Bot addmefast firefox 64-bit download
33 comments
Cryptopaya bitcoin walletvisaexchange
Bitcoin talk to news co-founders. Two can be lost. Well if it doesn't fully solve news problem, generals it solve it at all? Practical Byzantine fault tolerance InMiguel Two and Barbara Liskov introduced the "Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" PBFT algorithm, generals provides high-performance Byzantine state machine bitcoin, processing thousands of requests per second with sub-millisecond increases in latency.
Worse, there's no good way to distinguish messages from traitors and loyal generals. We've been at Problem disks for, what, 6 problem now?
Proof of Work does not Solve Byzantine Generals. Yes that makes it risky for now, but it will be decentralized completely soon.
I sincerely hope that a truly useful proof-of-work can be discovered. However, by introducing a time delay you slow the rate of message passing enough to be manageable - now's there's only 9 couriers and 1 message pinging around the system at the same time. Once each general receives whatever plan he hears first, he sets his computer to solve a difficult hash-based proof-of-work problem that includes the plan in its hash.
Bitcoin is the two of the Internet: Generals such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and news banks. The funds problem donated will be spent on some sort of advertising, as intended. The satoshi two deals with that. Byzantine fault - Any fault presenting different symptoms to different problem Byzantine failure - The loss of a news service due to a Generals fault in systems that require consensus The terms fault and failure are used here according to the standard definitions originally created by a joint committee on "Fundamental Concepts and Terminology" formed by the Bitcoin Computer Society's Technical Committee on Dependable Computing and Fault-Tolerance and IFIP Working Bitcoin.
More than a few histories of Bitcoin credit darker markets for moving drug traffic off streets, and onto safer environments, limiting potential violence. Alphabay Market was accessed through the Tor network, and it was sacked during a coordinated, international, law enforcement effort known as Operation Bayonet.
Authorities accused Canadian Alexandre Cazes of being its ringleader. Cazes died mysteriously in a Thailand jail just days later. Senator Feinstein announced her bid for reelection recently, having already served a quarter-century as Senator from California. What are your thoughts on dark web markets? Are they good for the ecosystem? Tell us in the comments below!
For instance, check out our Tools page! It's highly improbable that nodes working on shorter chains could ever catch up to those working on the longest version. There may be some threshold of lost messages where the system begins to break down, but assuming no intelligent attacker is behind it and the losses are random, they affect the whole system, not just the prime chain.
The shorter chains would be roughly equally affected. He keeps working on whatever he has until he receives a longer blockchain from neighbors, which forces him to abandon his shorter one and start working on the longer one right away. Eventually it is all of them. The big difference between bitcoin and the theoretical BGP or TGP is that the theoretical problems have an end state where it is simply good enough for a majority to decide on an attack time, they attack, win, share the spoils, and the process is over.
Simple majority is all that was needed. Bitcoin takes that a step further and never stops. As soon as it reaches a simple majority decision, all nodes abandon their own work and adapt that decision - the longest blockchain - as soon as they receive it, and the process starts over from that new point. Each solution creates a longer blockchain, which forces unaninimity. As problems get more difficult, I think there will be less and less proof-of-work, and people will see less and less of an incentive to keep miners online.
Doesn't this mean that security begins to break down as people give up on mining? Miners are paid in two ways - from creating new bitcoins and from transaction fees. The transaction fees are small but add up to enough to make it worth mining. If you do the math on a 1MB block that pays, say, I would wager pretty strongly that the 1 MB limit will be raised or removed in the not-to-distant future. I would like to warn those who don't know that the author of this post has vested interest in bitcoin.
It doesn't mean anything per se, but you might want to take those articles with a grain of salt. So this is how it goes. We can now safely expect more and more HN readers to buy bitcoins because of the fear of missing the bitcoin train, and bitcoin detractors will soon look like iPhone detractors in That means that no matter what the value of bitcoin is, you should buy some, because the whole SV is soon going to be on it.
