· 9 years ago · May 04, 2017, 02:08 PM
1csw [6:43 AM]
2joined #general
3
4cryptonaut [6:43 AM]
5:new_moon_with_face: :rocket:
6
7csw [6:44 AM]
8Scronty is a wanker
9
10csw [6:44 AM]
11I am tired of people saying they worked with me. Scronty even got the number of BTC wrong.
12
13 2 replies Last reply today at 9:18 AM View thread
14
15vlad2vlad [6:45 AM]
16Welcome Dr. Wright!!!!
17
18cryptonaut [6:45 AM]
19so just some fan fiction then? and yes, welcome :smile:
20
21csw [6:46 AM]
22Yes, and not a fan
23
24[6:47]
25"I wondered how can I know that this is the original codebase ..."
26
27[6:47]
28It is not, it is close, but it is available on the satoshi Inst as well.
29
30cryptonaut [6:47 AM]
31Are you able to say how many there were on the team? 3, or was there more? Not that it matters really
32
33csw [6:47 AM]
34The first released code was 0.0.9
35
36[6:47]
37It crashed.
38
39onchainscaling [6:47 AM]
40Why was 21 million chosen? was it arbitrary number or is there a reason for that particular number?
41
42csw [6:48 AM]
43The first other users are Bear and Hal
44
45[6:48]
46M1
47
48[6:48]
4921 million links to global M1
50
51christophbergmann [6:48 AM]
52Hallo Mr. Wright!
53
54csw [6:49 AM]
55There are no decimal points, 21 million is the reference for people, the no. Satoshi (and I did not call them that) are related to M1 (edited)
56
57cryptonaut [6:50 AM]
58can you expand on that?
59
60csw [6:50 AM]
61http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=m0,-m1,-m2,-m3,-m4
62
63[6:51]
64If you read the 08 paper, you will note the use of fiat as a value.
65
66[6:51]
67Sect, 9. Page 5
68
69[6:51]
70In the use of 21 million x 10^8 parts you have a value that maps to the cent
71
72[6:51]
73That is, to global M1
74
75vlad2vlad [6:52 AM]
76So bitcoin is meant to displace global fiat
77
78[6:52]
79?
80
81csw [6:52 AM]
82This would be 21,000,000,000,000 USD as M1.
83
8421,000 trillion
85
86[6:52]
87The idea is global cash.
88
89[6:52]
90A single world currency
91
92[6:53]
93Can I assume that you have read Hayek's work on global money?
94
95vlad2vlad [6:53 AM]
96You're not gonna have many friends out there. But if you can pull it off bitcoin is gonna reach astronomical levels.
97
98[6:53]
99No. But i will. :)
100
101csw [6:53 AM]
102I have few friends.
103
104cryptonaut [6:53 AM]
105section 9 is titled 'combining and splitting value" and does not mention a fiat value
106
107csw [6:54 AM]
108I am not looking for them, I work best as I am and I find having a head in maths and code does not make one amiable to others.
109
110[6:54]
111"Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy to make a
112separate transaction for every cent in a transfer"
113
114[6:55]
115I believe that you will find that in S9.
116
117cryptonaut [6:55 AM]
118right
119
120[6:56]
121gotcha
122
123csw [6:56 AM]
124I am sorry, I can be a little vague... If I am, ask for explanations.
125
126[6:56]
127I make assumptions of knowledge
128
129cryptonaut [6:57 AM]
130all good, just trying to piece together
131
132csw [6:57 AM]
133It comes from too long inside universities
134
135cryptonaut [6:57 AM]
136never been :wink:
137
138csw [6:57 AM]
139Never been out...
140
141
142vlad2vlad [6:57 AM]
143Lol
144
145csw [7:00 AM]
146Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-10 14:09:26 UTC
147
148
149James A. Donald wrote:
150> Furthermore, it cannot be made to work, as in the
151> proposed system the work of tracking who owns what coins
152> is paid for by seigniorage, which requires inflation.
153
154If you're having trouble with the inflation issue, it's easy to tweak it for
155transaction fees instead. It's as simple as this: let the output value from
156any transaction be 1 cent less than the input value. Either the client
157software automatically writes transactions for 1 cent more than the intended
158payment value, or it could come out of the payee's side. The incentive value
159when a node finds a proof-of-work for a block could be the total of the fees in
160the block.
161
162Satoshi Nakamoto
163
164cryptonaut [7:01 AM]
165Hah. So google tells me M1 USD supply is just under 2.1 trillion. Total # of satoshis is 2100 trillion. Close enough I say lol.
166
167csw [7:01 AM]
168https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L210
169GitHub
170trottier/original-bitcoin
171original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
172
173
174[7:02]
175Have a look at the code.
176
177[7:03]
178n /= CENT;
179
180@212; 255; 261
181in src/util.cpp
182
183[7:03]
184https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L17
185GitHub
186trottier/original-bitcoin
187original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
188
189
190[7:03]
191Main.h
192
193[7:03]
194Defined against Cents
195
196[7:04]
197// Value
198 int64 nValue = (GetRand(9) + 1) * 100 * CENT;
199 if (GetBalance() < nValue)
200 {
201 wxMessageBox("Out of money ");
202 return;
203 }
204 nValue += (nRep % 100) * CENT;
205
206[7:04]
207https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L3178
208GitHub
209trottier/original-bitcoin
210original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
211
212
213[7:04]
214Do you require more evidence?
215
216cryptonaut [7:08 AM]
217makes sense to me. Here's one for you though: what was the thinking behind adding the 1MB block limit that we are now dealing with 2.5+ years drama to solve?
218
219csw [7:08 AM]
220https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp
221GitHub
222trottier/original-bitcoin
223original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
224
225
226[7:09]
227// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control
228 // Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions
229 // Base rate is 0.01 per KB
230 int64 nMinFee = tx.GetMinFee(pblock->vtx.size() < 100);
231
232[7:09]
233At 0.08 cents a BTC, flood control did not work.
234
235[7:09]
236At more than 100USD, it does
237
238[7:09]
239We are at more than 100USD a BTC right now.
240
241[7:10]
242In early 2010, the number of nodes (please note, nodes are always verification agents, that is miners) was low. (edited)
243
244cryptonaut [7:10 AM]
245friggin $2200 canadian on localbitcoins right now
246
247csw [7:11 AM]
248It should be higher. The more people can use BitCoin natively, the more the value will increase.
