Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@bluemoon, @cypherdoc:
I do wonder.
On the one hand, our noses seem to work the same re: the DAO attacker's interview clues, based on writing style and I suppose general level of conceit?
OTOH, who would be so stupid to link to a suspicion-directing blog post if that suspicion were then directed accurately to themselves.
Then there's Popescu. What is the relationship status between him and PT?
It's noticeable that LJR went to his den to grovel for a HF opinion, and not e.g. PT.
And I've read PT and LJR are not on the best of terms.
Painting someone you don't like as a suspect could be a side benefit here.
Another thing that struck me was the use of Keccak for the message hash - when LJR recently proposed Keccak in a snide POW replacement pull request (forget whether it was to XT or Classic).
Again, this looks like someone deliberately trying to implicate members of Core (or being really foolish and dropping clues as to their own identify). Then again some dishonest folk are well accustomed to hiding in plain sight.
Either way, if I were an investigator I'd be happy at the large amount of clues left.
I do wonder.
On the one hand, our noses seem to work the same re: the DAO attacker's interview clues, based on writing style and I suppose general level of conceit?
OTOH, who would be so stupid to link to a suspicion-directing blog post if that suspicion were then directed accurately to themselves.
Then there's Popescu. What is the relationship status between him and PT?
It's noticeable that LJR went to his den to grovel for a HF opinion, and not e.g. PT.
And I've read PT and LJR are not on the best of terms.
Painting someone you don't like as a suspect could be a side benefit here.
Another thing that struck me was the use of Keccak for the message hash - when LJR recently proposed Keccak in a snide POW replacement pull request (forget whether it was to XT or Classic).
Again, this looks like someone deliberately trying to implicate members of Core (or being really foolish and dropping clues as to their own identify). Then again some dishonest folk are well accustomed to hiding in plain sight.
Either way, if I were an investigator I'd be happy at the large amount of clues left.
Last edited:
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
What with it fast approaching sunday here's the long weekend read.
(As if you didn't already have enough to distract you)
The Satoshi Affair
Andrew O’Hagan on the many lives of Satoshi Nakamoto
A very well written piece that has so many nuggets of information it will certainly leave you wondering?
I think there is a lot more to this story that may take years to come out.
(As if you didn't already have enough to distract you)
The Satoshi Affair
Andrew O’Hagan on the many lives of Satoshi Nakamoto
A very well written piece that has so many nuggets of information it will certainly leave you wondering?
I think there is a lot more to this story that may take years to come out.
Christoph Bergmann
Active Member
It's really bad that norway has the Best wifi landscape in the World ... I just wanted to go fishing, but now, with The dao imploding and bitcoin price and mempool exploding, I look into my stupid Smartphone while having the worlds most wonderfull landscape right before my eyes ... Norway, You live in a lovely country!
Anyway ... I dont like the anti-ethereum mentality present here, and i think, if you principially reject a fork because of "too big too faul" dao, You Are not too far away from "its socialism to force bigger blocks" core ...
I like ethereum, i like the idea of dao, and i am nothing but said that it failed so dramatically ...
I hope ethereum survives it and i hope they learn from it. The dao failure will be a markstone in the History of xryptocurrency, if eth survives.
i hope the slock.it guys dont go the way of danny brewster. As far as i know them, they are nothing but enthusiastic to realize their decentralized blockchain machine ...
Ethereum is the First altcoin that deserves a right to live, and You can't reject that, if You ever tried it out and thought about what could be done if ethereum was real Money - or just real bitcoins - ...
Ok, i m drunk and norway would understand. I wished we could met and trink, but i guess its not possible.
But, please ... Dont be dickish if it comes to ethereum ... The car, not Mercedes was the Revolution, and its cryptocurrency, not solely bitcoin, what makes and drives us crazy ...
I m a bad fisher. Everyone arount gets large heilbutts, and i, i just get Baby dorschs i need to throw back in the sea ...but i dont care and enjoy every second i am here ...
[doublepost=1466292626][/doublepost]
Anyway ... I dont like the anti-ethereum mentality present here, and i think, if you principially reject a fork because of "too big too faul" dao, You Are not too far away from "its socialism to force bigger blocks" core ...
I like ethereum, i like the idea of dao, and i am nothing but said that it failed so dramatically ...
I hope ethereum survives it and i hope they learn from it. The dao failure will be a markstone in the History of xryptocurrency, if eth survives.
i hope the slock.it guys dont go the way of danny brewster. As far as i know them, they are nothing but enthusiastic to realize their decentralized blockchain machine ...
