Topic: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread - page 343. (Read 1276823 times)

Nobody here wants to "encase Bitcoin in minimal purity".

@maaku: Electrum 198 checks eight random Electrum servers for chain length before establishing the trustworthiness of any one instance.

The decision to encase Bitcoin in minimal purity may be technically correct, but I'm personally not interested much in living in the world of today. I want a new world. I can't speak for others, but we have to decentralize everything to get there, and I don't think PhantomPhreak and Xnova are new to worthy goals like this.

I grew up in the age of Napster, and I remember file sharing services being infiltrated early on by those who wished to corrupt the P2P movement. People coming together at large scale is what overpowered it. Bitcoin history runs parallel to P2P history, and so the success of Bitcoin will identically be a question of "people".

Large scale decentralized marketplaces are an essential factor in recruiting people at large to the idea of a decentralized economic system. Consequently I think it is a tactical mistake to become divided on OP_RETURN 80 since it leads to virtually identical network topology, but enables Counterparty and by extension Bitcoin to become massively better at uniting people the world over under a new economic system.

XCP security is a step by step to improve!
In the future the hackers on the XCP no way!

What you said is fishy,
What fishy is going to happen?
 

Very much tempted to contest this, but I have already dragged this thread off topic.

Oh really, which part of stopping scammers from screwing people is a crime?

That's because this part is a lie. I did it myself. It wasn't hard.

Cheers. I think this should be more publicised. I had no idea that there were only 12, or that that 13% of the total hash is controlled by Eligius whose owner has destroyed a different coin which is nothing short of criminal, IMO (I knew earlier he had, didn't know he used others hashes to do so).

Getting back on topic, both MSC and XCP has nosedived. Is it just in response to BTCs performance or due to this OP_RETURN issue?

I've started researching the DHT myself, dexX7. However, a side-chain structure like a DHT would require a good understanding of the particular DHT algorithms that would be a best fit for Counterparty or even Mastercoin or any other possible bitcoin layered protocol.

An interesting introduction to the Chord and Kademilia algorithms is by a bitcoin developer here: http://offthelip.org/?p=149

Do you have any resources that you've looked at as well?

it's good  like "Intel inside"
http://imgt1.bdstatic.com/it/u=4080961430,4012133445&fm=116&gp=0.jpg

Luke will you shut the fuck up? If your not gonna listen to what the community wants, then get out of this thread. You've sounded nothing short of a arrogant prick in all your posts.

If you don't like Counterparty, close the door on your way out.

@atweiden: Bitcoin Core will never, ever compete resource-wise with Electrum. This is because an electrum client has no clue whatsoever about the state of the bitcoin blockchain and relies 100% on the servers it connects to. The server could be lying to you and you wouldn't know it.

That said, the UTXO hash-tree commitments if/when it makes it into Bitcoin Core will let you run a stripped down client like Electrum by connecting directly to any random peer exposing the UTXO query interface. It also makes it possible to express compact fraud proofs demonstrating that one particular node is lying to you, at least once that fraud has been detected by a full node. These all benefit you greatly, raising you to a security level beyond Electrum or Android Wallet. However it is not and never will be the same as fetching the entire block chain and validating it.

In the shortest summary possible, the goal of the UTXO commitment project is to raise the security of the cheapest clients to an acceptable minimum bar - they can work by peering directly to nodes on the bitcoin p2p network, and can understand an exchange fraud proofs, but has little more drain on resources (for them) than Electrum does today.

However yes, it does require substantially more work for full nodes, potentially pushing out more full node operators and making the entire situation worse. If ever it doesn't make it into Bitcoin Core, it will be for this reason and that concern. But that's not to say that I haven't thought about the issue. Unlike Thomas's tree used in Electrum, the one I'm advocating on the mailing list and writing an implementation for can be used for stateless mining and validation - requiring only 32 bytes of validator state to be kept by any full node by attaching the necessary proofs to the transactions themselves. This could pave the way to sharded validation and open-source bitcoin full-node appliances, for example. But exactly what the end-game is here is still unclear at this time.

