Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 954. (Read 2032274 times)
it's not uncommon to retest the broken support level from the underside that is now resistance:
Are you sure that bitcoin "UP" bitcoin is still down right now. 
we're getting close to the end of this prolonged correction. volatility is damping down and several of the large ask walls have been wiped out by buyers or short coverers (which is just as good). my guess is that we'll break up hard somewhere along here. we'll see.
Are you sure that bitcoin "UP" bitcoin is still down right now.
explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.
is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain? then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain? then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
Simplified example:
Step 1: Well, just like blockchain, git records the hash of the latest commit... and a commit records the hash(es) of previous commits. That creates a chain of hashes for the source code.
Step 2: Given the git commit id (a hash), obtain a source code tree.
Step 3: Compile the source code, resulting in one or more binaries (bytecode output, in Java's case).
Step 4: Hash the binaries
Step 5: Post a PGP-signed message containing the hash from step #4.
Just like in biology or chemistry, it is critical that the above process is independently reproducible and yields the same result every time.
If multiple developers perform these steps, and all result in the same hashes in step #4, then you eliminate a Man-In-The-Middle attack where an evil developer or evil malware may insert a backdoor not present in the source code, but present in the binaries that users download and trust with real money.
Finally, at any time, any outside developer may independently reproduce this process, proving that the dev team is not inserting backdoors etc.
Deterministic builds are critical for any software you trust with money.
This is how Bitcoin Core handles every release. Multiple developers must achieve the same compiled result, or no release happens. We use https://gitian.org/ to assist with this.
thanks for the explanation.
keep up the great work. we're lucky to have you.
explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.
is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain? then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain? then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
Simplified example:
Step 1: Similar to the blockchain, git records the hash of the latest commit... and a commit includes the hash(es) of previous commits. That creates a chain of hashes for the source code.
Step 2: Given the git commit id (a hash), obtain a source code tree.
Step 3: Compile the source code, resulting in one or more binaries (bytecode output, in Java's case).
Step 4: Hash the binaries
Step 5: Post a PGP-signed message containing the hash from step #4.
Just like in biology or chemistry, it is critical that the above process is independently reproducible and yields the same result every time.
If multiple developers perform these steps, and all result in the same hashes in step #4, then you eliminate a Man-In-The-Middle attack where an evil developer or evil malware may insert a backdoor not present in the source code, but present in the binaries that users download and trust with real money.
Finally, at any time, any outside developer may independently reproduce this process, proving that the dev team is not inserting backdoors etc.
Deterministic builds are critical for any software you trust with money.
This is how Bitcoin Core handles every release. Multiple developers must achieve the same compiled result, or no release happens. We use https://gitian.org/ to assist with this.
No. Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.
What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.
Point missed completely.
The vast majority of users simply download and run code. They do not compile it. A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.
"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.
An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code. "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.
Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes. In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.
explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.
is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain? then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
No. Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.
What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.
Point missed completely.
The vast majority of users simply download and run code. They do not compile it. A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.
"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.
An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code. "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.
Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes. In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.
No. Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.
Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.
What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.
You have not made your point clear. Are you trying to claim Nxt security relies on obscurity? If that is the claim, that is provable false as you can decompile Java and steal Nxt. Given that isn't hapening, what are you trying to claim?
He is simply stating that without source code and deterministic builds you can not be sure someone hasn't decompiled it, modified it to steal your coins, and then recompiled it. But if you trust the person distributing it has verified it, by all means run it.
Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.
Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.Fiat is the enemy here.
Bad money is the enemy.
In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.
+1
i try not to worry about the mountains of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.
as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts
which is fine.
bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!
which is fine.
disruption continues:
Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.
Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.Fiat is the enemy here.
Bad money is the enemy.
In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.
+1
i try not to worry about the mountains of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.
as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts
which is fine.
bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!
which is fine.
Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.
Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.Fiat is the enemy here.
Bad money is the enemy.
In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.
still just a series of higher lows. plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:
Odd that this impresses you then.
odd that you equate the two.
Bitcoin has much more proven history and money behind it. NXT is still sucking on a teet as devphp put it.
ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap. only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so. and only for a specific purpose. the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.
In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.
well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies. silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.
Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide. we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.
wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.
Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so. fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.
what you call a standstill, i call stability. investors want a degree of certainty and predictability. Bitcoin provides that. NXT otoh, keeps changing.
while this sounds correct and makes sense, it change the context of your prior statement.
nonetheless i really doubt the core devs are in a free position to make improvements on
real demand. the blockchain tech is usable for much more than just a simple value storage
and there is a measurable demand for this additional need, indicated by various new projects.
however, i don't want to derail your thread here - which - btw is quite interesting.
we will see the outcome latest next year. hopefully you are right.
still just a series of higher lows. plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:
Odd that this impresses you then.
not impressed
Or...
It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?
You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips. Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!
You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips. Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!
that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.
That's not what I'm seeing...
Someone made a comment that if a second crypto had a value of the same order of magnitude as bitcoin, then all cryptos would lose their credibility because cryptos would no longer have scarcity anymore. My point was that it's possible to have a multitude of stores of value, and that a second one might take a chunk out of the first, but it wouldn't destroy the idea of cryptos as a store of value.
It does not matter if 99% lose their faith on something, if the remaining 1% are wealthy enough and still accept it.
Bitcoin is an accepted medium for the extinguishing of a monetary obligation by 0.01% of world's population currently. It is not big even yet. If another cryptocurrency would come and match or overtake it, it would hardly matter anything.
The situation would be different if the general public did believe in crypto and accept them now. But that's not the case.
Just compare to the charade that is going on every day with the fiat currency world. None of the altcoin scams are as blatant. "To obtain a balance of coinX, you need to become indebted denominated in coinX and pay us interest...." and so the story goes.
Yet fiat has value.
Jump to: