Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Christoph Bergmann]

To be fair, there is a point you have here of course (same as why libraries exist). I just suspect the blockchain will be a particularly bad place for that. What can be coalesced/hashed/summarized will likely be summarized in the long term, due to economic forces.

Hm ... history is full of faked documents. Often it is impossible to say what version of a document is correct and which not. If your sources are based on materials, you at least have indicators like material analyses to decide if something is a fake or not. With documents going digital, this could become a major problem in the future.

Some kind of public time-stamping server is absolutely needed. You could use Git or you could hash data, but I think it is hard to publically proof that data existed at a certain date (newspaper don't dissolve after 1 day), and it is hard to proof the authorship of a document. With bitcoin's blockchain you can proof both.

Sure, there can be other blockchains, but we all know that the security of a blockchain derives from its value and is interconnected with it. For example, a lower value blockchain can be 51-attacked, if a mighty power really really wants to destroy / fake a certain document. The devaluation of the currency could be a collateral. If you have a world currency, like Bitcoin could become, you would have really securely timestamped documents at a place the world agrees, and with several independent software tools and libraries to crawl it.

Kind of. I just don't think the blockchain will become/stay a database, as I tried to explain above. At a txn cost of zero, demand is infinite.

That's the point I disagree. It is still a pain to upload data to the blockchain, and a pain to query the data. This makes demand not infinite. Also, if you look at dropbox, google drive and so on: They offer a certain space for free for everybody. And still there is a limit of demand. I did not push against the limits of my accounts, by far, because I have a limited demand for cloud space. The cost is that somebody can spie on my data. With Bitcoin this cost is infinitely higher. Also you have upload as a limit, and the time to start the copy.

So, no, high demand, maybe higher than it's good for a currency, but not infinite. Saying that demand is infinite, because something is for free, is a invalid simplification of economic theory, similarly to when you say exponential growth will reach an infinite number (it might do in theory, but in nature it flats out at some point of satisfaction).

However, I still don't think it is a good idea to provide blockchain space for free. It will make a blockchain to a testnet for developers trying fancy scripts or contracts; also I don't think that you should do things like supply chains or so, because only the primary use of blockchains, money, adds value and security.

--

@albin Yeah, I know, that's the difference between nature and computers. Nature is fault tolerant, while computers are not. I seriously belief that we will have no real AI until computers learn this.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

i don't know, but the day will come when we'll see an add from BullShit Bank: 'Blockchain is in our DNA'.

I am pretty sure that I've read that exact statement from a company already..

It is the idea to make the blockchain the most important database of humanity.

I don't see why and how.

Hm ... history is full of faked documents.

Well, that is a case where I see Bitcoin having value, for time stamping data. But for your DNA example: Imho the sane way is, to save the DNA data on as many servers as you want to worldwide in a distributed database and timestamp a hash for every database status in the blockchain.

With the possibilities of creating video animations, that look like reality, in the near future, maybe surveillance cameras should timestampa hash of their recordings every hour or so in the blockchain for the recordings to be valid as evidence.

Some kind of public time-stamping server is absolutely needed.

Agreed, one of Bitcoins most prominent and easiest to understand use cases besides being money. And the only time I have ever used Bitcoin for something else than exchange of value.

But I don't see the need for most data itself to be stored in the blockchain instead of a hash.

For example, a lower value blockchain can be 51-attacked, if a mighty power really really wants to destroy / fake a certain document.

Another point why I think, there will and should be one, and only one, dominant blockchain.

@albin Yeah, I know, that's the difference between nature and computers. Nature is fault tolerant, while computers are not. I seriously belief that we will have no real AI until computers learn this.

A computer is as fault tolerant as you tell him to be. And if you tell him to figure out the fault tolerance for himself, he will do that.

 

[awemany]

Hm ... history is full of faked documents. Often it is impossible to say what version of a document is correct and which not. If your sources are based on materials, you at least have indicators like material analyses to decide if something is a fake or not. With documents going digital, this could become a major problem in the future.

Some kind of public time-stamping server is absolutely needed. You could use Git or you could hash data, but I think it is hard to publically proof that data existed at a certain date (newspaper don't dissolve after 1 day), and it is hard to proof the authorship of a document. With bitcoin's blockchain you can proof both.

Yes, sure! But why not hashing? That only needs something like 256 bits of entropy in the blockchain, and if you merge it together with a lot of other documents in a merkle tree, you can timestamp the exabytes of the entire humanity's DNA at just the cost of 256 bits into the blockchain.

So maybe we have talked past each other here?

That's assuming that your hash function is never going to be broken. But if SHA256 is broken, Bitcoin and all the mechanism that make it work are in deep trouble anyways ...

