Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Maybe I should be more clear. The notes in question have a visible address, and a hidden secret key. The secret key can be revealed, but it will be obvious that it has been revealed. So i goes hand to hand until someone "scrapes" it. It is not like fiat money, because you can check all the time that the address is loaded. It is the real bitcoins, they are in the secret key. The trust needed is that you believe that nobody else knows that key.
I thought of this in 2011 and came to the conclusion that it's a matter of trusting the issuer.

I say it's like fiat but I should have said it's more like paper money for the 1890's a gold backed note. If they are never redeemed they could be double issued. And when it came time to prove it the issues could just say it's a counterfeit.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
damn, looks like Classic lost Marshall Long & Finalhash. i'll bet it was b/c jtoomim ran his mouth in that Guy Corem chat which Corem is now trying to use as a wedge to split jtoomim & Long as well as to shamelessly advocate a POW change for Core so he can get back in the biz of GPU miner sales as a 2nd chance:

https://bitcoinclassic.com/

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.kxprgfdij
ok, just talked with Olivier.

he says that Marshall Long is still 100% onboard with Classic.
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
I suppose that depends on how we perceive the reality of what Bitcoin is. Personally the idea of changing POW, and saying that investors do not matter, or do not even exist. Seems to be disconnected from what Bitcoin is today to me. Of course these thoughts could be coherent if we are envisioning a radically different cryptocurrency to what Bitcoin is today, which is what I suspect Luke Jr. is doing. Therefore radically changing Bitcoin is consistent with such a believe. But to think that they could convince the rest of the community to go along with this in the way that they have gone about it, I have to say, I still think that has to imply some kind of disconnect with reality, for some people at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golarz Filip

jaffer

New Member
Dec 27, 2015
7
7
If they are never redeemed they could be double issued. And when it came time to prove it the issues could just say it's a counterfeit.
If no paper notes are ever redeemed they could be double issued.

But if a (small) part of the notes are in fact redeemed this would force the issuer to not double issue notes.
Otherwise if a non-backed note is found, this would destroy the confidence in the paper money.

It would not even be necessary to hide the private key on the note, it would actually be better without.
It could work like this:

An organization or preferably a government could issue notes with a bitcoin address printed on it along with a denomination.

The amount printed on the note should be stored in the bitcoin address of the note.
This could be verified by anyone at any time.

The notes should be redeemable to digital bitcoins without any fee.

However, the issuer could have printed several identical notes.
To make sure this is not the case, concerned citizens should redeem some notes at regular intervals.
There should only be two transactions fro each note:
One deposit at the day of printing and one spend when the note is redeemed.

If there are several deposits for the same address, this means that the issuer has cheated
and printed several identical notes.

This will make the notes as anonymous as todays fiat paper money, and would scale,
since the wast majority of transactions would be off chain.

This would give a fully backed, anonymous and scalable currency this would not be possible for a government to tamper with.

Or is there something I have not thought about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
I was thinking like a credit card NFC device, that may be burn once and then never access. These would have standard denominations tho, not like a gift card since that would be pretty painful to make change.

There are embedded "harvard" architecture devices that protect their code in this manner today. I'm not sure that you couldn't get the data out of them using million+ dollar forensic devices though. And just like dollars you may have to periodically reissue them -- perhaps the device has a single time readout function -- after you use this function, it bricks itself.

You could just put a pile of them on a special counter (NFC reader), and the register automatically counts up their actual bitcoin balance. If you don't trust the device or the person, you could read it out right away... presumably in the near future these devices get really cheap... recently I went to a hotel with NFC key cards.
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
RE: bruce fenton saying theymos is a hero
Wow. I just lost all respect for fenton, if he really said that. No matter your stance on block size, stopping a fundamental human right -- freedom of speech -- is despicable. And there is no such argument "speech is still free -- just not in my forum." because "Speech is still free, just not in my country, state, u fill in the blanks".

