Shouldn't we start using safer keys from now instead of waiting for problems? - page 5.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 1009

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 16, 2013, 04:18:37 AM

- The same issue with Y2K problem.

The conclusion ? Everybody always thinks that their system will be replaced by something new & better in the future, but it often does not happen, hence the problems we have today.

Know why Y2K happened and went without anything happening?

Because the systems were replaced by something new & better before then.

Deal with issues when the need arises. There's way more important stuff to deal with first.

kwukduck

legendary

Activity: 1937

Merit: 1001

I think you don't really grasp what 2^160 actually means... let alone 2^2048...

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: payb.tc on January 16, 2013, 03:53:22 AM

^ i disagree.
i think in the future, most bitcoin-related transactions will not occur on the actual blockchain and hence won't be restricted to 8 decimals anyway.
the 8 decimals will only restrict the balancing of accounts between large institutions that actually use real tx's.

This is one of possible scenarios.
However nobody can exactly predict the future and it won't hurt to prepare for another probable scenarios instead of just doing nothing ?

However, the UNIX sysadmins of 1970s also never thought that their code will be used to this day and by so many people and
- This is the reason we need to do Ipv4 to Ipv6 transition today.
- For the same reason, the UNIX TIMESTAMP does not support dates beyond 2038 (was it 2038 ? or 2035 ? I don't remember exactly), which already causes problems in software today.
- The same issue with Y2K problem.

The conclusion ? Everybody always thinks that their system will be replaced by something new & better in the future, but it often does not happen, hence the problems we have today.

payb.tc

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

^ i disagree.

i think in the future, most bitcoin-related transactions will not occur on the actual blockchain and hence won't be restricted to 8 decimals anyway.

the 8 decimals will only restrict the balancing of accounts between large institutions that actually use real tx's.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

I support this. Additionally I propose we add more decimal places (4 zeros or more) simultaneously. Logical reasons:

1. In the future, there may be multiple "mainstream clients", so coordinating between different development teams may be more difficult by few orders of magnitude
1a. If that happens, there will also be multiple code bases and changing all of them to comply with new standards will be very difficult
1b. Because of that, there will be also much much much more testing required, and many many more possible bugs will be produced because of the transition

2. In the future, Bitcoin may be heavily used by many powerful financial institutions and each of them will have its own agenda. They may or may not like the enlargement of decimal places & private/public keys for reasons not yet known currently.
2a. Large institutions (including financial, governments) have large inertia. It will be difficult for them to make transition to any new standards.

3. In the future, Bitcoin will probably be implemented in many embedded devices (such as ATMs, smart wallets, smart credit cards, "smart bitcoin safes") etc. So it will be even more difficult to implement it

4. In the future, it will require much more convincing people to switch to the "new, better Bitcoin with longer keys".

5. Just look what happened with Ipv4 -> Ipv6 transition. The same will happen with Bitcoin. It will be extremely difficult to make any changes once it is widespread.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

From what I read, a brute force attack to the blockchain is impossible with normal computers and unlikely with quantum ones.

Quantum computers will eventually become a reallity.

Why don't we start using safer keys and a bigger keyspace for the addresses from now, instead of waiting for troubles?

2^160 is cool, but what about 2^2048?

I dont know it it has sense, but i think that we should start to implement this in the next future as was done with ipv6, dual stack network for 20 years, etc.

Topic: Shouldn't we start using safer keys from now instead of waiting for problems? - page 5. (Read 6065 times)