Ethereum is the First altcoin that deserves a right to live, and You can't reject that, if You ever tried it out and thought about what could be done if ethereum was real Money - or just real bitcoins - ...
Ok, i m drunk and norway would understand. I wished we could met and trink, but i guess its not possible.
But, please ... Dont be dickish if it comes to ethereum ... The car, not Mercedes was the Revolution, and its cryptocurrency, not solely bitcoin, what makes and drives us crazy ...
I m a bad fisher. Everyone arount gets large heilbutts, and i, i just get Baby dorschs i need to throw back in the sea ...but i dont care and enjoy every second i am here ...
[doublepost=1466292626][/doublepost]
And thats so crazy, so full of conspiracy and history that it would ne stupid to not enjoy the ride neither where You stand
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Exactly, it's a $70M crime scene (depending on how you look at it) and the "attackers" are leaving clues everywhere.
I have a strong feeling we might see some identities resolved WAY before Satoshi reveals themselves
It could be Gox-equivalent in terms of cryptocurrency history.
It's also a proving ground for so many companies in the chain analysis field to show whether they are selling snake oil or whether they should be taken seriously (*).
I really don't need a TV anymore, this is good.
(*) Including but not limited to those performing connection exhaustion attacks on the network ;-)
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,695
Very good people are being driven away to alt-coins by BS-Core and its toxic dev environment which has resulted in group-think which rejects external opinion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4onxt1/hello_ethereum_community/?ref=share&ref_source=link
@seweso has long been one of the most consistent and measured debaters on r/btc and r/bitcoin arguing for Bitcoin on-chain scaling and many of the market-driven solutions which are heard in GCBU.
The BU community owe thanks to him for giving us the BitcoinUnlimited github organization. Sad to see him gone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4onxt1/hello_ethereum_community/?ref=share&ref_source=link
@seweso has long been one of the most consistent and measured debaters on r/btc and r/bitcoin arguing for Bitcoin on-chain scaling and many of the market-driven solutions which are heard in GCBU.
The BU community owe thanks to him for giving us the BitcoinUnlimited github organization. Sad to see him gone.
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
Look at who this guy follows on twitter - follow/follower lists are listed in reverse chronological order:
https://twitter.com/ChrJentzsch
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Happy to see you back @Justus Ranvier!
Now that you are back, I’ll post some thoughts I’d be interested to hear your opinion on.
I have been reading about BIP75 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip-simplifies-bitcoin-wallets-for-the-everyday-user-1461856604), which is an extension of BIP70 payment codes to allow encrypted address exchange between wallets.
Your proposal, BIP47 (Reusable Payment Codes) is another scheme for wallets to coordinate addresses for payment between them.
The nice thing about BIP47 is that it does not require back-and-forth communication between sender and recipient. A feature that seems nice about BIP75 is that it facilitates bundling additional metadata with payments. I imagine things like linking payment transactions to invoice numbers, receipts, etc.
To my mind, these two BIPs are the sorts of developments that can increase Bitcoin’s utility and lead to growing adoption. I would be curious to hear opinions on how these two BIPs compare, and if they work together or solve different use cases.
I have a user experience in mind where a payment could basically be sent as an email attachment. The sender would send an email with an attachment containing a transaction and some metadata. The receiver would then open the attachment with his wallet, which would then transmit the transaction to the network. Perhaps one or both of these BIPs could facilitate something like this.
Now that you are back, I’ll post some thoughts I’d be interested to hear your opinion on.
I have been reading about BIP75 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0075.mediawiki, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bip-simplifies-bitcoin-wallets-for-the-everyday-user-1461856604), which is an extension of BIP70 payment codes to allow encrypted address exchange between wallets.
Your proposal, BIP47 (Reusable Payment Codes) is another scheme for wallets to coordinate addresses for payment between them.
The nice thing about BIP47 is that it does not require back-and-forth communication between sender and recipient. A feature that seems nice about BIP75 is that it facilitates bundling additional metadata with payments. I imagine things like linking payment transactions to invoice numbers, receipts, etc.
To my mind, these two BIPs are the sorts of developments that can increase Bitcoin’s utility and lead to growing adoption. I would be curious to hear opinions on how these two BIPs compare, and if they work together or solve different use cases.
I have a user experience in mind where a payment could basically be sent as an email attachment. The sender would send an email with an attachment containing a transaction and some metadata. The receiver would then open the attachment with his wallet, which would then transmit the transaction to the network. Perhaps one or both of these BIPs could facilitate something like this.
kyuupichan
Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 95
- 348
I feel big change is coming towards the end of July; hold strong!