RE: soft fork vs. hard fork.
It looks like devs are finally starting to struggle with what is an appropriate soft fork. I would argue that the criteria should be "is the change an incremental feature that old clients will not see or utilize while using existing bitcoin features?" For example, multi-sig fits that definition. But in the SW case, the expectation is that all new clients start using SW txns for every txn. So a client needs to understand SW if it wants to verify ANY transaction coming from a SW client, but old clients will be "tricked" into thinking that they have verified it.

In other words, if you had some hash power, it would be very easy to temporarily spend (from the perspective of old clients) ALL of the coins in any SW transaction -- you would create a fork in the blockchain that looks valid to all old clients and miners, but all SW miners would reject it. If you get lucky (and you can try as many times as you like, losing only the opportunity cost of the miners), these fork will at some point temporarily exceed that of the SW chain.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
That seems more likely.

Theymos has burnt his bridges with everyone except the inner circle at Core by now.

Once a HF occurs he will have nothing to cling to. Should be amusing seeing him wriggle some mental gymnastics to account for his atrocious behaviour. Especially since all the posts from 2013 demonstrate him to fully understand what is going on before his sudden change of heart. Corrupt fucker.
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
Oh... that make a LOT more sense. I had thought Fenton was pretty ideologically sound... shame on me for skimming!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golarz Filip

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
Oh... that make a LOT more sense. I had thought Fenton was pretty ideologically sound... shame on me for skimming!
Hey Andrew, was going to wait until tomorrow to listen to your podcast while in the car to my satellite but couldn't wait. So just listened to it and amazing job! Incredibly well articulated.

Congratulations!
[doublepost=1453667022][/doublepost]
RE: bruce fenton saying theymos is a hero
Wow. I just lost all respect for fenton, if he really said that. No matter your stance on block size, stopping a fundamental human right -- freedom of speech -- is despicable. And there is no such argument "speech is still free -- just not in my forum." because "Speech is still free, just not in my country, state, u fill in the blanks".

RE: soft fork vs. hard fork.
It looks like devs are finally starting to struggle with what is an appropriate soft fork. I would argue that the criteria should be "is the change an incremental feature that old clients will not see or utilize while using existing bitcoin features?" For example, multi-sig fits that definition. But in the SW case, the expectation is that all new clients start using SW txns for every txn. So a client needs to understand SW if it wants to verify ANY transaction coming from a SW client, but old clients will be "tricked" into thinking that they have verified it.

In other words, if you had some hash power, it would be very easy to temporarily spend (from the perspective of old clients) ALL of the coins in any SW transaction -- you would create a fork in the blockchain that looks valid to all old clients and miners, but all SW miners would reject it. If you get lucky (and you can try as many times as you like, losing only the opportunity cost of the miners), these fork will at some point temporarily exceed that of the SW chain.
You should look at my BTCC example.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
guys I don't even know that our lead dev made a speech. I should know better. anyone's kind enough to share the link to @theZerg's podcast?

edit: just to say that bitcoin network has almost reached 1 exa hash, 977,974,959 GH/s to be precise (based on the last 504 mined block)
 
Last edited:

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
856
I thought of this in 2011 and came to the conclusion that it's a matter of trusting the issuer.

I say it's like fiat but I should have said it's more like paper money for the 1890's a gold backed note. If they are never redeemed they could be double issued. And when it came time to prove it the issues could just say it's a counterfeit.
No, it is the actual money, not a substitute. Trust in the issuer is only needed so far as to not keep a copy of the secret key. We have had them all the time, including casascius coins, they have just not been popular.
[doublepost=1453669405][/doublepost]
An organization or preferably a government could issue notes with a bitcoin address printed on it along with a denomination.
You lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
856
There is only one fundamental problem with transferring wallets from hand to hand, and that is you can not prove that you don't know the secret key. That is why we need a number of organizations in the market that can compete on being trusted to forget the keys to the wallets they make. The wallets can be any form: Paper based with key covered under a scrape-away paint, a coin like casascius where the key is hidden inside the coin, a chip card, whatever. Any holder of the wallet can chose to transfer the content on chain. If there is a use case, it will happen, because we already have them.