249
250
251cryptonaut [7:11 AM]
252spelling it BitCoin is heresy you know :stuck_out_tongue:
253
254csw [7:12 AM]
255This is not as has been suggested exponential, but logistic
256
257[7:12]
258It was in the early code as BitCoin
259
260cryptonaut [7:12 AM]
261eh, looks ugly though. But yeah, to the moon and such
262
263csw [7:12 AM]
264https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/readme.txt
265GitHub
266trottier/original-bitcoin
267original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
268
269
270[7:13]
271Line 1: BitCoin v0.1.3 ALPHA
272
273cryptonaut [7:13 AM]
274Line 13: Bitcoin. Inconsistent lol
275
276csw [7:13 AM]
277I have never been accused of being a designer
278
279[7:13]
280I also never said I am perfect and yes, I do go back and forth.
281
282[7:14]
283Lines 34 - 36:
284
285To support the network by running a node, select:
286
287 Options->Generate Coins
288
289cryptonaut [7:14 AM]
290I tend to do the same when naming things
291
292csw [7:14 AM]
293Code naming conventions do not always move into the real world well.
294
295cryptonaut [7:14 AM]
296true
297
298csw [7:14 AM]
299Words are not variables as much as I would like to have this be so
300
301[7:16]
302I thought the comments in the code were rather good, then it seems they are either ignored or they are not read.
303
304[7:16]
305Either saddens me, though I cannot state which would sadden me more.
306
307cryptonaut [7:16 AM]
308which points or comments do you feel are being ignored?
309
310csw [7:17 AM]
311Have you read Brooks?
312
313[7:17]
314Mythical Man Month, 1975, 1995 re-printed
315
316cryptonaut [7:17 AM]
317I have not
318
319csw [7:17 AM]
320A shame.
321
322[7:17]
323Page 65 from memory of Brooks
324
325[7:18]
326Triple redundancy
327
328[7:18]
329//
330// "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three."
331// Our three chronometers are:
332// - System clock
333// - Median of other server's clocks
334// - NTP servers
335//
336// note: NTP isn't implemented yet, so until then we just use the median
337// of other nodes clocks to correct ours.
338//
339
340[7:18]
341https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L326
342GitHub
343trottier/original-bitcoin
344original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
345
346
347[7:19]
348I do not see why there are arguments on things link the use off NTP as a base that is averaged in the system between nodes.
349
350[7:19]
351The code has a number of comments stating that this is to be done.
352
353[7:20]
354// Only let other nodes change our clock so far before we
355 // go to the NTP servers
356 /// todo: Get time from NTP servers, then set a flag
357 /// to make sure it doesn't get changed again
358 }
359
360[7:22]
361And it should not be monolithic...
362
363https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/net.cpp#L893
364GitHub
365trottier/original-bitcoin
366original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
367
368
369[7:22]
370//// todo: start one thread per processor, use getenv("NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS")
371
372[7:22]
373And the market place was never fixed.
374https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L1619
375GitHub
376trottier/original-bitcoin
377original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
378
379
380cryptonaut [7:23 AM]
381I'm not too familiar with the nuances of NTP and server clocks etc, just a humble web developer. To get back to the 1MB block size thing for a second - did you anticipate the difficulty of removing or replacing the limit that we are currently experiencing?
382
383csw [7:23 AM]
384There was supposed to be a means to have a merchant exchange a message with the purchaser. This would be a direct PoS system, no need for Visa etc.
385
386[7:24]
3872010
388
389[7:24]
390See email
391
392[7:24]
393Well before we get to where we are RIGHT NOW it is possible to preempt this and have an increase.
394
395jp [7:25 AM]
396Why did you credit Adam Back hashcash when you didn't use it?
397
398csw [7:25 AM]
399Adam intro'd Wei
400
401[7:25]
402I do not generally talk to people I do not know. Not without an intro
403
404jp [7:26 AM]
405But why credit him while you not used his? This wrong citation creates this evil blockstream
406
407csw [7:26 AM]
408Adam was helpful for all that he said it would not work, but I am used to people saying my work is not worth considering.
409
410jp [7:26 AM]
411Why you didn't credit triple entry accounting?
412
413csw [7:27 AM]
414I am not able to see the future.
415
416cryptonaut [7:27 AM]
417re: merchant exchange, decent idea but probably premature and not the best idea to put so many use cases into a single application (for example, the wallet accounts system used by Core is total garbage)
418
419csw [7:27 AM]
420The list of references would be in the 100s of pages if I was to list the giants it was built to stand upon.
421
422jp [7:28 AM]
423You used triple entry accounting in 2005 to inspire blockchain. But instead you credited something not actually used
424
425csw [7:28 AM]
426Yes, the marketplace was far too early. And my design skills are far too poor.
427
428[7:28]
429Using wxHtml was also a mistake.
430
431jp [7:29 AM]
432It is why Ian grigg was heavily undervalued while core Adam back is crook
433
434cryptonaut [7:29 AM]
435the idea for PoW is an iteration/evolution of hashcash so I don't think the citation is off base really
436
437csw [7:29 AM]
438And triple entry accounting was something I stayed away from commenting
439
440jp [7:29 AM]
441It is not too late to comment now
442
443csw [7:29 AM]
444It was something I was introduced to when I was working at BDO, an accounting firm
445
446jp [7:29 AM]
447Yes. Granger did
448
449csw [7:31 AM]
450Again, I never foresaw the world to come as it has come. I did not see the politics. I saw state actors as more the issue than Adam B(l)ack
451
452
453jp [7:31 AM]
454I Think you should also correct the citation. Adam back himself was surprised when he saw he was credited
455
456christophbergmann [7:31 AM]
457why was Ian Grigg heavily undervalued, @jp ?
458
459cryptonaut [7:31 AM]
460what a mind trip adam must have had lol
461
462jp [7:32 AM]
463He was the one kept looking for hmwjo SN was because he was surprised as his name was included in whitepaper while he knew hashcash was not used
464
465csw [7:32 AM]
466It is published. Papers should not be played with
467
468[7:32]
469I am not a god, I am a researcher. I code, I do maths and I am fallible. (edited)
470
471jp [7:33 AM]
472It is not late to correctly credit people whose works you used.
473
474[7:33]
475Adam back is not and should not be on whitepaper because of just an introduction email to Wei Dai
476
477csw [7:34 AM]
478Should not. Is. These are separate concepts.
479
480tomothy
481[7:34 AM]
482I know you touched on the 1mb cap and mining but can you comment on the idea of the UASF, (user activated soft fork) and your thought on using it to implement segwit? Also general thoughts on segwit? Thanks.
483
484csw [7:34 AM]
485I do not want to be found. I did not want to be found.