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Hi @Christoph Bergmann!
It would be cool to meet for a beer if you're going to Oslo. (I assume you're on the west coast, since you're fishing for heilbutts (halibut in english, kveite in norwegian.))
Heilbutt - Halibut - Kveite
jbreher
Active Member
- Dec 31, 2015
- 166
- 526
Yeah - hell with the DAO (like we couldn't have predicted that fiasco) - this story is gripping.
[doublepost=1466324361][/doublepost]Fun thought before signing off for the night - what if the DAO's exploiter was CSW?
Last edited:
molecular
Active Member
- Aug 31, 2015
- 372
- 1,391
yes I have.
Does this have anything to do with the text you quoted about the "28 days DAO token withdrawal red flag" or was that just "accidental quoting"?
If you want my opinion about trezor password store: it really got me excited and I plan to migrate to it, but I will take my time with that.
I cannot vouch for any security properties of the solution at this point.
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
Here are some thoughts on Ethereum from someone who hasn’t actually been paying much attention to it. (But I’m not one to let a little thing like that stop me from having an opinion.)
When I first learned around Bitcoin back in early 2012, my reaction was something along the lines of: “holy shit! This changes everything!!!” To me, Bitcoin’s value proposition was pretty apparent and pretty huge. Money is really, really important. Our current monetary system is deeply, deeply flawed. And Bitcoin seemed to, at least potentially, offer an alternative that didn’t suffer from those flaws and was just vastly superior across the board. Assuming it actually worked, it was taking the reliable scarcity of a commodity like gold (and improving on it by providing something with a perfectly predictable and finite supply) and combining it with the transactional convenience of a purely-digital medium. And doing so via a decentralized and censorship-resistant network. I mean, holy shit! That seemed like something that might prove to be a really, really big deal.
On the other hand, when I hear people talk about Ethereum and “smart contracts,” my reaction is more like: “Huh. Yeah, I guess that might be kind of cool. Possibly. One day.” Maybe I lack imagination, but the value proposition just isn’t as immediately obvious to me. Is there some super-compelling future use case for “smart contracts” that I’m missing? (So far, the biggest actual use case seems to have been an $80 million clusterfuck.)
I’m not trying to claim that “smart contracts” won’t prove to be useful and important at some point in the future. But it does seem clear to me that, at least in the near- to medium-term, the significance of the cryptocurrency use case of “smart contracts” absolutely pales in comparison to the cryptocurrency use case of “sound money.”
Because of that, my intuition (as an admitted non-techie) is that you really don’t want the smart contracting stuff occurring at the “base layer” (and thus, Ethereum is taking a fundamentally misguided approach). Instead, that functionality should be moved to a “layer two” that operates above the blockchain. Now it might be the case that moving the smart contract stuff to a “layer two” has certain downsides for the smart contracts themselves, e.g., in terms of convenience or security. (In other words, it may be analogous to the problem you have when you try to make Bitcoin a “settlement layer” and move most payments to a “layer two.”) But, more critically, allowing the smart contracts to execute on the “base layer” seems likely to have downsides for the far, FAR more important “sound money” use case (if for no other reason than it adds additional complexity and thus inherent additional risk). So it seems like the choice is probably a clear one (and Bitcoin is getting it right).
By the way, I just visited ethereum.org for maybe the first time and this is literally the first paragraph on the home page: “Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.” Seems like that statement might be due for an update, no?
EDIT: And of course, another flaw with Ethereum as an investment, and a point I've made many times before, is that "Bitcoin" isn't really the current protocol that's used to maintain the Bitcoin ledger. It IS that ledger. Even if the Ethereum protocol represented a significant improvement over the current Bitcoin protocol (again, something I strongly suspect is not the case), that would simply be an argument for forking Bitcoin to copy Ethereum's protocol while preserving Bitcoin's ledger. It would NOT be a good reason to migrate to the less-mature Ethereum ledger. "Scrapping ledgers and starting over every time a new protocol is invented would be madness. It would defeat the entire purpose of money which is to preserve a record of value given but not yet received. It'd be sort of like deleting all of your files every time you upgrade your operating system or buy a new computer."
