Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BenRPG

For the Bitcoiners: Blog post I have written...

Recommended Posts

Interesting to read Bernhard. Regarding " It means Bitcoin could be so much more than it is today. To the very extreme, that could turn many alt-coins worthless ". Do you imply bitcrystrals could be worthless in the near future? Or is my understanding of the topic too thin to conclude this so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robert said:

Interesting to read Bernhard. Regarding " It means Bitcoin could be so much more than it is today. To the very extreme, that could turn many alt-coins worthless ". Do you imply bitcrystrals could be worthless in the near future? Or is my understanding of the topic too thin to conclude this so quickly.

Glad to hear that you enjoyed the read.

In my view, BitCrystals are not an alt-coin. For me an alt-coin has it's own security model, so it's own blockchain so to speak. BitCrystals are a token on top of the Bitcoin blockchain through Counterparty. Counterparty makes use of the Bitcoins security model.

I don not know, what the implications for Counterparty would be if Bitcoin turned out to be Touring complete.  It could mean that Counterparty could be more efficiently implemented in a different way. I must admit, I am absolutely not knowledgeable enough about the implications at this point. The quote you picked was in fact more me interpreting what other people stated about what the potential implications could be. I also don't know at this point how the people who are more heavily involved thing about Counterparty in the light of the potential Touring completeness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay thank you. My understanding seems to be on a similar level as yours. I basically spend my whole day researching your post, so much to learn :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Robert said:

okay thank you. My understanding seems to be on a similar level as yours. I basically spend my whole day researching your post, so much to learn :)

The post contains many links which make researching that particular story quite easy. For sure, someone who hasn't heard of this part of story, it is overwhelming. I can only add the tiniest part of the story. I can really recommend the long article I linked which was written by O'Hagen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben, I believe that Craig is Satoshi. Does that matter? Yes. He has surfaced and have laid out his plans and his vision for Bitcoin going forward. If you believe and you follow his lead you can get a leg up on all that is happening now. If you don't you can take the opposite action and benefit from that view. Play this card wrong and you can lose a lot of money. 

Turing complete. Yes I believe it is. Bitcoin uses scripting language which is very limited. The lowest level you can use is assembler but you have to build the op code. All languages compile down to machine code. That is as I understand it from my early days playing with Z80s. and 8080s. 

Split key - Nobody has ever come up with that suggestion and actually promises to release SDKs soon. This is a solution that I call "not obvious". Segwit is an obvious solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phanpp said:

I believe that Craig is Satoshi. Does that matter? Yes. He has surfaced and have laid out his plans and his vision for Bitcoin going forward. If you believe and you follow his lead you can get a leg up on all that is happening now. If you don't you can take the opposite action and benefit from that view. Play this card wrong and you can lose a lot of money. 

Why is everyone making poke references in all of this? Are all people in on this poker friends out of the casino past of CSW? Why can't everyone just go all in and pants down... ;-)

I would be interested to know two things: Why are you convinced it's him? Why do you think it matters at this point? Is ist just that you play your cards accordingly?

I think there will never be conclusive proof and that is not what CSW want anyway. He want's the benefit of the doubt. Even if you have the keys conclusive proof is hard produce.

6 hours ago, phanpp said:

Turing complete. Yes I believe it is. Bitcoin uses scripting language which is very limited. The lowest level you can use is assembler but you have to build the op code. All languages compile down to machine code. That is as I understand it from my early days playing with Z80s. and 8080s. 

So what implications do you see? Why did people miss this point for so long? What is your wildest dream when it comes to this?

6 hours ago, phanpp said:

Split key - Nobody has ever come up with that suggestion and actually promises to release SDKs soon. This is a solution that I call "not obvious". Segwit is an obvious solution.

I assume you are referring to the comment below the blog post? Yes, SDK for this will be good.

Meanwhile I could ad a few more points to this bullet point list, but that was the state of my knowledge few days before the post went live. I intentionally did not offer my opinion on things, as I wanted it to be neutral. Just like a diary of events that lead me there. Specially because the BAS is neutral on implementations and Bitcoin politics. Non the less my colleagues wanted to post it as Op-Ed post, which was fine for me but it's not an Op-Ed in my view. I also intentionally left out a bit of information I got in PMs from CSW but rather wanted to report on what is out there anyone can look at/confirm.