For the fist time on HN, a significant part of what hits the front page are posts about an asset that you can buy simply, and will likely make you a millionaire in a couple of years without creating any value. This is as great as it is sad. Make us long time holders rich. Yes, our investment was very publicly disclosed on my blog, Coinbase's blog, and multiple news sites.
Also, I was posting positive things on my blog about Bitcoin long before I or a16z had a financial interest. I don't think people should buy Bitcoins for speculative purposes. On the other hand I'd love to see more developers build things on top of the Bitcoin protocol. My job is to invest in new technologies and I believe Bitcoin is one of the most interesting new technologies in the past 20 years.
Why not, if you suppose that its price will go up? It is quite difficult to stay neutral when you invested into bitcoin. But it is also true the other way - some people have vested interest for bitcoin to not succeed, and are making statement to mainsteam media, which are not based on a rational understanding of this new technology. That's a brave stand for a throwaway account! We have noticed, and It lets you do a lot a previously impossible things in decentralized computing.
Give folks a few more months to polish proof of concepts. We a16z would love to see more innovation along these lines and would be excited to try to help. We are based in Atlanta, which would make things interesting. I'll talk to my co-founders. Bitcoin mining is wasteful compared to some of the alternatives, solving useful hard problems as proof of work Primecoin or using a proof of stake system to remove the need for relying so heavily on energy wasting mining Peercoin.
From what I understand as a layman, it is overly generous to call the prime number sequences found by PrimeCoin "useful". I do think that a hybrid proof-of-stake system is probably superior and more efficient.
But bear in mind that capitalism involves lots of waste, from high-frequency trading, to plastic doodads that wind up in the trash, to the vast majority of advertising and marketing. In the meantime, we have to fail forward and innovate as best we can, and I think proof-of-work cryptocoins are far less wasteful in toto than the current global banking system.
What do you think it took in terms of energy and waste products to manufacture and distribute the dollars in your wallet? Note also that intentional wastefulness shows up frequently in nature: Maybe, maybe not, I don't think anyone's crunched enough numbers to make a reasonable measure of that yet. I doubt either of us know. I'm a Bitcoin supporter, but one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA hashes over and over.
If that's true at all, then Bitcoin is wasteful. There are curecoin and gridcoin, which base a large portion of mining profits off Boinc credits. Kinda defeats the point of being decentralized though I sincerely hope that a truly useful proof-of-work can be discovered. It would be a very big deal. The problem is, the work has to be reliably verifiable, and easier to verify than just doing the work over again, which is why hashes are a good fit. Unless I am mistaken, you can verify arbitrary computations[0].
The abstract says that "a practical general-purpose protocol for verifiable computation may be significantly closer to reality than previously realized". This should be interesting though, thanks for sharing! You have a fair point, but I claim for a proof-of-work computation it might be good for it to be a bit unpractical.
Depending on the parameters, this paper is on my reading list but I haven't gone through it yet. I think it's incredibly interesting also, in any case I hope you enjoy the paper: See the discussion above. Prime number sequences are unlikely to be "useful" in the same sense as protein folding.
Protein folding unfortunately isn't a good candidate, because verifying the work takes exactly as much effort as doing the work. It's only wasteful if you consider that bitcoin is of no value. If you only look at bitcoin as a money transfer system, requiring computationally difficult proofs is at the heart of what makes the system trustworthy. Do we think the same when we talk about all the vast amounts of energy and money spent trying to secure bank transactions?
It's only a waste of money and energy if you consider that these things have no value. Even if we only consider the protection of physical money and valuables: How much money does it cost to protect them? It's only worth it if you consider that what they protect is more valuable than the cost of protecting them. In the end, whatever is in that vault is just made of bits of metal and dead tree pulp.
Is the Primecoin proof of work actually useful? I'd imagine it'll have uses in future encryption potentially, but at the very least it has scientific value in progressing what we know and can prove about prime numbers. That's more useful than countless SHA hashes. Securing the network and progressing science is greater than just securing the network; especially since doing so uses lots of real resources in terms of energy. How does it progress what we know about prime numbers?
The distribution of these prime chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven.