Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1100. (Read 2032266 times)

legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
July 05, 2014, 04:42:40 AM
I found it interesting to read the comments of the ghash owner who said that pulling a  double spend is actually quite difficult from an  internal technical stand point.

I  wonder what he was talking about?  

He means that he almost didn't get away with it the last few times.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
July 04, 2014, 09:42:21 PM
theres a bounty equal to the market cap of nxt. if it was doable. do you not think it would have been done?


...Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized…
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 09:26:20 PM
what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

There is no known solution to the "nothing-at-stake" problem (also known as the "history-rewrite" problem) that all proof-of-stake (PoS) distributed consensus mechanisms suffer from.  This has been debated ad nauseum since the original thread on July 11, 2011: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-stake-instead-of-proof-of-work-27787.  Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized.

Even ignoring the nothing-at-stake problem, "dubious" is probably a better adjective than "superior" to describe these platforms.



theres a bounty equal to the market cap of nxt. if it was doable. do you not think it would have been done?

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/bounty-for-successful-nothing-at-stake-attack/?topicseen

also.

https://nxtforum.org/general/how-does-nxt-fix-the-nothing-at-stake-problem/
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
July 04, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

There is no known solution to the "nothing-at-stake" problem (also known as the "history-rewrite" problem) that all proof-of-stake (PoS) distributed consensus mechanisms suffer from.  This has been debated ad nauseum since the original thread on July 11, 2011: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-stake-instead-of-proof-of-work-27787.  Current PoS coins get around this problem, for example, by having the developers sign blocks as valid (Peercoin) or by introducing regular blockchain checkpoints into the code (Nxt).  In other words, these PoS coins are not decentralized.

Even ignoring the nothing-at-stake problem, "dubious" is probably a better adjective than "superior" to describe these platforms.

legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 09:02:16 PM
back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

the POS initial distribution is deemed unfair by the market and the fact that mining favors those same creators will discourage new players from entering.

nem has 3000 original stake holders and a new proof importance algo which means that the nodes that are more important to the network "mine/forge" more than those with simply more coins. which fixes the hoarding issues inherent in nxt. 3000 stake holders will get equal amounts, there was not an ipo, its was a "pay a fee, join the movement" sort of thing. so even the ipo does no favor those with better finances. also the stake holder list went through weeks of taint analysis and auditing to remove sock puppets.

edit: i think the market deems nem fair seeing as it was trading at 2k dollars per stake, pre alpha. i say "was" because the dollar value has fallen as btc and nxt fell. nem has stayed perfectly stable in term of nxt<>nemstake (stakes are traded on nxt AE @ 25-30k nxt per stake)
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 08:54:56 PM
back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?

the POS initial distribution is deemed unfair by the market and the fact that mining favors those same creators will discourage new players from entering.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 08:40:14 PM
back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.

what about the likes of nxt or soon to be nem? they are far superior platforms nem being more so. what makes then "unviable" in your opinion?
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 08:37:35 PM


actually, i really mean this.

i don't think the gold/silver bimetallism historical example, as it relates to Litecoin, really applies today.  back then, the means for physical metals to transmit themselves seamlessly over wide geographical regions was severely hampered and the supplies of these metals were short.  hence, silver needed to supplement gold in certain regions as it's similar properties were close enough to that of gold's to make them viable alternatives.

contrast with what we have with Bitcoin.  an infinitely divisible supply (if necessary) for all our needs, instant and seamless transmission worldwide that can touch anyone with a cellphone, and a programmable nature that if and when a new market driven feature is advanced that is in significant demand, it can and will be grafted onto the main Bitcoin protocol.

we only need one.

theres a lot of in demand features but nothing has ever been grafted onto the bitcoin protocol?
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 04:53:34 PM
Code:
// START_DEFINITION
/**
 * Fingerprint Tor authoritative directories enacting the directory protocol.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/node/authority') = $tor_authority
  and ($tor_directory or preappid(/anonymizer\/tor\/directory/));
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
Global Variable for Tor foreign directory servers. Searching for potential Tor
clients connecting to the Tor foreign directory servers on ports 80 and 443.
*/

