Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
being able to recover from seed allows you to get your wallet back even if you lose your hardware.
with the new design you'll still be able to recover the basic data from seed, but can lose a bunch of info related to the advanced functionality of the wallet (unless you are in possession of a backup).
track the evolution here: https://medium.com/@roger.taylor

@kyuupichan what do you think is best practice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
I always thought hardware was frivilous; seeing how dependent it makes the end user on the personal philosophy of the companies is another problem in my view. Unless you consider USB drives 'hardware'. but they are ubiquitous/ low cost.

good to know they still have basic seed functionality @79b79aa8
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
i did mean to include USB drives, you need to have the object, and for it to work properly.
ability to recover from seed / use properly constructed brain wallets always blew my mind.
it's a tradeoff (versatility and advance usability vs. a type of security), but one likely only really relevant for OGs. in any case one can have different types of wallets for different types of uses.

i agree that e.g. the trezor wallet interface sucks for anything more than sending coins from address A to address B, and it is not likely to change because those guys are stuck in the original accumulation model. and if you want to even label your txns you have to put the data on effing dropbox -- please.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
i think the gaming example (different from the gambling one) is pretty cool. this is one place where BSV starts siphoning off ETH usecases.
interesting read from Kronoverse/CryptoFights:
Ethereum offered an interesting prospect and opportunity to build on while all of this was happening, but ultimately after years of research and development, Ethereum creates more problems than it solves. With an ever-changing protocol, it is near impossible for developers to keep up and actually build something stable for the world to use on a massive scale. A constantly changing base layer protocol does not offer the level of security an enterprise is looking for to roll out massive, fast transaction processing.
The current implementation of Ethereum faces similar problems BTC faces with regards to transaction processing, but albeit in a different manner. While Ethereum definitely processes transactions much faster and cheaper than Bitcoin Core (BTC), the transactions are executed serially instead of in parallel which in turn creates an escalation in gas prices. The end result requires increasing gas costs to essentially skip the line to get your transaction processed the fastest; or build additional layers of complexity on top of Ethereum. In order to create a fluid gaming experience and to ensure stability, security, and scalability we need microtransactions.
The key to being able to support microtransactions with millions of transactions per second (TPS) is low fees and instant, 0-confirmation processing. Imagine a scenario where I want to repair my armor in-game, but I am out of in-game currency; I could simply pay ⅕ of a cent out of my Bitcoin SV wallet to make the repair. Yet, I would never make this purchase if the transaction fee was 5 cents or even 1 cent, nor would I wait 3 minutes for the transaction to process. Blockchain should enable gamers, not inhibit them. We want that repair to be instant and fast.
 

cypherblock

Active Member
Nov 18, 2015
163
182
Well Eth still wants to move to PoS, so that removes a lot of bottlenecks. Not saying they will ever get there.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
the same article talks about issues with POS. for example, in EOS (a DPoS blockchain that raised billions in its ICO) two of the top 7 block producers are huobi and bitfinex. the exchanges can game the system: they can hijack liquidity flowing through them to become one of the favored block producers and eke some profit instead of reinvesting. and even if you are not an exchange running a vicious circle on a blockchain, once you become a favored block producer you can entrench yourself in that position stifling competition and growth.

ETH is at sea without a rudder.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
oh my. what an admission from one of the most respected minds in the space:

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Norway

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
will the erebus attack divert attention to the solving of a non-problem? kind of like SM which BU is still working on, even as BCH falls orders of magnitiude behind on scaling...


Oh Segwit
trezor's fix causes interoperability problems with other wallets:
sometimes i fantasize about what would have happened if @awemany had allowed the BTC bug to be exploited. but it takes a big man to play clean when others play dirty.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
will the erebus attack divert attention to the solving of a non-problem? kind of like SM which BU is still working on, even as BCH falls orders of magnitiude behind on scaling...



trezor's fix causes interoperability problems with other wallets:
sometimes i fantasize about what would have happened if @awemany had allowed the BTC bug to be exploited. but it takes a big man to play clean when others play dirty.
Potential hyperbole aside, Trezor said that it’s keeping the fix simple. Trezor CEO Pavol Rusnak explained in a statement: “The fix is straightforward—we need to deal with Segwit transactions in the very same manner as we do with non-Segwit transactions,” which involves the wallet checking and re-validating all of its previous transactions before sending new ones.

Trezor was one of the main supporters of SW due to segwits potential to materially decrease the computation required by it's HWW in terms of having to fully check reference input tx's and their balances. segwit embeds the BTC balance into the previous UTXO, or something along those lines. all those savings are out the window now since they have to go back to referencing the entire previous tx's origins now. so sad as such is the story around devving changes you don't fully understand while assuming you're better than Satoshi.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Potential hyperbole aside, Trezor said that it’s keeping the fix simple. Trezor CEO Pavol Rusnak explained in a statement: “The fix is straightforward—we need to deal with Segwit transactions in the very same manner as we do with non-Segwit transactions,” which involves the wallet checking and re-validating all of its previous transactions before sending new ones.

Trezor was one of the main supporters of SW due to segwits potential to materially decrease the computation required by it's HWW in terms of having to fully check reference input tx's and their balances. segwit embeds the BTC balance into the previous UTXO, or something along those lines. all those savings are out the window now since they have to go back to referencing the entire previous tx's origins now. so sad as such is the story around devving changes you don't fully understand while assuming you're better than Satoshi.
quite the fallout:

 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
here is séchet thinking that he is better than the market at determining which BCH projects are viable (at the time he was dreaming he would get to decide how to allocate IFP revenue):



here is toomim thinking that he is better than miners at determining what size blocks it's economically viable ("safe") for them to construct & propagate:



meanwhile other BU devs continue to be convinced that double-spending is a major issue for them to resolve at the protocol level, despite very good arguments, some even coming from their own former members (gap600) rather than some evil enemies, that in those cases it might pose a problem the issue is resolved by incentives at the market level.

which is why usually companies are not run by CTOs and IT folk.