486
487cryptonaut [7:34 AM]
488frankly unless csw somehow 100% proves he is satoshi, any whitepaper update wouldn't be taken seriously and probably a waste of time. Plus blockstream is already a thing, too late for that
489
490
491csw [7:35 AM]
492UASF - Miners are nodes. Nodes are miners.
493
494[7:35]
495There are NO full non-mining nodes.
496
497
498[7:35]
499Please read the paper.
500
501[7:35]
502It is VERY VERY clear
503
504[7:35]
505If you have issues, look at the code.
506
507tomothy
508[7:35 AM]
509And then segwit generally?
510
511csw [7:36 AM]
512"Nodes" that are not mining are wallets, these are fat SPV systems and sock puppets
513
514[7:36]
515SegWit centralises the system
516
517jp [7:36 AM]
518What is your plan to stop segwit? A hard fork coming soon?
519
520csw [7:36 AM]
521It means that developers can make further changes without a consensus
522
523bdd [7:36 AM]
524joined #general
525
526csw [7:37 AM]
527There will not be an update. Mistakes on referencing or not
528
529tomothy
530[7:37 AM]
531To the best of your knowledge, does segwit infringe on any patents?
532
533csw [7:38 AM]
534And I will not prove. I am not here to prove. If you need to listen as you think that I am and this is the sole reason, then it is lost to you in any event.
535
536[7:38]
537Tomothy.
538
539[7:38]
540Yes
541
542[7:38]
543I cannot expand on that here and now.
544
545[7:39]
546That will be addressed soon and in the manner that is requires
547
548tomothy
549[7:39 AM]
550And is it safe to the assume that the creators of segwit had alterior motives for creating it, introducing it, and refusing to increase 1mb limit?
551
552[7:39]
553Understood. Eagerly await.
554
555csw [7:39 AM]
556I cannot speak for the motivations of others I do not know intimately
557
558jp [7:39 AM]
559What can we do to help?
560
561
562csw [7:40 AM]
563Law is Law.
564Cryptographic tools are tools.
565I know many do not see this, but when it comes to intellectual property, it is rather certain.
566
567[7:40]
568To help... compete.
569
570[7:40]
571Competition and markets are the source of human freedom and innovation.
572
573[7:41]
574Make something.
575
576
577[7:41]
578Develop
579
580jp [7:41 AM]
581Compete in what way? I see that the SDK is one stone two birds. Kill core and alts
582
583csw [7:41 AM]
584And if you fail for the n-th time... Start and try again.
585
586cryptonaut [7:41 AM]
587amen to that, @jp compete in all ways :stuck_out_tongue:
588
589[7:41]
590getting super late here, I'm out guys. Cheers
591
592
593jp [7:41 AM]
594Will there be any smart contract applications coming?
595
596csw [7:41 AM]
597I cannot discuss that./
598
599[7:42]
600I also need to go.
601I am sorry, but I have a lot to do.
602
603
604jp [7:42 AM]
605Thank you.
606
607tomothy
608[7:42 AM]
609Same, thanks for providing so many responses!
610
611csw [7:42 AM]
612Please, all I ask is do not follow me, a developer or anyone based on who they are. Look anytime, everytime on the solution, the effects and the trade-off.
613
614
615bitsko [7:43 AM]
616thank you for your thoughts!
617
618csw [7:43 AM]
619Please remember, this is a world of scarcity, there is always something that is a trade-off, a cost and we cannot just assume that a change comes without a cost.
620
621[7:43]
622Fair well.
623
624
625jp [7:45 AM]
626And he gone.
627
628cypherblock [7:45 AM]
629well that was interesting.
630
631bitsko [7:46 AM]
632:awesome: :ohyeah: :awesome: :ohyeah: :success: :success: :wut: :rocket:
633
634norway [7:47 AM]
635This is crazy.
636
637tomothy
638[7:47 AM]
639Thanks for making that happen vlad
640
641vlad2vlad [7:47 AM]
642BOOM!!! Told you guys Dr Wright was the real deal!!!
643
644tomothy
645[7:47 AM]
646I still expect some God damn fireworks though. That better not be the end of it.
647
648
649vlad2vlad [7:47 AM]
650I do what I do. ;p
651
652[7:48]
653I don't think that's the end of it. It's like core is gonna compromise.
654
655tomothy
656[7:48 AM]
657We need that tabloid inquirer type juice too
658
659jp [7:48 AM]
660I told you were a working tool. Good one.
661
662vlad2vlad [7:48 AM]
663Lol.
664
665tomothy
666[7:48 AM]
667LOL compromise LOL
668
669vlad2vlad [7:48 AM]
670Haha
671
672norway [7:49 AM]
673I like this one: "There are NO full non-mining nodes."
674
675
676cypherblock [7:49 AM]
677I thought his first post was interesting.
678
679norway [7:50 AM]
680Bitcoin mapped to current M1 makes a lot of sense.
681
682vlad2vlad [7:50 AM]
683Replace cash. Brilliant.
684
685norway [7:51 AM]
686M1 is not just physical cash. It's also spending accounts.
687
688vlad2vlad [7:51 AM]
689Yeah, cash equivalents
690
691[7:52]
692That was a solid showing
693
694cypherblock [7:53 AM]
695@vlad2vlad why did his first post here call out Scronty. Were you guys discussing him previously?
696
697vlad2vlad [7:53 AM]
698I don't think so. Not sure if someone else maybe mentioned him.
699
700jp [7:54 AM]
701Scronty is a wannabe wanker
702
703vlad2vlad [7:54 AM]
704Lol
705
706jp [7:54 AM]
707He even sent emails asking for 500k btc
708
709norway [7:54 AM]
710I made a calculation of potential bitcoin value a couple of years ago. I used M2 (Cash + spending accounts + savings accounts) as the basis. It's these pie charts: https://i.imgur.com/KA8CuED.png (231kB)
711
712vlad2vlad [7:55 AM]
713That guy messaged me telling me crazy stuff. Sounded desperate. Scammer type.
714
715cypherblock [7:55 AM]
716ah I see @cryptonaut posted question about Scronty. Scronty seems like a nice guy, either he is full of shit or he is not. Same as csw.
717
718jp [7:57 AM]
719Scronty sent emails demanding 500k btc
720
721cypherblock [7:57 AM]
722@jp please post
723
724[7:58]
725csw posted ~invalid~ faked, scammy satoshi signatures. (edited)
726
727jp [7:58 AM]
728uploaded this image: Screenshot_20170504-045821.png
729Add Comment
730
731vlad2vlad [7:58 AM]
732Scronty told me he asked for 500k BTC. Said it was owed to him
733
734jp [7:59 AM]
735uploaded this image: Screenshot_20170504-045849.jpg
736Add Comment
737
738cypherblock [8:00 AM]
739@jp didn’t look like a demand there, but that is semantics I suppose. Sounds like he was involved then? Can you confirm?