When I first learned around Bitcoin back in early 2012, my reaction was something along the lines of: “holy shit! This changes everything!!!” To me, Bitcoin’s value proposition was pretty apparent and pretty huge. Money is really, really important. Our current monetary system is deeply, deeply flawed. And Bitcoin seemed to, at least potentially, offer an alternative that didn’t suffer from those flaws and was just vastly superior across the board. Assuming it actually worked, it was taking the reliable scarcity of a commodity like gold (and improving on it by providing something with a perfectly predictable and finite supply) and combining it with the transactional convenience of a purely-digital medium. And doing so via a decentralized and censorship-resistant network. I mean, holy shit! That seemed like something that might prove to be a really, really big deal.
On the other hand, when I hear people talk about Ethereum and “smart contracts,” my reaction is more like: “Huh. Yeah, I guess that might be kind of cool. Possibly. One day.” Maybe I lack imagination, but the value proposition just isn’t as immediately obvious to me. Is there some super-compelling future use case for “smart contracts” that I’m missing? (So far, the biggest actual use case seems to have been an $80 million clusterfuck.)
I’m not trying to claim that “smart contracts” won’t prove to be useful and important at some point in the future. But it does seem clear to me that, at least in the near- to medium-term, the significance of the cryptocurrency use case of “smart contracts” absolutely pales in comparison to the cryptocurrency use case of “sound money.”
Because of that, my intuition (as an admitted non-techie) is that you really don’t want the smart contracting stuff occurring at the “base layer” (and thus, Ethereum is taking a fundamentally misguided approach). Instead, that functionality should be moved to a “layer two” that operates above the blockchain. Now it might be the case that moving the smart contract stuff to a “layer two” has certain downsides for the smart contracts themselves, e.g., in terms of convenience or security. (In other words, it may be analogous to the problem you have when you try to make Bitcoin a “settlement layer” and move most payments to a “layer two.”) But, more critically, allowing the smart contracts to execute on the “base layer” seems likely to have downsides for the far, FAR more important “sound money” use case (if for no other reason than it adds additional complexity and thus inherent additional risk). So it seems like the choice is probably a clear one (and Bitcoin is getting it right).
By the way, I just visited ethereum.org for maybe the first time and this is literally the first paragraph on the home page: “Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.” Seems like that statement might be due for an update, no?
EDIT: And of course, another flaw with Ethereum as an investment, and a point I've made many times before, is that "Bitcoin" isn't really the current protocol that's used to maintain the Bitcoin ledger. It IS that ledger. Even if the Ethereum protocol represented a significant improvement over the current Bitcoin protocol (again, something I strongly suspect is not the case), that would simply be an argument for forking Bitcoin to copy Ethereum's protocol while preserving Bitcoin's ledger. It would NOT be a good reason to migrate to the less-mature Ethereum ledger. "Scrapping ledgers and starting over every time a new protocol is invented would be madness. It would defeat the entire purpose of money which is to preserve a record of value given but not yet received. It'd be sort of like deleting all of your files every time you upgrade your operating system or buy a new computer."
Last edited:
@Roger_Murdock : I guess I am probably closer to a 'techie' than you are (if you decidedly reject that label ... ;-) - but I still fully agree with this assessment.
Bitcoin without the script language and just simple address -> address payments would have been successful as well. The (so far!) simple script language is a very nice addition, and uPayment-Channels or LN are certainly good ideas to put on top - eventually, and in a way that at most has minimum potential to disturb the operation of the base layer.
Also, depending on what you call Bitcoin, it can already be considered turing complete. If you take computers that interact with the Bitcoin blockchain to be part of the Bitcoin network (and why shouldn't you?) the whole network is turing complete, and the computers on the edge of the network can simulate whatever complexity there could be in Ethereum.
All that is needed is the trustless payment layer that is Bitcoin. Arbitrary software on top can then enforce the more complex rules.
I also see no reason why this software on top cannot be decentralized and censorship-proof - if you assume LN can.
Bitcoin without the script language and just simple address -> address payments would have been successful as well. The (so far!) simple script language is a very nice addition, and uPayment-Channels or LN are certainly good ideas to put on top - eventually, and in a way that at most has minimum potential to disturb the operation of the base layer.
Also, depending on what you call Bitcoin, it can already be considered turing complete. If you take computers that interact with the Bitcoin blockchain to be part of the Bitcoin network (and why shouldn't you?) the whole network is turing complete, and the computers on the edge of the network can simulate whatever complexity there could be in Ethereum.
All that is needed is the trustless payment layer that is Bitcoin. Arbitrary software on top can then enforce the more complex rules.
I also see no reason why this software on top cannot be decentralized and censorship-proof - if you assume LN can.
