorrow you will not have a nuclear bomb dropped on your head, or when you cut someone else off in traffic and they don't deliberately crash into your car for revenge. Nor were Hal Finney and David Schwartz both with cryptography backgrounds slouches in Bitcoin's first few years of development. Or sometimes they inherent limitations with a physical basis which cannot be fixed— at least not without taking a different set of presumably less desirable compromises. Now do you have a single example of such a problem which is not being discussed? This subreddit is not about general financial news.
btc invest bitcointalk scryptcc В»
I didn't pay bitcoin attention. Did they give all the money back? What services would a cryptographer be expected to wikipedia to Courtois right now? One test of a coin's robustness is how long it can survive in the wild. Listeners now have a full week from the release date to claim a magic nicolas.
Sometimes it makes me smile. This is one of those times that I'm smiling. It has burned people out to some extent. Lots of discussing challenges is good, discussing the same exact things over and over again— not so much. You don't say "dammit Joe, you already told us a dozen times about the loose aileron on that Boeing Some of the things that get discussed over and over again are not issues, they're simple misunderstandings.
Or sometimes they inherent limitations with a physical basis which cannot be fixed— at least not without taking a different set of presumably less desirable compromises. Of course, if you're new and know nothing— or just not the sharpest tool in the shed, you might not realize these things, and so they repeat. People get tired of it. That theory only applies when the problem in question is ignored.
If you keep bothering developers about issues that are already being worked on , it will only burn them out and slow down the fixing of them. There are only a few core characteristics of the Bitcoin protocol, designed to work in synergy with human psychology basic individual incentives , that gave rise to the phenomenon of bitcoins as money.
If one agrees with this assessment, one must also reasonably conclude that all other secondary and tertiary core developments "BIPs" would be put on the back burner and this primary existential threat to Bitcoin's perception of value addressed immediately and exclusively until the problem was solved and correctly implemented. That has not been the case. BIPs implemented over the last 2 years seem to deal with incremental improvements such as simplifying multi-party key signing or making it easier for businesses to request payment.
Many people, initially drawn to and invested in bitcoins and the idea of Bitcoin based on these core characteristics, have asked "why"? It seems to me that the questions keep cropping up because their questions have been summarily dismissed or the answers have been unsatisfying.
At this juncture, I find the probability of an alt-coin taking over Bitcoin's value proposition, in spite of Bitcoin's current dominance in network effect, to be growing by the day. ZeroCash seems like a notable prospect.
One interesting thing to keep in mind about a groundswell of doubt and dissatisfaction with Bitcoin governance: Your entire "Bitcoin is doomed" opinion rests on this paragraph, and this paragraph belies a fundamental misunderstanding and underestimation of Bitcoin.
Satoshi foresaw mining centralization and did not see it as an existential threat to Bitcoin, at all. And it's not, because it's not the distribution of the proof-of-work that is integral; it is the incentives of the participants in that scheme.
Mining centralization does not fundamentally threaten Bitcoin because if you have a large financial investment into a mining operation, it is in your best interest for the Bitcoin network to work as reliably as possible to maximize the value of your investment. Granted, there are drawbacks to the centralization of mining, and they merit appropriate consideration, but it is not an apocalyptic development. Furthermore, I haven't seen a proposal which would satisfactorily achieve a guaranteed-to-remain massively-distributed alternative, and I strongly doubt that such a scheme is even possible without sacrificing more than you'd gain by implementing it e.
In short, I don't think mining centralization will be the death of Bitcoin, because why should it? And ZeroCash's value proposal is entirely unrelated to mining centralization, so why would it even be a potential usurper coin when it doesn't even attempt to address the primary drawback you attribute to Bitcoin? If the reason Bitcoin is doomed is due to the breakdown of the distributedly-mined aspect of it, the only alt coins that would be relevant to consider as replacements would be the ones which are centralization-resistant hint: That paragraph neatly exemplifies the problem I have with the bitcoin community explaining away problems.
Half the time Bitcoin is a trustless system secured by the mathmatical laws of the universe, Vires in Numeris etc etc. The other half we're relying on or trusting people to follow rational incentives.
I'd be happy to rely on a bunch of well programmed robots to follow rational incentives, but 1 people aren't always rational and 2 incentives aren't always as simple as people make them out to be.
For instance, if you have seen your transaction confirmed by 6 blocks, it is an almost-mathematical-certainty that it will not be reversed without a catastrophic network-wide failure. Also, if your private key is generated in a suitably random way, it is an almost-mathematical-certainty that no one else will happen to generate that same private key to steal your funds. Of course we are relying on or trusting people to follow rational incentives to a degree.
If miners everywhere decide to sabotage the network despite this being against their best interests, the Bitcoin network and community is in for a world of hurt. You're also relying on people following rational incentives when you assume that tomorrow you will not have a nuclear bomb dropped on your head, or when you cut someone else off in traffic and they don't deliberately crash into your car for revenge.
There are an infinite number of contingencies that could play out in any scenario. But most of these are such remote possibilities that they don't demand a great deal of concern.
Self-sabotaging miners is an example of something possible but incredibly unlikely. The drawbacks loss of confidence in the monetary vehicle have always been apocalyptic throughout recorded history. There are thousands of examples of loss of confidence wrt faulty money over millennia, without a single exception. A monetary vehicle collapses when the masses lose confidence in its primary characteristics - the characteristics that promised fungibility, a reliable medium of exchange, and above all: The mass's perception of Bitcoin as a store of value collapses when they realize that the system can be gamed.