740
741jp [8:00 AM]
742Oh. It was a lot of rants prior that
743
744[8:01]
745Scronty was not involved. He is pissed off because he was not
746
747[8:01]
748Like you knew someone before he/she getting famous and now you jump up and down to tell people that you two were best friend forever lol
749
750vlad2vlad [8:02 AM]
751@jp are you Joseph?
752
753cypherblock [8:02 AM]
754Not involved at all? Didn’t help author the white paper or see any drafts of it prior to publication and give feedback on that?
755
756jp [8:02 AM]
757John Paterson
758
759[8:02]
760Not involved
761
762[8:02]
763You can write that fantasy novel too
764
765[8:02]
766By gathering public info and some studies
767
768newliberty [8:03 AM]
769joined #general
770
771cypherblock [8:03 AM]
772@jp who came up with using hashcash (yes I know you hate) pow? Was that csw?
773
774tomothy
775[8:03 AM]
776NL this is slack text I wanted to send or link dunno how
777
778jp [8:04 AM]
779No. Hashcash was not used
780
781[8:04]
782It is why I raised this issue
783
784cypherblock [8:04 AM]
785double sha256 as pow then. who came up with that?
786
787jp [8:04 AM]
788Adam Back was surprised when he was credited
789
790[8:05]
791He kept wondering who was Satoshi because Adam back said solutions Satoshi put, wouldn't work
792
793[8:05]
794And here we re. Adam back tries to steal everything
795
796[8:06]
797Wei Dai helped
798
799tomtomtom7 [8:06 AM]
800joined #general
801
802tomothy
803[8:07 AM]
804I think he might now be in http://btcchat.slack.com
805
806[8:07]
807If you have access
808
809cypherblock [8:07 AM]
810@jp but bitcoin does use double sha256 as proof of work, so there is some basis for referencing another work that also used that.
811
812tomothy
813[8:08 AM]
814For those just joining and hoping to get some answers. Was just told he got there and is talking also
815
816jp [8:08 AM]
817Read Ddos resistance paper
818
819tomothy
820[8:08 AM]
821Unless this is that slack... Lol I don't think it is though, right? To many slacks
822
823cypherblock [8:08 AM]
824@timothy this is btcchat yes.
825
826jp [8:09 AM]
827Hashcash was used for email spam
828
829tomothy
830[8:09 AM]
831Oh. Damn, sorry NL.
832
833jp [8:09 AM]
834It was hashcash original purpose
835
836cypherblock [8:09 AM]
837@jp yes I am aware. I completely agree that bitcoin is far far different than hashcash
838
839jp [8:10 AM]
840Too much fantasy from email spam solution to bitcoin as Adam back claims. Totally scam
841
842cypherblock [8:11 AM]
843but still the concept of proof of work, of something that is easy to verify and hard to create is important. Adam came up with good solution for that and saw its use but obviously nothing like bitcoin.
844
845vlad2vlad [8:11 AM]
846JVP?? Man, Dr. Wright brought in the big strangers. Welcome, @newliberty
847
848jp [8:11 AM]
849If the whitepaper citations were done properly, actually credit properly then we wouldn't have blockstream Adam Back of today
850
851[8:11]
852But as Dr. Wright said, he could not see the future
853
854[8:13]
855Hal Finney, Dave Kleiman. Wei Dai were the team. If anyone else claimed to be a part of It and asking for money, it is scammer
856
857vlad2vlad [8:15 AM]
858@jp What about bear? I'm pretty sure he helped out early on
859
860jp [8:16 AM]
861I won't comment on that.
862
863vlad2vlad [8:16 AM]
864The answer is yes.
865
866cypherblock [8:16 AM]
867yeah who is bear? Sorry I mean I’m not familiar with that moniker, is he referenced elsewhere?
868
869vlad2vlad [8:16 AM]
870I actually talked to him a couple weeks ago about another project
871
872[8:16]
873Ray Dillinger
874
875[8:17]
876Maybe we can get him in here too. Bring back the whole team. Minus Hal, of course.
877
878jp [8:17 AM]
879Minus Dave K
880
881vlad2vlad [8:17 AM]
882Oops. Him too.
883
884[8:18]
885I've got Gavin's email. Gonna try him
886
887jp [8:19 AM]
888Adam Back should stop riding the bitcoin whitepaper coattail
889
890vlad2vlad [8:20 AM]
891I sent bear and Gavin and invite. Maybe we'll get a super dev slack going here.
892
893
894awemany [8:25 AM]
895joined #general
896
897bitsko [8:27 AM]
898Was trying to get full text with slack signup as title for a pastebin. Looks like i didnt get it all, now on cell and must work. :fearful:
899
900travin [8:27 AM]
901joined #general
902
903cypherblock [8:29 AM]
904@jp were you involved with early bitcoin? You are not jvp right? Sorry so many monikers to track.
905
906jp [8:29 AM]
907As Dr. Wright said, he is tired of having people saying that they worked with him.
908
909tomothy
910[8:29 AM]
911Yeah also on mobile, Vlad maybe make a pastebin of today's excitement?
9121 reply Today at 8:31 AM View thread
913
914jp [8:29 AM]
915I am John Paterson
916
917csw [8:30 AM]
918No, I posted a link to read Satre.
919
920Pinned by jp
921Today at 8:32 AM Pinned by jp
922[8:31]
923Please read the following (translated) page for this:
924http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/
925The New York Review of Books
926Sartre on the Nobel Prize
927Jean-Paul Sartre explained his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in a statement made to the Swedish Press on October 22, which appeared in Le Monde in a French translation approved by Sartre. The following translation into English was made by Richard Howard. I deeply regret the fact that the incident has become … (13kB)
928
929vlad2vlad [8:32 AM]
930I'm also on mobile. 4 years strong
931
932xhiggy [8:33 AM]
933joined #general
934
935vlad2vlad [8:33 AM]
936Now I remember reading that
937
938awemany [8:34 AM]
939csw, so what I am wondering, given the general hands-off attitude you seem to possess: why do you want to get involved with Bitcoin development again through nchain? Do you distrust the market? Or do you think the market simply includes you as a market participant as well, and it therefore should reflect your actions?
940
941csw [8:34 AM]
942East vs West, this is a cultural comment. It does not relate to what people see, but to order and anarchy. Neither is the way. Being a Libertarian is a means to allow free trade and market solutions, but it requires institutions.
