Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
Villanova's Kris Jenkins hits 3 pointer with 0 sec left FTW 77-74.

Best college game i've ever seen. Congratulations Villanova!
[doublepost=1459828426,1459827492][/doublepost]who the hell does brg444 troll think he is criticizing everybody in every discussion in Bitcoin?:

 

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Maybe Adam Back just doesn't understand that March Madness is just a basketball tournament, not literally being a lunatic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cypherdoc

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,998
It's April.

Maybe he'd rather be a Fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: albin

johnyj

Member
Mar 3, 2016
89
189
Malleability is completely transversal to double spending. Double spending is possible since day 0 of bitcoin, and that's why we usually wait some confirmations on a tx.
If wait for confirmation then there is no malleability problem

Smart contracts are not related to physical/virtual objects. Smart contracts is a script to redeem a transaction. A multisig tx is a very simple kind of smart contract. A tx with a locktime is another simple kind of smart contract. The bitcoin script opcodes are a way to build more complex contracts, and since this is a very new field of research available only when a digital currency like bitcoin is well established, I think it's normal that as time passes new ideas pop out and new opcodes are being proposed.
The more complex (and useful!) contracts you can do on the network, the more precious it gets.
That's kind of mindset I don't like, since the more complex it gets, the more time it takes to reach consensus, might from years to decades, but I won't worry about something that happens after I died

Prepaid cards are useful for solving a set of problems like micropayments (you can use it to make a 10c phone call that otherwise would be difficult to bill on a credit card), and so they gained a lot of space in the market.
In fact this model has been mostly abandoned by telecom operators years ago, and replaced with fixed monthly rate regardless of usage/quota model. Only a very small percentage traffic are still billed on prepaid card model
For a major change yes, but since they expressly reserved a num of NOP codes in the script they were able to push new opcodes in a short time, like OP_CTLV and OP_CSV, via a softfork.
Try to explain these to average users and miners (who hold the decision making power for change) and see how long it takes to get them to reach consensus. Previously all the decision making power of code are purely centralized on devs, this have to be abolished as we learned the hard way
 
Last edited:

johnyj

Member
Mar 3, 2016
89
189
Can somebody explain this attack? I'm having a hard time following, I think there's some crucial aspect I'm not picking up on.
The logic flaw in segwit softfork: It tries to fool the original nodes into believing that every segwit transaction is valid (anyonecanspend) without signature data

As a result, if there is an invalid segwit transaction in a block, it will be accepted by original nodes and build blocks upon it. However, this block will be rejected by segwit nodes once they activate, thus reject any blocks after it, so from this block onward, network will partition into two parts
 

Lee Adams

Member
Dec 23, 2015
89
74
So am I right in this is what Adam Back seems to be suggesting:

50%+ of miners (which may possibly even be 1 entity, who knows?) suddenly introduce a new rule saying:

"Until the halvening, difficulty is now increased, so reject any blocks which are under this temp difficulty".
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
In the Bitcoin Core Sponsorship Programme you can find, amongst various other things they are ready to finance:
  • Improve block relay
  • IBLT
  • Research and on how to do a hard fork safely
  • Flexicap blocksize
  • Relay network maintenance
  • Relay Network v2
What's the purpose of that? They declared that they don't want to increase the size of the block and then the finance research/code in things like Flexicap Blocksize?

Maybe they do this because they want to give the impression that they are open to those ideas, while in reality they just want to stall the development?

Anyway, it would be nice to propose sponsorship of the BU X-Relay implementation for core, this way if they get it developers can get compensated for their work, while if they don't their hypocrisy would be manifest.
 

Dusty

Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
362
1,172
If wait for confirmation then there is no malleability problem
That's the point I'm making: if you don't wait, malleable or not, the tx can be double spent.
That's why malleability in LN is important only for internal (to the channel) transactions and not for opening or closing the channel, where you wait for the usual N confirmations.

That's kind of mindset I don't like, since the more complex it gets, the more time it takes to reach consensus, might from years to decades, but I won't worry about something that happens after I died
I suppose you don't understand what "programmable" means.
If you have consensus for a set of opcodes you do not need any consensus at all for any usage of them: a simple P2PK tx or a multisig with nlocktime or a more complex one gets correctly validated (and thus has full consensus) since the very first Bitcoin release that implemented the used opcodes. You do not need a new consensus for any way you combine their usage (i.e.: the program you write with them).

