BIP 16 / 17 in layman's terms - page 16.

ineededausername

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

bitcoin hundred-aire

Quote from: grue on January 25, 2012, 10:31:24 PM

Quote from: ineededausername on January 25, 2012, 09:37:05 PM

It is apparent that Deepbit is now a community enemy.
That is, Deepbit wields too much power, handed to them by ignorant newbie miners who seem to love throwing away money, and uses that power against the democratic consensus of the developers and, perhaps, community as a whole.
There is no fucking reason that anybody should mine at Deepbit (variance is an excuse that anyone who has a working knowledge of statistics would ignore). In fact, Deepbit should have been brought down months ago. It has had close to 50% of the hash power of the network for far too long, and nobody listened. This is what you get for not listening.
If Tycho believes that he has the right to block progress, then Deepbit must be forced from its position as the largest pool.

I suggest that everyone pledge their hashing power, and when enough is collected in pledges, everyone should switch to p2pool at the same time (so that the transition is smooth).

edit: Everyone should copy my sig... we need Deepbit to fall.

i'm with you.

Down with deepbit!
I will be PM spamming anyone with deepbit sigs I see and I urge everyone to do the same.
Kluge: It's the principle of the thing that counts... one man should not have ultimate control over the direction of Bitcoin. Also, BIP 16 and 17 look almost the same, and it's ridiculous that most devs have agreed on 16 but Tycho just refuses to implement it.

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: ineededausername on January 25, 2012, 09:37:05 PM

It is apparent that Deepbit is now a community enemy.
That is, Deepbit wields too much power, handed to them by ignorant newbie miners who seem to love throwing away money, and uses that power against the democratic consensus of the developers and, perhaps, community as a whole.
There is no fucking reason that anybody should mine at Deepbit (variance is an excuse that anyone who has a working knowledge of statistics would ignore). In fact, Deepbit should have been brought down months ago. It has had close to 50% of the hash power of the network for far too long, and nobody listened. This is what you get for not listening.
If Tycho believes that he has the right to block progress, then Deepbit must be forced from its position as the largest pool.

I suggest that everyone pledge their hashing power, and when enough is collected in pledges, everyone should switch to p2pool at the same time (so that the transition is smooth).

edit: Everyone should copy my sig... we need Deepbit to fall.

i'm with you.

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

I've noticed there's no voice for miners/users/enthusiasts who don't care one way or the other in this conversation. So.... Hello - I don't really care, and would opt-out of using this feature. I appreciate dumbing the conversation down so I can understand it, but I don't think I gained anything from reading it, except to learn Bitcoin users & devs have explosive, friendship-shattering arguments over whether to secure two pieces of wood together with glue, screws, or nails.

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Would this make it easier to lose coins from human error? What happens if you lose your phone? Is it possible to allow very slow draining of a wallet with access to just one of the two private keys (e.g. max of 1 coin sent every 100 blocks)?

This way coins could be recovered even if one of the two factors is lost. It would also reduce user inconvenience for cases where security is not as essential. However, it would still be possible to steal very slowly.

Residing in a country where you need two factor authentication for everything. I suspect that this modification (while very useful) could impose serious inconveniences on users if poorly implemented.

ZodiacDragon84

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame

I can understand the resentment for deepbit, but we as a community let this happen. We the sheeple have given our computing power not at the point of a sword, but at the promise of regular payouts.

ineededausername

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

bitcoin hundred-aire

It is apparent that Deepbit is now a community enemy.
That is, Deepbit wields too much power, handed to them by ignorant newbie miners who seem to love throwing away money, and uses that power against the democratic consensus of the developers and, perhaps, community as a whole.
There is no fucking reason that anybody should mine at Deepbit (variance is an excuse that anyone who has a working knowledge of statistics would ignore). In fact, Deepbit should have been brought down months ago. It has had close to 50% of the hash power of the network for far too long, and nobody listened. This is what you get for not listening.
If Tycho believes that he has the right to block progress, then Deepbit must be forced from its position as the largest pool.

I suggest that everyone pledge their hashing power, and when enough is collected in pledges, everyone should switch to p2pool at the same time (so that the transition is smooth).

edit: Everyone should copy my sig... we need Deepbit to fall.

oOoOo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

After a bit of reading it appears like p2sh allows the payer to place conditions upon which the payee can receive the payment. The question that now remains is what are the possible conditions. Can I do something like this:

"Here are your coins, but before you can receive them in your wallet, you will have to solve this: (5+5)
Or you will have to send me a pic of your... um... cat! Yeah that's it.." ?
.

ZodiacDragon84

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame

Quote from: Shuai on January 25, 2012, 09:01:38 PM

Seeing Gavins forum signature makes me want to cry... Bitcoin, nooooo! You used to be strong and follow noone's rules, now you're like a little slave begging your master for a bone.

It's time for a digital riot against our overlord. Who's up for funding an attack on deepbit?

There is a time and place for this, and the bitcointalk.org forums are not it. Try l33thackers.com or blackhat.com for this kind of talk.

Shuai

full member

Activity: 189

Merit: 100

Seeing Gavins forum signature makes me want to cry... Bitcoin, nooooo! You used to be strong and follow noone's rules, now you're like a little slave begging your master for a bone.

