How bitcoin mlm software works and a brief note on bitcoin
Buy what is lost with private chains is non-repudiation of transactions, as PoW can now be manipulated, by the company itself, hackers and the governments. Checkpointing with the main chains is a good start, but is not enough.
I am interested in discussing possible solutions to the problem. It all comes down to the table I drew in this post: My take is that the Bitcoin architecture is a solution to the problem of how to maintain consensus about a ledger when the participants are unknown and many of them are adversarial I know this is loose language… computer scientists working in the consensus space are more precise but I think this captures the essence….
Security is so bad, employees are so untrustworthy, etc. But they are both problematic. Any thoughts on how one might do this? As blockchain ecosystem grows all kinds of data transformation tools will appear e. Inside blockchain could be tuned to be less PoW intensive and to cut blocks faster. We need to construct a lot of hoops for hackers to jump through, as permitter defense is not holding up anymore. And we need to make our systems anti-fragile. The blockchain data structure is a good tool, other P2P tools can be used too.
Also, the blockchain has initiated a renaissance of crypto tech, like multisig, payment channels. Store only what is necessary for the immediate access in a decrypted form on encrypted drives in a database sort of like cold and hot wallets. When homomorphic encryption matures even DB records could be encrypted. Each network participant will incorporate either a full node or an SPV client instead of trusting the access token. I would submit a 5 to your list, economic software design, inspired by the blockchain: These clear boundaries started to erode with the extranets in the 90s, then with the multi-tenant cloud platforms, and lately with the smartphones and the IoT.
As we move forward we will see value chains where participants have multiple roles and affiliations. We will be designing token based systems that produce gains for any participants, internal or external. My team is working on the following preliminary identity design right now: There is no uniqueness of names in real life either. Instead the identity is just a hash of a [json] object that contains a public key. Identity object can not be modified directly, but a new version of it can be created, pointing to a previous version.
The owner of the identity object can optionally connect it with the real life credentials, e. This allows a spectrum of identities from fully anonymous to fully disclosed and verified. This also allows a person to have multiple identities, for work, for social, for gaming, for interest-specific forums.
What are you storing? The hash of the JSON object? The JSON object itself? Here is the rationale:. Mastercoin and Counterparty are embedded consensus protocols or meta-protocols that use the blockchain to store their transactional data.
Bitcoin devs, except Peter Todd who was hired by both teams to help them find a proper solution, are very unhappy, to say mildly, about storing the data on the blockchain.
Heated discussions on this topic go on for hundreds of pages on bitcointalk and Mastercoin github issue. Mining pools like Eligius started censoring Mastercoin transactions not sure if they are continuing with this practice right now, but the operators of this pool are adamant that data do not belong to the blockchain. I think this conservative position without offering an alternative solution, will result in bitcoin ceding the market to Ethereum, much like Apple created an entrance to a much inferior at the time Android by signing an iPhone exclusivity deal with some carriers.
I talked yesterday with Adam Krellenstein of the Counterparty and censorship was threatened, but he said did not yet happen. Yet, as I gathered, it is a remaining concern that can undermine their whole business. Thus Tradle set out to build a meta-protocol that saves the data in the overlay network, and only puts minimal referencing data on the blockchain.
There is a general grumpy consensus among bitcoin core devs and mining pool operators on allowing one small data chunk, a hash, per transaction.
Many devs say it is not possible to secure this second overlay network. I agree, unless we use the blockchain to help with the task. We have a partial solution working, and are preparing a new design to improve it partial, as it can not yet handle all known attacks.
We are actively sharing the designs at various meetups and on the github and are inviting devs to find attack vectors and propose solutions. It is also capable of handling attachment files, needed in the healthcare and financial industries. So there needs to be a way to prove that the identity being asserted really was issued to the owner of the private key associated with the bitcoin transaction that asserts it.
I guess this could work in a world with address reuse. Or am I missing something? Think of the identity hash as a bitcoin address, it is indeed public. The signature is added to a [json] object that is modified with this identity. If you see any fault with this, please let me know. There is a whole other issue of identity theft that needs to be addressed. Just a short note here as this is a big subject: If the private key to identity object is stolen, the true owner of the identity needs to have a way to change the key.
One approach to that would be to use the private key of the bitcoin transaction that created the first version of the identity object. Another way could be to prove the ownership of other public keys on the identity object, like the one used for encryption PGP key management suggests a separate key for each purpose, signing, encryption, etc.
Other non-automatic ways could include a trusted third-party, social proof, etc. This is by far the most enlightening post I have ever read! Since Asia holds the most of the crypto, the price drop in January was because of the Chinese New Year and panic selling. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Standard Posted by gendal.
Posted on October 26, An important paper was published this week: But what are they? And why should anybody care? A mental model for Bitcoin The key to understanding most innovations in the Bitcoin space is to make sure you have the right mental model for how Bitcoin itself works.
Here is the proof that I am entitled to move them And here is how the recipient will, in turn, prove that they are entitled to move them. The critical three parts of a Bitcoin transaction There are several important points here: And you do that by providing the solution to a challenge that was laid down when they were sent to you in the first place. This challenge is usually just: But it can be more sophisticated than that.
But it can be more complicated than that. But there are problems, such as: Transaction Transfer Conditions I said above that you can build sophisticated rules into Bitcoin transactions to specify how ownership is proved.
You send your coins to a particular Bitcoin address They appear inside your circle wallet and are out of your control on the blockchain. At some point in the future, you might send your coins back out of your circle wallet to a Bitcoin address you own You now have control of some coins on the Bitcoin blockchain again!
The sidechains ideas is this: Send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control… and out of the control of anybody else either.
This message contains a proof that the coins were sent to that special address on the Bitcoin network, that they are therefore now immobilized and, crucially, that you were the one who did it If the second blockchain has agreed to be a Bitcoin sidechain, it now does something really special… it creates the exact same number of tokens on its own network and gives you control of them.
You can now transact with those coins on that second chain, under whatever rules that chain chooses to implement. Perhaps blocks are created faster on that sidechain. Perhaps you have to pay fees to incent those securing that sidechain. The rules can be whatever those running that sidechain want them to be. The only rule that matters is that the sidechain agrees to follow the convention that if you can prove you put some Bitcoins out of reach on the Bitcoin network, the same number will pop into existence on the sidechain.
And now for the second clever part. The logic above is symmetric. And it now becomes possible to do some very interesting things in the Bitcoin space. This is a sad state of affairs, and one that apparently shows no signs of alleviating.
I look forward to developments on this issue. BetweenFriends thanks for the comments. Why are you being so difficult? Here is the rationale: Skip to main content. Future is well-secured and awesome! Thanks for reading our b log! Epixel Blogs Epixel Blogs Add new comment Your name.
More information about text formats. Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically. Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Leave this field blank. MLM Software customer support.
Building Platform - Network Marketing Software. What is affiliate marketing? Network marketing business and the future to explore! Guidelines on major Multi-level Marketing Plans! Top 10 cryptocurrency list to explore [ updated version]. Blockchain technology and the basic facts to explore in MLM marketing!