Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1135. (Read 9723748 times)

Ok, slap on the wrist accepted  

I also thought so myself after stumbling across it again have now deleted that post.

I apologise to AlexGR for dismissing his well made point out of hand.

If it is deployed as it is described in the wiki, I don't see why not:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network

This notion seems to be at the essence of the disagreement. I think you are saying that coins in the channel are not vulnerable to any kind of mischief, and that "the channel" is not a centralized entity. Is that a fair representation?

Edit: I'm not up to any kind of "gotcha" trickery with my question - just trying to understand. The next step would be to try to throw extreme cases at the model and see if it can handle them, but first it's important to understand the model.

Don't worry about what Tok said. I'm not a programmer, so... I do tend to think algorithmically, but other than that, no - I'm not a programmer in any serious or competent degree. I could if I focused on it, but I'm not particularly excited by the way most programming languages are designed and this prevents me from convincing my mind to even bother with their complexity.

Now, on the topic at hand, trying to explain that payment channels are designed to be trustless is kind of similar to trying to explain that masternodes do not have access to people's coins. A lot of people think that money goes from person A to masternode to person B when the masternodes never really take possession of one's coins. Just because they perform the mixing part with other transactions doesn't mean they have to be trusted with one's coins. Payment channels are similar. Nobody has your coins but you. Yes, they are in the channel. Does that allow you to doublespend them as to practice fractional banking? No.

Philosophical issues on whether the monetary properties remain the same while the money are in the channel are kind of trivial in the larger scheme of things. The real life problem is that you need decentralized scaling and you have a trustless and decentralized solution that can provide that, along with faster and cheaper txs. You can leave it on the table or you can take it. Bitcoin will take it. The alternative scaling "solutions" are quite ugly.

It's very interesting that the reddit crowd are now completely dismissing CW's claim to be Satoshi. Yet there's still a nonzero chance that CW:

a) Is Satoshi

b) Is part of the team called "Satoshi"

c) Worked with Satoshi and mined blocks from the beginning, making a substantial part of the coins which are believed to be Satoshi's actually CW's

FWIW, Jon Matonis is still convinced (saying "There will never be another Satoshi," i.e., this one was real so there can never be another).

EDIT: Also, another real problem that I just considered:

There are three possibilities, and only three:

a) Craig Wright really is Satoshi and really did decide to retreat back into obscurity again,

b) Craig Wright mined Block 1 and numerous other blocks believed to have been mined by Satoshi, therefore putting countless coins in play in the future,

c) The guy who spent years maintaining Bitcoin Core is a moron, and so is one of the top guys in the Foundation

...

In the event that a) or b) are true, a large number of coins will almost certainly eventually move. In the event that c) is true, then what does that say for the state of Bitcoin?

Putting myself in the shoes of an outsider, I'm either thinking: "A whole lot of bitcoins are going to come on the market one day," or "The guys that spent years developing Bitcoin are morons, and that makes it a less attractive investment."

I've been keeping the mods busy LMAO:

Bitcoin Forum
Guest
   
Deleted Post
« Sent to: ddink7 on: May 03, 2016, 01:20:51 AM »
   Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
Either Gavin's blog and reddit were both hacked, or Gavin is truly convinced. See reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/user/gavinandresen
Report To Admin
Bitcoin Forum
Guest
   
Deleted Post
« Sent to: ddink7 on: May 03, 2016, 01:21:44 AM »
   Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
This is in the realm of conspiracy theory here, but maybe CW gave definitive PROOF to Gavin but crap to the public in order to discredit Gavin for some reason?
Report To Admin
Bitcoin Forum
Guest
   
Deleted Post
« Sent to: ddink7 on: May 03, 2016, 01:22:15 AM »
   Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
Quote from: toknormal on May 02, 2016, 08:50:51 PM

The BBC is continuing to follow this story on their front pages.

They've now got 4 Bitcoin stories linked on the front page of their world news.

It won't be long before alts start getting wall to wall worldwide blanket coveage as well as the world gets more familiar with crypto-economy Wink



Very, very interesting day. I can't figure it out, other than to assume that CW is eccentric to the point of being almost nuts.

He outs himself last December with shitty, likely forged/backdated, evidence. The world dismisses him. Then he comes forward with public "proof" that turns out to be completely worthless. But in the meantime he meets with Gavin, "proves" his identity in a much more conclusive way, and Gavin believes him. But CW isn't presenting the "proof" that he showed Gavin.

So he wanted to the world to know who he is, but didn't provide the indisputable proof that he could have easily produced? (Sign something with the Genesis key, or at least publish your Block 1 signed message that you did for Gavin). In some moments he seems to want to be recognized as Satoshi, and in others, not at all.

I just feel bad for Gavin. I think he's very trustworthy and very competent, and the sad thing is that if CW doesn't back up his claims with more proof, Gavin's reputation is shot. And that's too bad, IMO.

Crazy day...
Report To Admin
Bitcoin Forum
Guest
   
Deleted Post
« Sent to: ddink7 on: May 03, 2016, 01:22:35 AM »
   Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
Peter Todd says CW is not Satoshi:

https://www.reddit.com/user/petertodd
Report To Admin

.

Tok, your position was quite persuasive and the discussion was very useful before it took that turn. I have the impression that you and AlexGR shared the same axiomatic starting points, but I'm fuzzy as to where exactly you differ, other than your respective opinions. Dismissive generalizations about "programmers" are unhelpful but hard evidence or irrefutable logic to support the opinions would be valuable.