$tor_foreign_directory_ip = ip('193.23.244.244' or '194.109.206.212' or
'86.59.21.38' or '213.115.239.118' or '212.112.245.170') and port ('80' or
'443');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
this variable contains the 3 Tor directory servers hosted in FVEY countries.
Please do not update this variable with non-FVEY IPs. These are held in a
separate variable called $tor_foreign_directory_ip. Goal is to find potential
Tor clients connecting to the Tor directory servers.
*/
$tor_fvey_directory_ip = ip('128.31.0.39' or '216.224.124.114' or
'208.83.223.34') and port ('80' or '443');
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Identify clients accessing Tor bridge information.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/tls') =
ssl_x509_subject('bridges.torproject.org') or
ssl_dns_name('bridges.torproject.org');

/**
 * Database Tor bridge information extracted from confirmation emails.
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/bridge/email') =
email_address('[email protected]')
  and email_body('https://bridges.torproject.org/' : c++
  extractors: {{
    bridges[] = /bridge\s([0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}):?([0-9]{2,4}?[^0-9])/;
  }}
  init: {{
    xks::undefine_name("anonymizer/tor/torbridges/emailconfirmation");
  }}
  main: {{
    static const std::string SCHEMA_OLD = "tor_bridges";
    static const std::string SCHEMA_NEW = "tor_routers";
    static const std::string FLAGS = "Bridge";
    if (bridges) {
      for (size_t i=0; i < bridges.size(); ++i) {
        std::string address = bridges[i][0] + ":" + bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_OLD]["tor_bridge"] = address;
        DB.apply();
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_ip"] = bridges[i][0];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_port_or"] = bridges[i][1];
        DB[SCHEMA_NEW]["tor_flags"] = FLAGS;
        DB.apply();
      }
      xks::fire_fingerprint("anonymizer/tor/directory/bridge");
    }
    return true;
  }});
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
The fingerprint identifies sessions visiting the Tor Project website from
non-fvey countries.
*/
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/torpoject_visit')=http_host('www.torproject.org')
and not(xff_cc('US' OR 'GB' OR 'CA' OR 'AU' OR 'NZ'));
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
/*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*');
// END_DEFINITION

// START_DEFINITION
/*
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites);
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
requires grammar version 5
/**
 * Aggregate Tor hidden service addresses seen in raw traffic.
 */
mapreduce::plugin('anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion') =
  immediate_keyword(/(?:([a-z]+):\/\/){0,1}([a-z2-7]{16})\.onion(?::(\d+)){0,1}/c : c++
    includes: {{
      #include
    }}
    proto: {{
      message onion_t {
        required string address = 1;
        optional string scheme = 2;
        optional string port = 3;
      }
    }}
    mapper: {{
      static const std::string prefix = "anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address/";

      onion_t onion;
      size_t matches = cur_args()->matches.size();
      for (size_t pos=0; pos < matches; ++pos) {
        const std::string &value = match(pos);
        if (value.size() == 16)
          onion.set_address(value);
        else if(!onion.has_scheme())
          onion.set_scheme(value);
        else
          onion.set_port(value);
      }

      if (!onion.has_address())
        return false;

      MAPPER.map(onion.address(), onion);
      xks::fire_fingerprint(prefix + onion.address());
      return true;
    }}
    reducer: {{
      for (values_t::const_iterator iter = VALUES.begin();
          iter != VALUES.end();
          ++iter) {
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_address"] = iter->address() + ".onion";
        if (iter->has_scheme())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_scheme"] = iter->scheme();
        if (iter->has_port())
          DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_port"] = iter->port();
        DB["tor_onion_survey"]["onion_count"] = boost::lexical_cast(TOTAL_VALUE_COUNT);
        DB.apply();
        DB.clear();
      }
      return true;
    }});