Last but not least: If you have any more info on this story, things I should know, please feel free. Also PM me if needed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to do much research to know that Craig can't possibly be Satoshi. Just listen carefully to what he is saying and doing and it's pretty damn obvious, to me at least it is. Not that it really matters, Bitcoin has no single authoritative figure and in a way we are all Satoshi. As in all of us together create Bitcoin and its future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mizar said:

You don't need to do much research to know that Craig can't possibly be Satoshi. Just listen carefully to what he is saying and doing and it's pretty damn obvious, to me at least it is. Not that it really matters, Bitcoin has no single authoritative figure and in a way we are all Satoshi. As in all of us together create Bitcoin and its future.

Do you have some concrete examples?

Quite frankly, I think there are many indications that he could very well have been part of that initial team. At least the whole story is way too enmeshed for it to be a simple hoax. That just doesn't add up and preparations for it would have had to start way, way way back. That "scammer", "hoax" view on it is way to simplistic and the people joining that choir are normally just pissed that he didn't provide a signature and seem to lack imagination. Also often the straight out refuse to even consider anything coming out of that corner... Interested to hear more on that from you.

 

Edit: You are of course right, it doesn't matter. Only what he has been working on and what will be released matters and where Bitcoin will go as a whole. Still the story interests people and that is OK. For SoG it would sure be nice if that vision worked out as the fees are killing quite some of our use case here.

Edited by BenRPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenRPG said:

Do you have some concrete examples?

 

Well for one he hasn't been able to show one single line of code, he is all about politics and talk and not much substance. He is pushing for centralization and bigger blocks and seems to lack technical expertise and doesn't care much about network security. In other words he is relying on populist rhetoric instead of his technical skills, which doesn't sound like Satoshi at all to me. He sounds more like a conman who is looking to make money and fame out of this. For concrete examples I would just look at the talk he gave at the future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem recently, where he came across as agitated, angry and unprofessional. Just watch this for some good excerpts and commentary which I fully agree with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmn0UDftIoI&t=66s

 

 

Edited by Mizar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2017 at 8:56 PM, BenRPG said:

Glad to hear that you enjoyed the read.

In my view, BitCrystals are not an alt-coin. For me an alt-coin has it's own security model, so it's own blockchain so to speak. BitCrystals are a token on top of the Bitcoin blockchain through Counterparty. Counterparty makes use of the Bitcoins security model.

I don not know, what the implications for Counterparty would be if Bitcoin turned out to be Touring complete.  It could mean that Counterparty could be more efficiently implemented in a different way. I must admit, I am absolutely not knowledgeable enough about the implications at this point. The quote you picked was in fact more me interpreting what other people stated about what the potential implications could be. I also don't know at this point how the people who are more heavily involved thing about Counterparty in the light of the potential Touring completeness.

 

 

Quite the opposite is true, the scrpiting language of Bitcoin should be less powerful rather than more (Turing complete lol). For one it would enable Mimblewimble and all it's benefits.

It won't happen as without a hf you cannot even take functionality away (and for that reason I'd be against it) however an altcoin attempting a stripped down version of Bitcoin would be technically and conceptually superior to Bitcoin (just like Eth is conceptially inferior) and perhaps knock Bitcoin of its throne someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wachtwoord said:

Quite the opposite is true, the scrpiting language of Bitcoin should be less powerful rather than more (Turing complete lol). For one it would enable Mimblewimble and all it's benefits.

It won't happen as without a hf you cannot even take functionality away (and for that reason I'd be against it) however an altcoin attempting a stripped down version of Bitcoin would be technically and conceptually superior to Bitcoin (just like Eth is conceptially inferior) and perhaps knock Bitcoin of its throne someday.

I am not sure I understand you. Do you mean it would have to become less powerful in order to be Turing complete? Or are you saying that your opinion is that you do not want it to have this "feature"? Can you not just not use functionality instead of taking it away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying Turing completeness is entirely undesriable for a secure store of value. It enables a great many attack vectors.

I'm saying, if anything, Bitcoin would be better off if the scripting language were less powerful :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

I'm saying Turing completeness is entirely undesriable for a secure store of value. It enables a great many attack vectors.

I'm saying, if anything, Bitcoin would be better off if the scripting language were less powerful :)

If it's was already there....? Bitcoin would be the same thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter if CSW is Satoshi - NO DEFINITELY NOT . Does it matter if you believe CSW is Satoshi - YES. Under normal circumstances no, but these are not normal circumstances. We are getting a hard fork on 1 August. This means we will all have BCC and BTC in our wallet. You have a choice Sell one or the other or keep both. Where you end up depends on what you believe in. I believe that the BCC fork will survive and in the end will surpass the BTC chain.

1) CSW supports the BCC chain.