943
944[8:34]
945The market is all I trust!
946
947[8:35]
948Am I being a wet blanket here, or does anyone understand the point of the Satre rejection letter?
949
950[8:36]
951There exists nothing to relate a free market based global money to. It is as a consequence of never truly having been free. The "Gold standard" was in fact a Gold exchange standard and worse, it was a BiMetalist system (edited)
952
953newliberty [8:38 AM]
954There've been a number of different gold standards, so there's not really a standard gold standard.
955
956tomothy
957[8:39 AM]
958The point of the letter is apt and plainly similar. Thanks for sharing.
959
960csw [8:39 AM]
961Everyone seeks an authority. This is what BitCoin was created to bypass. We can all trade and we can do this as the market determines. Not as a consequence of a high priesthood, but through trial and error, failure and just sheer will to try and learn and fail again.
962
963[8:40]
964Satoshi has to be a myth. If you make me, or anyone a 'God', an infallible authority, then what is the point?
965
966
967cypherblock [8:40 AM]
968did you purposely want to undermine Gavin as a way to remove his authority as well? That seems a bit, well, rough.
969
970charlieshrem [8:41 AM]
971joined #general
972
973charlieshrem [8:42 AM]
974Hey
975 2 replies Last reply today at 8:42 AM View thread
976
977awemany [8:42 AM]
978csw: yes that authority part makes a lot of sense and also why the creator had to hide. this is why I am wondering about your personal involvement again. is nchain going to be funded by early coins?
979
980csw [8:42 AM]
981Core should not tell you what to do. They need to propose and allow the market to decide. Bitcoin solves the issue of sock puppets in a manner analogous to the gambler at the roulette table. This means we propose and allow it to compete and to see what we can have, not as a centralised system but through many groups.
982
983newliberty [8:42 AM]
984Recognizing "Satoshi" ought be more about gratitude than authority seeking. Authorities are to be questioned.
985
986csw [8:42 AM]
987nChain is funded, but I will not discuss that. There are people in the group who will.
988
989jp [8:42 AM]
990Someone pastebin this chat pls. I'm on mobile
991
992csw [8:43 AM]
993Authority NEEDS to be questioned.
994
995
996[8:43]
997I study and I write. More than that I do not ask.
998
999awemany [8:43 AM]
1000csw: ok. Core supporters often bring forward the 'alternative implementations are menace to the network' part - what did you mean by that, in light of 'many groups' above? (edited)
1001
1002tomothy
1003[8:44 AM]
1004Newliberty did.
1005
1006csw [8:44 AM]
1007They are a menace only to those who freely decide.
1008
1009wellspenttime [8:44 AM]
1010joined #general. Also, @joeldalais joined.
1011
1012csw [8:44 AM]
1013If you consider the flaw in BU, it was a loss to the miner, not to the protocol
1014
1015
1016charlieshrem [8:45 AM]
1017BU has too many issues to safely be considered the reference client.
1018
1019csw [8:45 AM]
1020That should be encouraged. No transaction was lost and the overall system did not suffer, so why is this a problem generally?
1021
1022[8:45]
1023Charlie, I do agree. But the solution does not need to be so difficult
1024
1025charlieshrem [8:45 AM]
1026Agreed.
1027
1028csw [8:46 AM]
1029And we can scale on and off chain at the same time
1030
1031
1032charlieshrem [8:46 AM]
1033Agreed as well.
1034
1035[8:46]
1036I feel like good solutions have come alight, but are blocked/put down based on who their authors are.
1037
1038csw [8:46 AM]
1039In the 8 years, Moore's law has held and will continue.
1040
1041[8:49]
1042Did any of you know that a 2nm transistor was created. This was something considered impossible. It is lower than the 7nm Quantum tunnelling effect.
1043
1044lunar [8:49 AM]
1045@csw . Good afternoon. I'm just one small cog in the Bitcoin Unlimited team, but we've been trying to solve the blocksize issue for several years now. I was interested in what you thought about the emergent consensus solution? The idea BU implements, by giving miners the tools to signal between each other and come to a free market driven determination of the blocksize commodity, with an adjustable block cap. Thanks
1046
1047csw [8:49 AM]
1048This occurred in 2012.
1049
1050[8:49]
1051I think that miners need to decide.
1052
1053
1054joeldalais [8:50 AM]
1055can i ask - what is nChain bringing to the table? will it be a new client implementation? actual development (instead of this stalling we've had for years)? new teams of programmers (seems you have a very strong team)? business solutions? end user solutions? or - a mix of everything and more? or don't worry if its too early to ask (edited)
1056
1057csw [8:51 AM]
1058In 2009/10, the value of Bitcoin was far too low for flood control to work based on fees without a cap.
1059
1060tomothy
1061[8:51 AM]
1062See above, not really discussing nchain
1063
1064joeldalais [8:51 AM]
1065fair enough :slightly_smiling_face:
1066
1067Pinned by jp
1068Today at 8:52 AM Pinned by jp
1069csw [8:51 AM]
1070I will not discuss the business side here sorry. There is a team who do that. I focus on code and maths
1071
1072[8:51]
1073https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp
1074GitHub
1075trottier/original-bitcoin
1076original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode
1077
1078
1079[8:51]
1080Please have a quick look at the 0.1.3 and earlier code
1081
1082joeldalais [8:51 AM]
1083ok, then i'll be quiet and soak up what knowledge i can :slightly_smiling_face:
1084
1085csw [8:52 AM]
1086Lines 2249 as comments and on:
1087
1088// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control
1089// Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions
1090// Base rate is 0.01 per KB
1091
1092[8:53]
1093It is simple to create a flood based fee system
1094
1095newliberty [8:53 AM]
1096For QC threats over the coming years, Shor's algo for keys and Grover's for hashing are concerns, but they will hit most every other security protocol before they are problems for Bitcoin, so should ample be time to resolve, and the failures of others to learn from. I imagine these were design considerations? Care to comment on this?
1097
1098csw [8:53 AM]
1099Offer a set amount for free and then have a capped value - not a limit, let TXs pay to be in if there are too many (as decided by the market and not a committee)
1100
1101[8:54]
1102QC is bunk
1103
1104[8:54]
1105Grover's algo means a large QC could solve a hash in a billion years or so... classical growth will solve this faster
1106
1107[8:55]
1108As for Shor's, the rate of calculation would lead to a 110 or longer solution time when a private key has been exposed.
1109
1110[8:55]
1111This means that a 20 billion USD system could solve for 3 keys a year.
1112
1113[8:56]
1114As a consequence, large values could be moved to multiple keys or even to multi sig systems.