It's human creativity that find new ways to use those opcodes to create something new and more useful, that's why you can use programs as complex as like the browser you are using right now, programmed (or programmable) with a few basic operations (opcodes) that Alan Turing envisaged decades ago.
The consensus on the working of those basic operations is enough to make any program, ever. (That's what "touring complete" means, btw).

In fact this model has been mostly abandoned by telecom operators years ago, and replaced with fixed monthly rate regardless of usage/quota model. Only a very small percentage traffic are still billed on prepaid card model
You are not understanding the issue: of course operators prefers to bill you a periodic rate, but they can do it only if you are a usual customer of theirs. Prepaid cards were not invented for this purpose, but for managing to offer a service for just one time to a customer, on the fly.
While its usage is dropping because there are more useful alternatives (like using Internet cafes instead of doing long-distance calls), they are all but dead: my wife works in a shop where they still sells a lot of them daily.

Try to explain these to average users and miners (who hold the decision making power for change) and see how long it takes to get them to reach consensus. Previously all the decision making power of code are purely centralized on devs, this have to be abolished as we learned the hard way
Do I need to show you that thanks to softforks, new opcodes like OP_CTLV has been introduced in the network in a very short time without any difficulty at all, and without requesting any consensus by final users? They just had to wait miners to adopt latest bitcoin core version.

We need new opcodes every once a while because Bitcoin scripting language (unlike Ethereum's) is not Turing Complete and hence it can't implement arbitrary complex programs.

Personally I find OP_CTLV and OP_CSV excellent new opcodes that could one day foster Bitcoin usage, so I'm fine they get introduced with a soft fork in place of NOP codes expressly put there for that purpose (extendibility).

But I'm not fine to use a softfork (like Core is pushing) to drastically change the whole scripting capabilities with a whole new set like SegWit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee Adams

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Anyway, it would be nice to propose sponsorship of the BU X-Relay implementation for core, this way if they get it developers can get compensated for their work, while if they don't their hypocrisy would be manifest.
"Please note that this programme is tailored for industry participants, and at this time we have no mechanism for accepting smaller donations."

projects will be individually managed by a separate lead, who will be responsible for heading the project as well as allocating funds.
Also, the look on one's face when Luke-jr or Peter Todd are allocated as lead on such a project: priceless.
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
I'm wondering if someone with high public media profile could ask the Reddit admins to look into how it came about that the information about @rocks' SatoshisBitcoin fork was suppressed via a site-wide shadowban.

In particular, I am thinking about two people who could probably ask this:
  • Andreas Antonopoulos
  • Roger Ver
What do you think?


OT: My favorite quote fished from the Internet today:
The necessity for protection against the hazards of lightning manifests itself from time to time in the mining industry
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
@rocks, would you consider resubmitting to /r/btc so we can see what happens?

---
"Roger Ver Speaks Out Against /r/Bitcoin Censorship"
https://news.bitcoin.com/roger-ver-speaks-rbitcoin-censorship/

I've emailed the author with a request to bring the SatoshisBitcoin censorship case to Roger Ver's attention. I'll report back here if I get a response.
 
Last edited:

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
@freetrader I'll do this in a bit. I'd like to make some improvements based on the public test a couple weeks ago (which went really well) to help the networks better partition and also get a basic website up. Then I think it makes sense to try announcing it again, hopefully in a couple weeks I've been slammed with day job and family commitments. Anyone open to helping is more than welcome, just PM me.

The sitewide ban still seems strange to me, it happened so quickly and requires higher level moderator privileges than bitcoin mods have. One possibility is I originally was doing everything behind tor and maybe reddit flagged the IP address being used and auto banned the account. Might be the simplest explanation. But I also remember the initial post was visible for the first 10 minutes and then was pulled, which is why I am worried that isn't what happened. Either way the unbanning is nice. I complained a bunch to reddit yesterday....

@bluemoon That /r/ShadowBan bot is amazing