@Fernandez. Yup. Bitcoin hangs by a thread. If you have a miner, point it at p2pool and do your own transaction selection. You'll make more money anyways (p2pool has a lower stale rate than any of the pools).

Why does the data need to be stored in a "decentralized way?" Why should it matter if someone tries to store invalid data or remove valid data? If I made a trade and the hash of that deal is saved in the blockchain, all I need to prove I have what I traded for is my own copy of the trade which can be validated with the hash in the blockchain. It's like how in Bitcoin, seven lying nodes can be overruled by one honest node. The work is proven and it doesn't matter how many peers disagree.

If that's what you got from it, then you're either assuming that a majority of people would do things differently (unlikely), or that Bitcoin being controlled by 12 developers is somehow better (no thanks)...

..Skynet

The thing I really got from all these discussions is that Bitcoin is controlled by 12 miners. This is scary and is opposite to the decentralized nature.
I guess when big money comes in greed overrules everything and power grab happens.

Here is what Satoshi Nakamoto had to say about Bitcoin scalability:


http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html

Maaku, Electrum server has implemented your ultimate blockchain compression concept, and I know for a fact that it it is still quite resource intensive. It is in Python, so there's that .

Do you forsee a future where average users can use your C++ blockchain compression implementation to easily access the blockchain via Bitcoin-QT directly? Do you forsee the user experience of Bitcoin-QT competing with Electrum's speed, simplicity and ease of use?

I am heavily biased here given that I've poured my own resources into Electrum (Kivy) for the better part of 2013 and 2014 so far, but I see no future in which average computer users are running Bitcoind or Bitcoin-QT. Maybe I'm mistaken and ultimate blockchain compression will turn things around. However, the user experience and branding of Bitcoin-QT make it seem like a reference client and I do not think it will grow to be much more than that.

You'll have to excuse me but the death of Bitcoin talk has got to be an exaggeration. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but that has to be an exaggerated assertion. If you are in fact right about the scalability concerns, Bitcoin is surely doomed. Malicious third parties will seek to corrupt the network, and they certainly won't seek out amiable terms with Bitcoin developers.

One last thing. I feel you're really underestimating system adminstrators who are dedicated to Bitcoin. Realistically, unless I'm wrong and your C++ ultimate blockchain compression will flip the Bitcoin-QT user experience upside down, system adminstrators or perhaps philanthropic users who are sold done-for-you services are going to be the only class of users capable of running full nodes. This has implications on network topology, for better or worse.

Bitcoin isn't dying, at least I hope not. But Bitcoin-QT may in fact be systematically losing market share to competing wallets. And for good reason. Users aren't used to software that requires a blockchain to function. The existence of a blockchain is 100% weird to the vast majority of computer users, who have grown to expect Facebook and Twitter to work instantly with no questions asked. Most people have no interest in the blockchain. The people who require a local blockchain (and not one that is for example reachable over Tor), can be serviced with done-for-you automated server setup solutions and whatnot. I suspect Satoshi foresaw this very early on.

Let me ask a really basic question, since I can't figure it out by reading all of the posts about the 80-->40 OP_Return change and what this means for data stored on the blockchain.

Q: Why does someone run a node?

I understand why miners mine; they earn fees. Nodes do not. So why does someone do it?

That's missing the point, then you're back to the question of how do we securely store data in an accessible, decentralized way, and it's onto side-chains, which come with their own problems and which no one has coded working functionality for - that Counterparty has here and now, and this is for 40 bytes of economy with only pseudo-speculative importance, when as Canton said gambling transactions are taking up 5gb to Counterparty's 5 mb.
I do agree the status of these things may change, but as I wrote, I don't see why speculations about the future should regulate implementation that a freemarket is capable of doing on it's own.

OP_RETURN can be used to store references to external resources, say for example very long meta transactions that don't fit into 40 byte, an asset contract or whatever. The storage pointed to could be a website which lists something like (for the sake of an example), a side chain or a P2P structure like a DHT. To my knowledge this was discussed several times, but never tested on a broader scale.

details please.  have no idea what you are talking about