1115
1116[8:56]
1117I have a paper being published in this area. It took time. I needed to study some more physics first.
1118
1119satoshi [8:57 AM]
1120joined #general
1121
1122awemany [8:57 AM]
1123what is "110 or longer"?
1124
1125vlad2vlad [8:57 AM]
1126Oh look, Satoshi is here. Lol
1127
1128
1129[8:57]
1130This is getting good
1131
1132newliberty [8:58 AM]
1133The double hashing resolves most the preimage issues, and one-time use of coins means there is only the window of time from transmission to mining to crack, so had guessed that these were considered from the beginning.
1134
1135csw [8:58 AM]
1136At a discounted rate of 1 Billion USD a key per annum, the requirement would be that a key would need to have 100 BIT stored and to have a based value of 100 million USD per BTC to make attacking Bitcoin ECDSA keys valid.
1137
1138[8:59]
1139More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size. The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.
1140
1141satoshi [8:59 AM]
1142I am not Satoshi.
1143
1144csw [8:59 AM]
1145So, if you have a set number of collisions, you find that the possibility of a valid collision diminishes
1146
1147vlad2vlad [9:00 AM]
1148For crying outloud @satoshi I thought you were. Lol
1149
1150jp [9:01 AM]
1151Can we focus on the technical discussion here?
1152
1153
1154satoshi [9:01 AM]
1155What is the most productive thing the average user can do to support on-chain scaling?
1156
1157csw [9:01 AM]
1158There are an estimated infinite number of collisions for any hash, but the size is indeterminate.
1159
1160[9:02]
1161Satoshi, use bitcoin and call for real solutions. This is not 2 Mb. From 09 to now, systems have increased about 100x
1162
1163
1164[9:02]
1165In this time, we have not moved from a cap that was set for flood control at all.
1166
1167freetrader [9:03 AM]
1168joined #general
1169
1170csw [9:03 AM]
1171Can I ask people to look at the code comments in the 0.1.0 to 0.1.3 release.
1172
1173joeldalais [9:03 AM]
1174its where its noted as 'flood control'?
1175
1176csw [9:03 AM]
1177I think that it was rather clear, but then I have a habbit of losing people
1178
1179[9:04]
1180Yes.
1181
1182[9:04]
1183There should always be free TXs
1184
1185
1186joeldalais [9:04 AM]
1187people seem to gaze over that part and ignore it :disappointed:
1188
1189csw [9:04 AM]
1190Where the idea of a cap should be is a market decided limit that is not stopped, but sold at value
1191
1192[9:04]
1193Nobody reads the code comments :disappointed:
1194
1195[9:05]
1196There was a 100 TB drive released in the last 6 months.
1197
1198[9:06]
1199This i not a standard laptop addition, but the truth is that we are in a world were exponential scaling is occuring and against that we have a logistic one.
1200
1201awemany [9:06 AM]
1202csw, tbh, you lost me with the above calculations. why is it '1 billion USD a key *per annum*?". Ialso do not understand " The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.". I assume that "More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size." means that the input width is fixed for the 2nd SHA256? Why is that relevant and important?
1203
1204newliberty [9:06 AM]
1205Storing the full chain costs about 0.001BTC worth of drive today
1206
1207
1208csw [9:07 AM]
1209Can I assume that people understand the distinction between a logistic and exponential growth system?
1210
1211ajd [9:07 AM]
1212csw were you on IRC while you were developing Bitcoin?
1213
1214joeldalais [9:07 AM]
1215i was looking at bandwidth+drive space (costs) some while back, the growth/cost over the last 15 years. It boggles my mind why people think this growth will suddenly stop, there is certainly room now and in the future.
1216
1217csw [9:07 AM]
1218Shor is not the same as linear classical systems.
1219
1220[9:08]
1221If you have a 20 Billion USD system, and you can factor 3 keys a year, a basic IRR means you come to a value a little over 1 billion USD for each key.
1222
1223[9:09]
1224joeldalais, the Intel roadmap is strong for the next 2 decades.
1225
1226
1227tomtomtom7 [9:09 AM]
1228csw: Sorry if blunt, but could you comment on why you let Gavin vouch for you without going public with proof yourself?
1229
1230csw [9:09 AM]
1231http://gizmodo.com/5807151/2-nanometer-quantum-transistors-are-the-worlds-smallest
1232Gizmodo
12332-Nanometer Quantum Transistors Are the World's Smallest
1234A team of scientists at Chungbuk National University in South Korea have created a transistor that's only 2nm in size, which happens to be the smallest in the world. By comparison, the current generation of Intel processors use 32nm transistors. (35kB)
1235
1236[9:10]
1237Moving goal posts.
1238
1239[9:10]
1240Tomx3+7, I had never wanted what occured and I had no plans to be an authority. I will not
1241
1242[9:11]
1243I will be a scammer with ideas that go to market before I become something I detest and people wanted that. They dressed me in a bloody turtle neck!
1244
1245
1246[9:12]
1247I have NEVER worn a frikin turtle neck in my life. Like I was bloody jobs or something.
1248
1249
1250[9:12]
1251I made stupid decisions and I, as all do, have regrets.
1252
1253
1254joeldalais [9:13 AM]
1255its not that bad decisions are done, but how we act after that matters
1256
1257csw [9:13 AM]
1258I am not good with people. This is difficult for me now. Vlad and others have pushed me to be here and to be frank it scares the shit out of me
1259
12601 reply Today at 9:17 AM View thread
1261
1262tomtomtom7 [9:14 AM]
1263thank you csw
1264
1265joeldalais [9:14 AM]
1266great respect for being here at all :slightly_smiling_face:
1267
1268
1269jp [9:14 AM]
1270Incompleteness.
1271
1272travin [9:14 AM]
1273Thanks for that, Craig. It's well-appreciated.
1274
1275joeldalais [9:15 AM]
1276and for what its worth, i think you're doing fine here
1277
1278csw [9:15 AM]
1279Ta
1280
1281jp [9:17 AM]
1282csw: you are better with code and math.
1283
1284csw [9:17 AM]
1285LOL
1286
1287newliberty [9:23 AM]
1288Maybe we work up with some worthy competition in the next 7.
1289
1290ajd [9:26 AM]
1291Have you changed your opinion on multiple implementations and if so why?
1292
1293cypherblock [9:26 AM]
1294@csw how long did it take the write the original bitcoin source code?
1295
1296csw [9:27 AM]
1297I am not going to play Satoshi. I am not wanting to have people think I am and I am going to imagine that nobody ever doxx'd me and that I am just some overqualified academic for the moment... ok?