He is nChain and they are introducing split chain and new op codes for Turing completeness

2) Replay protection on BCC chain

These people are serious and responsible, plus the system they use makes it fraud proof and opens the way for sharding.

These are enormous improvement to the Bitcoin protocol. Turing completeness was the whole reason for Ethereums' inception. Will this kill Ethereum? I believe it will. Means smart contract when they become useful can be perform on the most safe and secure chain. Ethereum is totally buggy. They are brushing aside the hacks and loss so far. But ask yourself. Will you put your bitcoin in a wallet if you know that there is a 1 in 1000 chance that you may lose your money? Even this possibility cannot justify any company to risk their shareholders money on the platform. They have a fiduciary duty not to take that kind of risk.

3) Sharding is the holy grail for Ethereum and they have not succeeded. Basically sharing the processing load on different computers. BCC adopts Bip143 style signature, which solves malleability and makes the system fraud proof, which is necessary for sharding.

All these developments are on BCC and not BTC. Can they not be adopted? Sure they can, but Core have proven so far that they don't look outside their sphere. Plus they absolutely hate the big blockers. 

4) What happens after the fork?

The first thing is that BCC has bigger blocks while BTC will have 1MB for at least 3 months. So it will be cheaper to transact on BCC. This I believe is the biggest organic push by users to BCC and the miners and developers must follow the users. Also the people on the BTC side of the chain will always be arguing if the 2mb hard fork will be activated while te people on BCC will get on with business. You win by what you do not what you say.

Will BCC chain survive? What if it has low hash rate behind it? It will survive because the community sees the benefit of having a second option in case the first option fails. Means the big miners will not attack the BCC chain. And there will be a second chain because the people behind it are willing to mine the chain even though it is less profitable to do so.

So it is important on which chain you want to be on. You can sit and do nothing and all will be well but what if you want to spend some BTC? Are you going to spend your BCC or BTC? If you want to take a position, taking the wrong position means you will lose your money. So it is important if you believe CSW is Satoshi or not. Long term (6 months) both chain cannot survive one will wither and become an Alt.

Why I believe CSW is Satoshi

It really does not matter if he is or is not, except to satisfy one's curiosity. But look at it this way. What does it take to be Satoshi? He must have very good grasp of programming, cryptography, game theory, Maths, Economics and Philosophy. Is Satoshi one person or a group. I argue that it is one person and he solve the Byzantine Generals problem, help by small group of people after the release of the software. You will also need to have a connection to these small group of people.

Solving the Byzantine General problem is what scientist call a hard problem. It is not obvious and the solution is worthy of the Nobel prize. So why did he release it anonymously? I think because he knew that if it did not get traction and adoption it will die either from within or without. He was worried about Wikileak using bitcoin before Bitcoin was ready. Attracting attention to it will surely get it stomp on by the authorities, and open himself to criminal prosecutions. Every other person who engaged in digital money up to then have had legal and criminal problems to content with. Can you count how many people dismiss it outright at first glance only to rediscover and adopt it later when it refuses to die. 

Lastly, this is a gift to humanity. It takes a special kind of person to do that. One must have "lived". Such a person will be a contradiction. A complex person. One where the Yin and Yang flares up easily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BenRPG said:

If it's was already there....? Bitcoin would be the same thing...

What? Did you understand my post as yours doesn't seem to make sense wrt it 😯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regars to the people thinking csw is Satoshi all I can say is lol. Back when it came out it was instantly clear his "proof" was fraudulent. While a proof for the real Satoshi would be childsplay (sign a message with the keys of an early Bitcoin).

Seriously, the chance Donald Trump is Satoshi is larger than Craig Wright 😅

Btw the most likely candidate is Nick Szabo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

With regars to the people thinking csw is Satoshi all I can say is lol. Back when it came out it was instantly clear his "proof" was fraudulent. While a proof for the real Satoshi would be childsplay (sign a message with the keys of an early Bitcoin).

Seriously, the chance Donald Trump is Satoshi is larger than Craig Wright 😅

Btw the most likely candidate is Nick Szabo.

Nothing is as black and white as we sometimes would like to have it.

According to CSW OP_PICK is good enough as second stack. The so called "spam-attack" was most likely a 2pda test. Can't wait for the paper to come out on this. Make sure to have your popcorn ready for the 1st of August.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers.

  • You must be an advanced coder with wizardly abilities to be a bitcoin developer.
  • You have to work on the bitcoin source code to be a bitcoin developer.
  • Being a bitcoin developer means you will become fabulously wealthy, and all your wildest dreams will come true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×