Any online forum is a very "hot" and awkward discussion medium, and of course this troll-infested thread can be hotter than most. Let's not make their lives any easier: http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

You and Alex are discussing really important issues, imho.

what the ...
that is some drama  

Bitcoin expert: It was a mistake to blog about 'creator'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36202904

Too late - We don't have CW to kick around any more. His 15 minutes of fame are apparently over and he has left the building.

http://bitcoinist.net/craig-wright-exits-the-bitcoin-stage-with-weird-blog-post/

Relevance to DASH? Darned if I know.

i saw what you did there crowning !!

http://178.254.23.111/~pub/Dash/Masternodes_Map.html


and i love it  

next superblock : 2016-05-06 22:33:49, block 465248
current block : 464457 (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/)



edit :  or until Craig Wright turns out to be right with his satoshi claim.... then its over too   or will it be a new start ? 

Is it over?

Node40 streamlines blockchain network incentivization

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/node40-streamlines-blockchain-network-incentivization/

Including the part where it says "Typically, the central bank serves as settlement agent."

There's no central bank here. It's between users. There's no trust, no central bank - third party, no counterparty risk and you are always in control as you can close the channel.

It is a win-win.

...

So, per the creator of the coin:

- you can't have small micropayments right now
- you can have them in the future though with tech progress and cheaper hardware/bandwidth which will allow more on-chain txs
- you could scale to any level, including micropayments, if you altered the decentralized nature of the network into a less p2p and more client/server one by consolidating it into a few server farms.

All of the above make sense in terms of tradeoffs. But as I said earlier, we are not here to make centralized paypal #2. We are here for a p2p protocol. Yes, if Bitcoin was hosted on 1-2-5 servers and everyone connected through a thin client, it would scale to visa levels and beyond right now. But how would that be decentralized? How would it be trustless? How would it be protected from someone going in and shutting it down. It wouldn't. It's very simple really. Why all the hate towards bitcoin devs for trying to find alternatives while keeping the nature of bitcoin decentralized?

There is no change in the nature of money. There is no "multiplication" of bitcoins or fractional reserve. There is no trust or counterparty risk. All you have is "locked" funds between two parties, inside the channel, as they are conducting lots of micropayments between them, funds that can be "unlocked" when they want to close the channel. If this can be used to increase adoption and allow more scaling while keeping decentralization, why not? It's a win-win.

That may be one way of seeing it, but only in a vague philosophical sense. The significant property is that cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer, free of counterparty, so users do indeed expect (rightly) that they have it "in their hand" if they receive funds and that the beneficiary has it "in their hand" if they transmit them. (Hence the term "bearer token").

Technologists will no doubt  continue to argue that systems like the Lightning Network are simply solving a technical problem and that there's no impact on the fundamental nature of the monetary medium from approaching it in that way. Coders are conveniently liberated from the constraints of monetary design because to them it's just another task in software space to be solved, so they solve it the way they'd would any other similar problem that passed beneath their noses. Thats why you end up with car crash solutions that totally miss the point of the original invention.

Have a read of the chapter in this document entitled "Open loop payment systems with instant availability of funds". The distinction between a monetary medium that separates the settlement layer from the transaction layer, and one that doesn't is adequately made there. Even the very first paragraph "What are instant payments ?" supplies a convenient definition that everyone can reasonably work with, but when you apply that definition to Bitcoin, it ONLY applies to the Lightning Network, not to the Bitcoin blockchain because bitcoin is going down the road of fiat by separating the transaction and settlement layers.

I'm not saying thats any kind of disaster. It's the obvious thing to do if you've decided that the protocol is "out of bounds" for further development.

I'm just saying people should be honest about what it is and what it isn't and stop pretending that these technologies "scale" bitcoin in anything other than a pseudo-authentic way that does not necessarily do justice to Satoshi Craig's original vision of an instantly transferrable, anonymous, peer-to-peer tokenised asset.

or in QT wallet go to file, receiving addresses and then either copy existing receiving address or create a new one.

in QT wallet,
press Receive - Request Payment - (shows u address and QR code) done

how make receive address in wallet?

Is it Adam Back's fault that Bitcoin can't currently scale in a decentralized manner, to, say, a 300tx/sec level at 100mb blocks - or even 1/10th that? No. These are technical issues. It's not a matter of "convincing" and "religious beliefs".


Why is it then that every altcoin is waiting for bitcoin to solve the scaling issue? If technologists had a solution, where is it? Shouldn't it be available right now in some altcoin? Shouldn't the "market gap" allow altcoins to close in by innovating? Why aren't they?


Remember that bitcoin is all about virtual assets so at every moment you never have anything in your hand. It's all in the "cloud" of the blockchain. Even the notion of the "wallet" is just for familiarity purposes. There is no "my wallet". But even for those who believe there is a wallet, and are engaged in a payment channel to aggregate small payments with greater efficiency, they can close that channel and get the money to their wallet. It's that simple.

We don't have to deal with issues like these because we currently don't have thousands of tx per block to deal with. Otherwise we would probably need payment channels as well. Actually it might also be useful for mixing purposes to offload the bloat of a multi-party, multi-round mixing, into a payment channel, eliminating on chain mixing bloat.

FXOpen Becomes First Retail Forex Broker to Offer Ethereum Trading
(Dash mentioned)

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/trading/fxopen-becomes-first-retail-forex-broker-offer-ethereum-trading/