1298
1299tomothy
1300[9:28 AM]
1301Oh, what's the new masters you are getting?
1302
1303ajd [9:28 AM]
1304OK. I'm asking csw that question.
1305
1306jp [9:28 AM]
1307Csw is just a con artist and an asshole. Move along, nothing to see.
1308
1309
1310csw [9:28 AM]
1311The code should compete, but what matters is that there is a reference protocol
1312
1313
1314[9:29]
1315I am completing a MSc right now. It is in financial econometrics
1316
1317
1318[9:29]
1319Uni of London
1320
1321joeldalais [9:29 AM]
1322hypothetical question .. do you think it would be possible to link 2 blockchains together via a 2nd layer (that ran the same algo). A 2nd layer that basically just read and fed back data from both chains?
1323
1324csw [9:30 AM]
1325I have put in a proposal into Cambridge for another PhD in Pure Mathematics this time. I hope to start that in Oct
1326
1327libitx [9:30 AM]
1328joined #general
1329
1330joeldalais [9:30 AM]
1331its a good uni, think one of my sisters went there
1332
1333cypherblock [9:30 AM]
1334any thoughts on recent ext block proposals (or ext blocks in general with ability to move coins back and forth between main and ext)?
1335
1336csw [9:30 AM]
1337I see issues, but this is not a place to discuss that.
1338There are too many problems with the discussion of complex issues in a few words. I have a few papers and I will be publishing again soon.
1339
1340joeldalais [9:31 AM]
1341sounds good :slightly_smiling_face:
1342
1343csw [9:31 AM]
1344People can read and accept or dismiss the arguments that I pose in those papers.
1345
1346cypherblock [9:32 AM]
1347expected pub date? or too soon to say?
1348
1349prometheus [9:33 AM]
1350joined #general
1351
1352new messages
1353csw [9:33 AM]
1354Peer review...
1355
1356Pinned by jp
1357Today at 9:34 AM Pinned by jp
1358[9:34]
1359Some have been completed... peer review is a difficult mistress. Worse than my wife :slightly_smiling_face:
1360
1361
1362newliberty [9:34 AM]
1363Peers can be difficult to come by
1364
1365awemany [9:37 AM]
1366csw, so I am still trying to parse your above comments on using shor to crack a priv key. what I do not understand where the double hash comes in? I only see the single rpemd160 one.
1367
1368csw [9:38 AM]
1369Sha256
1370
1371tomothy
1372[9:38 AM]
1373CSW, which alt should I buy tomorrow? (don't hurt me)
1374
1375
1376csw [9:39 AM]
1377:stuck_out_tongue:
1378
1379
1380jp [9:39 AM]
1381I guess it is Diem
1382
1383awemany [9:39 AM]
1384ok, sure, SHA256. but where does that come into play in cracking priv/pub pairs?
1385
1386newliberty [9:39 AM]
1387Guaranteed it will hurt if you do. Rumor is we are running out of bitcoins to buy.
1388
1389csw [9:39 AM]
13902 sec
1391
1392
1393tomothy
1394[9:41 AM]
1395On a serious note, thoughts on Monero, or ZEC, similar coins & code (confidential transactions) with regards to anonymity? Is anonymity something you see being brought to bitcoin in the near/far future? I know blockchain analytics have significantly improved and coin taint can be a concern for some. I.e., BTC tumblers essentially no longer working.
1396
1397
1398vlad2vlad [9:41 AM]
1399@tomothy Nuggets!! Buy NUGS if you wanna be rich.
1400
1401 4 replies Last reply today at 9:44 AM View thread
1402
1403awemany [9:42 AM]
1404@tomothy : tumblers don't work, why is that?
14054 replies Last reply today at 9:43 AM View thread
1406
1407klee [9:42 AM]
1408joined #general
1409
1410awemany [9:43 AM]
1411@tomothy : monero is mostly BTC in constant tumbler mode and seems to be working fine, privacy wise. so I don't see how bitcoin is fundamentally lacking. Now, sure, most people do NOT anonymize their TXN because it is a PITA with the current tools, but I see no reason how BTC is lacking there in principle
1412
1413new messages
1414csw [9:43 AM]
1415The reality is there is nothing to fear
1416Most importantly, bitcoin uses a double hashing algorithm. The results of this scenario is that any unused bitcoin address will not be reversible to the public key, let alone able to be attacked through a reversal of the ECDSA key pair. Algorithm such as Grover's algorithm (Grover, 1996) are touted as being able to speed up the searching through possible collisions in the reversing of hashing algorithms including SHA-256.
1417This algorithm is known to be at best a solution in BPP ( ), a class of decision problem that is decidable in polynomial time with an error probability bounded by 1/3 (for all inputs). The idea is that this error rate can be minimised or made to be exponentially small in 'k" using a process of iterating the algorithm 'k' times with the most frequent value returned as the result. This process ignores the noise of the quantum computer and reports an error rate based on the ideal system alone. Bennet et al. (1997) demonstrate how an ideal quantum Turning machine cannot find a solution to an NP problem in less than time . For SHA-256, this is time and is a far more difficult problem when the true problem, the solution of a bounded size hash to a hash puzzle is introduced. His conclusion was that “Anyone afraid of quantum hash-collision algorithms already has much more to fear from non-quantum hash-collision algorithmsâ€.
1418More importantly, when Bernstein (2009, ) analysed the known quantum algorithms he demonstrated conclusively that “all the quantum-collision algorithms in the literature are steps backwards from the non-quantum algorithm of (Oorschot, et al. ). In other words, any attack on the hash functions of Bitcoin would be more effective using a classical computer.
1419Bitcoin is thus secure against (theoretical) quantum computer attacks against a key that has not been used. Once a transaction is signed and sent to the blockchain, an attacker can extract the public key. This is not a flaw in the algorithm but a standard part of the functioning of ECC and ECDSA based systems. The question is then, what is the cost to an attacker to break the ECDSA key itself?
1420Grover’s algorithm could be said to reduce the bit-security of such primitives by half; one might say that a 256-bit pre-quantum primitive offers only 128-bit security in a post-quantum setting. This is far too large to be broken on any QC any time in the foreseeable future. However, Bitcoin uses the Hash of a Hash. The combination of both SHA256 bit hashes of SHA256 values and the use of a 160Bit RipeMD hash of a SHA256 value for an address makes the analysis of bitcoin addresses to uncover the private key infeasible.
1421Attacking ECDSA with Shor
1422Let us for a moment assume that a working solution to the problem of creating logical qubits on a FTQC that can maintain coherence for long time periods can be achieved. We next need to note that Shor's algorithm is not simple and a Universal QC would need specialised breaks - you cannot just solve ECC in one hit as is suggested by many pundits.