 

[sickpig]

Re: this whole issue of "replay protection," I feel increasingly convinced of the following:

I think it's the responsibility of those choosing to create a minority spinoff by refusing to follow the most-PoW chain to add strong replay protection by hard-forking to a new mandatory transaction format. So I do think if the mining majority want to make the planned 2X upgrade a success, they should be prepared to 51% attack and destroy a SegWit1X chain that refuses to at least implement strong replay protection (if not also change its PoW). It's not clear how viable a minority hashrate SegWit1X chain would be without hard forking in an EDA given the brutal economics of the "difficulty death spiral." But in any event, I think 2X supporters should commit to killing off such a chain (forcing it to hard fork) to render any bogus argument that it represents the "real" / "original" Bitcoin (and is thus somehow entitled to the "Bitcoin" / "BTC" name and ticker) even more untenable than it would already be. To be clear, I'm totally fine with people deciding to maintain a minority hashrate SegWit1x chain starting from a particular UTXO snapshot. (I don't see a whole lot of utility in such a thing, but different strokes for different folks.) But if they don't want their chain to be viewed as hostile, they need to go about it in a way that minimizes disruption to the actual Bitcoin chain.

[doublepost=1506096377][/doublepost]

my BU 1.1.0 node was stuck on "activating best chain..." splash screen for about 30mins, but just letting it run it eventually gets in. and i got to Vote!

please try to update to BUcash 1.1.1.1 and try again.

if the problem persist open an issue on github and ping us on the BU slack.

 

[Bagatell]

Re the time stamping, data verification thing - Factom have this covered, though they need a cheap enough blockchain to anchor to.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I'll just leave that here..

 

[adamstgbit]

my BU 1.1.0 node was stuck on "activating best chain..." splash screen for about 30mins, but just letting it run it eventually gets in.

please try to update to BUcash 1.1.1.1 and try again.
if the problem persist open an issue on github and ping us on the BU slack.

I should upgrade, but the problem is mostly how i use (or abuse) the node...for a time i had it all synced and running just fine, then i stop running it for months, then i ran it up, it downloaded a bunch of blocks, and i turned it off again, when i finally turned it back on it seem to validate ALL the blocks it had downloaded / not validated yet, and since my HD is slow... it took awhile.
its a bit shameful to admit it, but i dont have any real need to run a full-node.

 

[79b79aa8]

when consensus is reached we all get a sticker and a lollipop.

 

[awemany]

Less than two months of self-selected suffering left for the Core camp. It would have been so easy: Just get over yourself and accept the 2x. Like we got over ourselves on SegWit (or at least work on a decidedly separate, differently named, replay-protected spin-off now).

What the fuck are Maxwell, Back, btcdrak and the rest thinking? That they can avoid this at the last minute?

I suspect the NO2X plate (or sticker or whatever it is) and the UASF hats might become collectibles 10 years down the road. "Remember these nutters?"

So given that they will have value - maybe proof-of-sticker might actually work? /s

ROTFL.

After decades of folks on the planet getting used to such abominations like 'big brother' reality TV shows, we now ended up with a true and live mental asylum with glass walls: the /r/Bitcoin crowd.
[doublepost=1506099648,1506099048][/doublepost]@Bagatell: Factom always seemed to me just like a hyped piece of software to assemble merkle trees of document hashes - but that might be my ignorance showing.

 

[adamstgbit]

TBH, I like the idea of storing the human DNA in the Bitcoin blockchain. Human DNA is about 600MB, which should be ok ... ideally it is done in a way that it can be pruned ... Think about it, one money for the whole world, and the history of transactions contains the most important documents of humankind, like the Bitcoin Whitepaper or the human DNA. I love this idea.

Since uploading data to the blockchain is never free, and if you pay 1 Sat / byte, and if the information is 50 percent of the transaction storage[*], you'll need 1,200,000,000 Satoshi, which are roughly $50k.

The idea, that suddenly everbody uses the blockchain as a cloud sever - which means when you say "demand is infinite" - is ridiculous. The blockchain is hard to use, hard to query and expensive. You only use it as a cloud server if you really want immutable data and are not satisfied with using Git / several popular cloud servers. Providing space for such informational transactions can be a nice business model for miners when block rewards runs out. BitFury already does it by uploading governmental data on the Bitcoin blockchain.

I agree, however, that such models would form some kind of miner cartel. Miners will explicitly or implicitly agree on prices for non-transactional data.