It's time for a digital riot against our overlord. Who's up for funding an attack on deepbit?

LightRider

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1022

I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.

I would advocate for whichever option that makes things difficult now, but easier in the future to work with. For too long we, as a society, have implemented policies and technologies based on how convenient they are, as opposed to those which are better for the long term health and sustainability of our species. Can you tell us which would be better for the long term development of bitcoin, its continued function and the specific challenges we would face in the short term? I appreciate the fastener analogy, but that still is fairly vague.

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2301

Chief Scientist

Quote from: oOoOo on January 25, 2012, 07:07:07 PM

Call me dumb, but I absolutely do not understand how you are supposed to create a whole address out of partial sigs?!? Wouldn't it be necessary for all sigs to come together at one point to create a single address hash to which you can then send the coins?

Bitcoin addresses today correspond to one public key in your wallet.

Signatures enter the picture when you spend the bitcoins sent to an address; your private key is used to generate the right digital signature, proving that you actually have that key.

BIP 16/17 will enable bitcoin addresses that are associated with more than one public key. Your wallet will know both public keys, but will only know ONE of the private keys needed to spend the bitcoins (your phone or a "wallet protection service" will keep the other private key safe).

So when sending coins, your wallet will provide one signature for the private key that it knows, the other required signature must come from whatever device is holding the other private key.

The public keys aren't just strung together in a row, but are combined using a secure hashing algorithm (the same algorithm that is used to associate public keys with the bitcoin addresses we're all using today).

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Thanks! Very helpful for us customers. Wink

chrisrico

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: oOoOo on January 25, 2012, 07:07:07 PM

@ Gavin

Call me dumb, but I absolutely do not understand how you are supposed to create a whole address out of partial sigs?!? Wouldn't it be necessary for all sigs to come together at one point to create a single address hash to which you can then send the coins?
And if so, why don't you just take one private key, divide it into two or three or more parts (like this: 5JMhGPWc3pkdgPd9jqVZkRtEp3QB3Ze8ihv62TmmvzABmkNzBHw ) and then give each part to different people or devices.

Can you please explain in more detail?

I think the code is saying "in order for this transaction to be spent, it must be signed by private key (X and Y) or Z". This allows more flexibility, because Z can be printed out and kept physically safe, in case X or Y (kept in separate locations) is lost. You can also say something like "...it must be signed by at least 51% of A through Z".

oOoOo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

@ Gavin

Call me dumb, but I absolutely do not understand how you are supposed to create a whole address out of partial sigs?!? Wouldn't it be necessary for all sigs to come together at one point to create a single address hash to which you can then send the coins?
And if so, why don't you just take one private key, divide it into two or three or more parts (like this: 5JMhGPWc3pkdgPd9jqVZkRtEp3QB3Ze8ihv62TmmvzABmkNzBHw ) and then give each part to different people or devices.

Can you please explain in more detail?

gnar1ta$

donator

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

I have one of my rigs on p2pool, I have no idea even how to vote (assuming I get a block). Where is the voting for dummies thread?

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1060

There's no need for a rush decision. In time, and with further calm-headed discussion, support may gravitate towards BIP 16 or BIP 17, or perhaps a BIPxx will emerge that is superior to both.

It doesn't matter if this takes another six months to get this right.

Technomage

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1056

Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com

I think the number one most shocking thing about the whole issue is the power Tycho holds over this. It's ridiculous. If the potential of a 51% attack wasn't enough, but now this. I hope Deepbit users finally start to consider using a smaller pool or even p2pool.

I don't really understand the differences that these different solutions have so I can't really comment on this from a technical standpoint. One thing I can say is that I strongly agree with Gavin that this is a much needed feature that would make Bitcoin much better than it is now.

However it has been proven now that this is also the most difficult change Bitcoin has faced so far, it should be handled carefully. I think it's important that we don't just forget about this now and move on, even though it's very tiresome to developers such as Gavin, I believe this issue needs to be settled even if it takes another month.

Finally, I have to say that I appreciate the work Gavin is doing and the hardship he is enduring because of the difficulties in trying to get this feature into Bitcoin. Keep it up, you're doing very important work. The same goes to the other developers as well but I can see this being especially hard for Gavin because he is the main developer.

ZodiacDragon84

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame

I'm with bitminter, and you'll hear no complaints from me about how Doc runs things.

Costia

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

does it mean that with a 51% attack that reverses support for bip17 all multisig transactions will be redeemable by the attacker?

ZodiacDragon84

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

The king and the pawn go in the same box @ endgame

Quote from: Jan on January 25, 2012, 05:04:50 PM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on January 25, 2012, 04:25:32 PM

Right now, it looks like one person/pool (Tycho/deepbit) has enough hashing power to veto any change. I believe Tycho liked, and planned to support, the original OP_EVAL proposal, but doesn't like/support either BIP 16 or BIP 17 (he does like/support BIP 11, the multisignature-as-standard-transactions part of all this), so unless he changes his mind or there is a mass exodus from his pool short, multisignature bitcoin addresses will have to wait.

Has it really come to this... bitcoin community having to beg one person to accept changes. I am in shock!

Indeed, we are coin whores parted out to the highest bidder. we need more small pools, and more adoption by the masses.

Topic: BIP 16 / 17 in layman's terms - page 16. (Read 38982 times)