1423The other common fallacy and assumption is that a FTQC will just factor the private key before you can spend. It is more probable that even a 1 million logical qubit FTQC system would likely take weeks or months to break 256 bit ECDSA keys.
14249:44]
1425On the basis of these numbers, performing a 2048-bit number Shor factorization will take on the order of 110 days and require a system size of 2 × 109 trapped ions.
1426Trapping 2 × 109 ions will require 23 × 23 vacuum chambers occupying an area of ca. 103.5 × 103.5 m2.
1427
1428Pinned by jp
1429[9:44]
1430Bitcoin Mining.
1431As we noted from Bernstein’s (2009) results, quantum computers are slower at solving hash collision than are algorithms for the deployment on classical systems. Hence, there is no economic benefit for a miner to use Quantum Computers for the solution of hash puzzles as they would solve fewer hashes than a miner on a more traditional ASIC. This excludes the costs of the Quantum computer as well (which is significant) and does not consider the fact that qubits are slower to process than bits (Bernstein, 2009). The result is that a miner who was to deploy a Quantum computer for the mining of Bitcoin (if one was to ever exist in the first place) would be at an economic disadvantage to a miner using more traditional ASIC based systems.
1432Post-quantum cryptography ( ), a purported non-partisan site for the scientific dissemination of information concerning the effects of quantum computing on cryptography that is heavily used by partisan personalities including Vitalik Buterin, (co-founder of Ethereum) starts with the doom saying prophecy:
1433“"Imagine that it's fifteen years from now. Somebody announces that he's built a large quantum computer. RSA is dead. DSA is dead. Elliptic curves, hyperelliptic curves, class groups, whatever, dead, dead, dead. So users are going to run around screaming and say 'Oh my God, what do we do?'â€
1434This false prophecy is clearly misleadingly designed to read as if it was a quote from Daniel Bernstein’s ( ) analysis. The removal of the line “The New York Times runs a frontpage article reporting that all of the public-key algorithms used to protect the Internet have been broken†changes the context where the author starts by stating, “A closer look reveals, however, that there is no justification for the leap from “quantum computers destroy RSA and DSA and ECDSA†to “quantum computers destroy cryptography.â€â€
1435More importantly, no consideration of the costs and time in uncovering a private key has been announced. As Bernstein (2009 ) also demonstrated, the move to alternate hashing algorithms is unwarranted due to theoretical quantum computers even were they to become a reality.
1436
1437
1438So, please never listen to the FUD. Forget ideas such as Lamport Signatures. Bitcoin is as it is for a reason and the reason that these others who worry about science fiction did not create it is the reason we need to maintain it as the protocol was created.
1439
1440[9:44]
1441Sorry... parts of a paper I am writing.
1442awemany [9:46 AM]
1443ok, thanks, let me digest that
1444
1445
1446new messages
1447tomothy [9:50 AM]
1448CSW can you address thoughts regarding privacy concerns on the blockchain and comment on coins that attempt to address some of those issues? I mean, it's recognized that it's a "PUBLIC LEDGER" with "PUBLIC WALLETS" so... but still it's an interesting topic and I just wanted to see your thoughts.
1449
1450[9:51]
1451Also, someone was wondering what your thoughts were about "vaults". Not sure if you've seen the article. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/02/26/how-to-implement-secure-bitcoin-vaults/
1452Hacking Distributed
1453How to Implement Secure Bitcoin Vaults
1454We have come up with a simple and elegant technique for implementing hack-proof Bitcoin vaults, to deter Bitcoin thefts. (176kB)
1455
1456csw [9:51 AM]
1457Threshold signatures.
1458
1459csw [9:52 AM]
1460The problem with signatures is solvable using set theory. Anyone know about Cantor's use of diagonalism?
14611 reply
1462
1463hankdasilva [9:54 AM]
1464joined #general
1465
1466klee [9:54 AM]
1467I am the guy interested for the Vault thing
1468
1469newliberty [9:54 AM]
1470Infinite sets comparisons
1471
1472klee [9:55 AM]
1473and also if BitCoin blockchain was made transparent (regarding anonymity, privacy) by design
1474
1475[9:55]
1476or was the best thought back in the day
1477
1478awemany [9:56 AM]
1479csw, so I read the above, I see most parts of where you are coming from now and it makes sense. however, the only thing remaining is the double-hashing, which is unclear to me. what does it add in terms of security in terms of QC considerations? Grover's algo will work in sqrt(n) both for a single and a double hash and the double hashing is just a constant factor in time - no?
1480
1481tomothy [9:56 AM]
1482"jp [3 minutes ago]
1483csw: had a conversation with Dr. Conway about Cantor
1484
1485tomothy [2 minutes ago]
1486JP does that have to do with anonymity or storing of txs
1487
1488csw [1 minute ago]
1489Keys. And there are ways that you can make keys more private as well... but again, too much for slack
1490
1491tomothy
1492[< 1 minute ago]
1493Thanks, will repost into slack as threads aren't stored easy."
1494
1495newliberty [9:57 AM]
1496Surreal numbers, Conway worked on something related. JP met with him a while back
1497
1498[9:57]
1499Not sure how it applies though
1500
1501new messages
1502iang [9:58 AM]
1503joined #general
1504
1505
1506jp [9:58 AM]
1507Welcome Ian grigg
1508
1509newliberty [9:59 AM]
1510This is a rich meal of food for thought
1511
1512csw [9:59 AM]
1513Hello Ian.
1514
1515iang [9:59 AM]
1516good morning all
1517
1518
1519jp [10:00 AM]
1520Our bloody buddy is here Ian.
1521
1522csw [10:00 AM]
1523In distributed thresholds you have the (n+1) vs (2n+1) issue
1524
1525[10:00]
1526Sorry, there is not a lot that can be explained in this without maths.
1527
1528newliberty [10:02 AM]
1529Yes, it gives diagonalism, infinite sets which are not equal
1530
1531vlad2vlad [10:03 AM]
1532Man, this channel is full of world class talent.
1533
1534
1535tomothy [10:04 AM]
1536Do you think Grigg has been credited properly?
1537
1538[10:04]
1539With regards to triple entry?
1540
1541iang [10:05 AM]
1542lol. triple entry is a concept, it’s a bit difficult to just turn around and implement. A bit like smart contracts.
1543
1544klee [10:05 AM]
1545https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo
1546YouTube Bitcoin News TV
1547Craig Wright Interview - Part 1 - 2014 - Satoshi?