[*] There are several methods to upload data on the blockchain:
- as op_return, adding 80byte (40bytes?) to the transaction, so it could be something like 80 of 300 bytes
- as some kind of special output. I don't have the numbers, but I think it is even worse
- the ideal method to store data would be to do it in two steps: 1. transaction a little bit Satoshi to an anyone-can-spent address, 2. do an op_return transaction from the anyone can spent. This should optimize the share of information data in the UTXO set

I think a good way of making a file immutable Via blockchain, is to only store the hash of the file on the blockchain. you can store the 600MB Human_DNA file anywhere you like spread it around etc. what makes this file immutable is the fact that it can be validated as unchanged from the original, by checking the hash stored on the blockchain.

this makes the cost of making a file immutable tiny, and the end result is more or less the same, you end up with the same amount of confidence that the file is authentic.

 

[awemany]

@adamstgbit: I appreciate that you like my voting system, by the way

 

[AdrianX]

Why would anybody store DNA in the blockchain?

one aplication could be: Human rights, and property rights.

The moment you take land away from everyone and give it to someone, one gains a right at the expense of the rights of others - what happens is you deny all others the right to work that land without free market compensation, you need to resort to the state to protect the inequality or you need to use violence in the absence of the state yo protect your claim.

One way to reconcile this is to give every living human being equal rights on a blockchain let the market dictate the value of land and let those who use more land compensate for those who use less. it may look like universal income to some.

 

[albin]

Genome sequencing is not accurate enough for any of these applications if you're timestamping a hash. The probability that you will get exactly the same sequence from repeating testing of the same individual is basically impossible. The accuracy is tremendous now, but not tremendous enough to reliably produce the same hash from independent trials given very low failure rate multiplied across a gigantic data set.

You would have to come up with some kind of subset of known loci, where different alleles are identified and sequenced, and you just screen for probability that the individual has that allele, and record the known sequence of that allele instead of the exact sequence that you produced.

 

[awemany]

"Because fees are too low without a block size limit, we need to push transactions off-chain into separate payment networks, so that the miners get paid properly."

The essence of Core's argumentation tactics and logic and conflict of interest.

I am still amazed and disappointed that the miners didn't immediately respond with a resounding "fuck you" to this bullshit.

 

[adamstgbit]

BUIP064 has been rejected!

does this mean BU will officially no longer be compatible with bitcoin-core? and BU will now be building solutions exclusively for Bitcoin Cash!?

I think it was a tough call, and some poeple might really not like this outcome... how do the devs that voted YES to BUIP064 feel about this?

 

[AdrianX]

No BU will still be compatible with the Bitcoin network, and prior to the 2X fork miners are unlikely to mine blocks with it. BU will have a BCH and BTC comparable implementation.

With a little more consideration, discussion and strategic forward thinking if vote to implement segwit in some capacity. but no rush right now, its not BU that's making the network vulnerable, it's Segwit users should not rush to adopt it.

 

[bitsko]

anyone know if @Zangelbert Bingledack is doing well?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@bitsko

I am doing well, taking a long-needed break. Now that the things I've been pounding the table about for years are no longer just theories but have actually come to pass, I am sitting back and watching it all unfold. May the best fork win!

 

[Richy_T]

Sure, there can be other blockchains, but we all know that the security of a blockchain derives from its value and is interconnected with it. For example, a lower value blockchain can be 51-attacked, if a mighty power really really wants to destroy / fake a certain document. The devaluation of the currency could be a collateral. If you have a world currency, like Bitcoin could become, you would have really securely timestamped documents at a place the world agrees, and with several independent software tools and libraries to crawl it.

Perhaps we need a different kind of blockchain. One where a "trust fund" can be set up and can only gradually be drawn from if the data it is supposed to support can be cryptographically proven to still be in existence. Ideally, this trust fund would have to have the opportunity to grow, perhaps through investment and be able to be supplemented by those who believe the data to be important.

This idea that a one-time payment would obligate future entities to maintain data in perpetuity is nonsense on the face of it. The small blockers kind-of lean this way but fail to take things to the ultimate conclusion. (Us big blockers also kind-of ignore it but I think that's OK in the short term and is not something to cripple Bitcoin for at this stage).
[doublepost=1506299803][/doublepost]

Genome sequencing is not accurate enough for any of these applications if you're timestamping a hash. The probability that you will get exactly the same sequence from repeating testing of the same individual is basically impossible. The accuracy is tremendous now, but not tremendous enough to reliably produce the same hash from independent trials given very low failure rate multiplied across a gigantic data set.

I think one has to make a distinction between storing data in the blockchain and storing proof of authenticity of data in the blockchain. They are quite different applications.

 

[torusJKL]

The Armory fragmented backup implementation was vulnerable.

According to the developer everyone using it should upgrade to 0.96.3 and create new backups.