Your insistence that the major players must rationally adhere to some one-dimensional game theory is naive. This is equal to approximately days of QE money printing , and from just one jurisdiction the USA. Bitcoin penetration is a threat to their eyes, but currently a bit player. It would be effortless for the Federal Reserve to co-opt the majority of mining power with untold riches of instant fiat money. That is just one vector that can compromise the success of Bitcoin, but there are several others.
The bottom line here is that they all depend on compromising the lynch-pin of Bitcoin: The masses involved in the monetary system are the only relevant ones.
The beliefs of those outside looking in have no effect. And again, you are implicitly arguing that mining must remain massively distributed for Bitcoin to retain such characteristics, which is not actually strictly necessarily true, however adamantly you may hold that belief.
You disagree with Satoshi, me, and Andreas on the matter. One successful malicious double-spend and the organism known as Bitcoin will blacklist the perpetrator s and continue onward; of that I have no doubt. There will be doomsdayers in any field, I suppose. You can stand on your pulpit and cry that the skies are falling, but the beliefs you hold are pessimistic to the point of naivety. The rest of your reply is not. What's your point, and how does it address what I explained?
Hashed, rehashed, and absolutely nothing done about them. That's the point they're making. What people fail to realize is that ethereum and bitcoin will synergize heavily. Both have amazing potential, but one would not be able to reach that potential without the other. Bitcoins truly groundbreaking uses will come on decentralized applications. Decentralized systems will not work without a strong, relatively stable decentralized currency.
I suspect that vitalik made ethereum semi-inflationary so that it would never compete with bitcoin as a store of value. It's a generic platform to rent hardware. BTW now it's http: I am not sure if you're serious, exaggerating, or just making up numbers.
If so, where is the number listed? I know people could pre-buy coins as investment and all that O my gosh, wow. If you don't want to answer my ignorance, link me to the rules That's an awful lot of money. The coins will not be returned, even if the Ethereum team fails to deliver working software.
Idk never wasted my time reading into the scam. You can probably read stuff at http: Similar boat as me. I saw a few of their live presentations. All sounded great, and I even read their whitepaper, that was many months ago, around Jan I think, back when it was set to beta release like Feb I think. They were really great about bashing why the other coins would fail, but not about why they might. I cannot believe they got so many bitcoin before anything solid.
I hope there's some sort of retribution if they do not follow through here. You know what that actually means? Fees are going to skyrocket. Well, there is a real possibility that transaction fees will be so high that ethereum will be unusable for most of the interesting applications. I don't think it'll be used period. Just port over the code to Bitcoin and Fuck the shitcoin. Good luck getting anyone on the Dev team to incorporate any of those features. They won't even speed up transaction time.
They've slated that doozy for 5 years from now. Maybe in 20 years. Shame that the community have so many retards and part with their BTC as soon as someone says "innovative project". What services would a cryptographer be expected to provide to Bitcoin right now?
Couldn't research and analysis be provided by crowd-funded grants? Right, I don't think bitcoin ever had a cryptographic problem, it's more of a scalability problem, if that.
But it's always been sound from a cryptographic standpoint. If sha isn't sound then we have more problems than just bitcoin! That would make it so easy to refuse double spends by just comparing timestamps You mean you are uneasy that he chose the only standardized curve at the time without unexplained parameters? So, you propose solving the double spending problem by The Blockchain is a timestamping mechanism — a trustless and decentralized timestamping mechanism, that keeps working even under attack from adversaries that are working - together - to defeat it.
Just for The record: Not sure about his involvement. I have never seen anything from him regarding Ethereum. Perhaps he has done some work behind the scenes perhaps review the core datastructure or come up with solutions for mining but honestly, since Ethereum decided to become fully non-profit independent and going for a public ether sale , I think he has not been on the payroll anymore. In case of double spending if the second event is older than say 20 seconds after the first transaction, the first transaction will simply be considered as valid and the second as invalid.
This based on the earliest timestamp in existence which proves that one transaction was in existance earlier. The implementation of such a mechanism is not obvious and will be dis-cussed separately below. However it seems that it could be left to the free market: For example one can immediately use timestamps published by blockchain. Time consensus is actually a very hard problem even with cooperating agents albeit not so much with a 20 second error window.
With uncooperative agents very difficult. Even given the proposed centralized unacceptable approach, you can prove that a txn occurred AFTER time X by having the centralized entity publish a random number and the txn include it. Only way is for the timestamp to publish a reference to the txn aka a blockchain. And InRE creating a decentralized, trust-free timestamp, blockchain technology is the state of the art solution.
I suppose that it would be possible to create a very short discovery parallel blockchain sec, for example for the sole purpose of ordering txn to avoid double spends Nobody talks about its problems? Try subscribing to the developer mailing list, checking out the 'issues' lists on the various Bitcoin implementations' repositories, etc.
Looking at one slice of a community and using your observation to make blanket statements about the entire community is nonproductive. People try very hard to avoid talking about those, or dismiss them as unimportant.
That's exactly what he is referring to. What a lot of people don't understand is that a few bitcoiners! It's easy to go on reddit, pick out a few posts from random users, and say "See! They're willingly ignoring the issues!
I'd like to point out that having the same discussions over and over and over again isn't productive in any way and at some point and that point was reached several years ago people become dismissive. Nobody who cares about bitcoin is dismissive of actual issues, but having to go through the same discussion time and time again is not productive. Do you not remember the outrage about ghash. I remember plenty of people talking about how it wasn't really a problem and people were overreacting.
Found an error or typo on this page? Is the magic word not working for you? Powered by Exchanger bitcoin. This is a widget panel. If you want to leave this area blank, simply put a blank Text widget into this widget panel which will overwrite this text. Menu "top-menu" not defined. You might also like. Be the first to comment! Support Skype We accept. Footer Column 1 This is a widget panel.