/**
 * Placeholder fingerprint for Tor hidden service addresses.
 * Real fingerpritns will be fired by the plugins
 *   'anonymizer/tor/plugin/onion/*'
 */
fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/hiddenservice/address') = nil;
// END_DEFINITION


// START_DEFINITION
appid('anonymizer/mailer/mixminion', 3.0, viewer=$ascii_viewer) =
        http_host('mixminion') or
        ip('128.31.0.34');
// END_DEFINITION

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 04:23:10 PM
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 04:18:24 PM


actually, i really mean this.

i don't think the gold/silver bimetallism historical example, as it relates to Litecoin, really applies today.  back then, the means for physical metals to transmit themselves seamlessly over wide geographical regions was severely hampered and the supplies of these metals were short.  hence, silver needed to supplement gold in certain regions as it's similar properties were close enough to that of gold's to make them viable alternatives.

contrast with what we have with Bitcoin.  an infinitely divisible supply (if necessary) for all our needs, instant and seamless transmission worldwide that can touch anyone with a cellphone, and a programmable nature that if and when a new market driven feature is advanced that is in significant demand, it can and will be grafted onto the main Bitcoin protocol.

we only need one.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 04:04:41 PM
back in March i penned an update to my subs stating that this last downturn would serve to flush out most, if not all, the altscams.  it's necessary as this is a zero sum game and Bitcoin is being held back by the wasted flows of fiat to these unviable alternatives.  the fact that the oldest and biggest alt platform, Ripple, is going down is an even stronger argument that this trend is going to continue.

we'll see how far this will go.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Available Now!
July 04, 2014, 03:56:36 PM
Litecoin getting destroyed.
member
Activity: 110
Merit: 26
I do not have a Telegram or Skype account.
July 04, 2014, 03:26:04 PM
Alt players moving out of risky sideshows, now that its time to strap back onto the confirmed bull.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
likewise with Litecoin:

legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 03:06:34 PM
accelerating to the downside on volume:

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
July 04, 2014, 02:42:21 PM
it's the non-economically driven one thats interesting to consider altho even that one is difficult to imagine given the repercussions of attempting it.
It's impossible to secure against all possible non-economically driven attacks.

At the extreme end of the spectrum, the US military could defeat Bitcoin by using nuclear weapons to end all human life on the planet.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is an adversary who is willing to lose a maximum of 1 Satoshi in order to attack the network.

Somewhere between those two extremes there's a boundary between the attacks which we can successfully defend against, and the attacks we shouldn't even bother defending against.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 12:38:15 PM
Something that critics (or hysterical enthusiasts) miss about 51% attacks is the possibility of defensive mining.

Basically, as long as you have a large stake in Bitcoin (or the Bitcoin economy), then you would be willing to mine at a loss to thwart any entity from approaching 51%. Think companies like BitPay or Coinbase, or people who hold 10,000+ bitcoins. Those entities could invest significant resources in mining and make it that much harder for a malicious super-miner. It's always economically irrational for a super-miner to be malicious, but this would make it even more painful.

Quoted because this is important yet often ignored.

i don't think an economic 51% attack scenario is a problem.  the incentive structure is too well set up for it to happen.

it's the non-economically driven one thats interesting to consider altho even that one is difficult to imagine given the repercussions of attempting it.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
July 04, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Something that critics (or hysterical enthusiasts) miss about 51% attacks is the possibility of defensive mining.

Basically, as long as you have a large stake in Bitcoin (or the Bitcoin economy), then you would be willing to mine at a loss to thwart any entity from approaching 51%. Think companies like BitPay or Coinbase, or people who hold 10,000+ bitcoins. Those entities could invest significant resources in mining and make it that much harder for a malicious super-miner. It's always economically irrational for a super-miner to be malicious, but this would make it even more painful.

Quoted because this is important yet often ignored.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
July 04, 2014, 11:33:29 AM
Pool miners solve blocks; how do pool owners hold back blocks secretly without the miner who solved the block noticing?
Jump to: