The Bitcoin Thread

[biometrics]

Just some food for thought. In dollar terms bitcoin is up 4X from January. From now on if it doubles every year for the next 8 years it will be worth 1 million dollars, probably about 20 million rand. If it goes up 4X per year for the next 4 years.... 1 million dollars.

I'm not saying it will go that high, it all depends where on the S-curve we are currently. The S-curve will probably flatten out long before we reach that amount.

lol.

 

[JerryMungo]

Just some food for thought. In dollar terms bitcoin is up 4X from January. From now on if it doubles every year for the next 8 years it will be worth 1 million dollars, probably about 20 million rand. If it goes up 4X per year for the next 4 years.... 1 million dollars.

I'm not saying it will go that high, it all depends where on the S-curve we are currently. The S-curve will probably flatten out long before we reach that amount.

If I invest $1 and make 10% per trade (then reinvest the capital plus interest), I only have to make 145 trades to make $1 mil.
Trouble is 10% a trade is not sustainable realistically.

In your scenario, there's market sentiment driving things too... so it's less than likely IMO.
People would take it more seriously if we spoke in mBTC terms IMO.

 

[Thor]

It seems blockchain tech is here to stay though there is a lot of thrashing around trying to find uses for it.

As to cryptocurrencies, if bitcoin was like $100 I'd buy some, but that ship has sailed, so I'll pass.

2 points on the price of bitcoin.

Right now, people are still able to own a bitcoin (that is not the intention), people must own Satoshi. Bitcoin will be the equivalent of a gold bullion for example and the everyday currency people use will be Satoshi.

Thus Bitcoin's price, should bitcoin remain relevant will far succeed $100k.

--
Back to blockchain, I am a lot more interested in what IOTA can do especially considering the very real push for IOT looking at Tesla and the likes.

I think personally, this is the next evolution of whatever you call these things.

Example, Fire, Flight, Industry, Internet, communication/digital and now we'll have the next one.

 

[Thor]

Then there is also this.

 

[Space]

Then there is also this.

John David McAfee (/ˈmækəfiː/ MAK-ə-fee;[2] born September 18, 1945) is a British-American computer programmer and businessman. He founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987 and ran it until 1994, when he resigned from the company. McAfee Associates achieved early success as the creators of McAfee, the first commercial antivirus software, and the business now produces a range of enterprise security software. The company was renamed to Intel Security in 2011 after being purchased by Intel, though the software still retains the McAfee brand name. McAfee's wealth peaked in 2007 at $100 million, before his investments plummeted in the global financial crisis that began that year.

He is also a political activist who sought the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election, losing to former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. McAfee also has interests in smartphone apps, cryptocurrency, yoga, and all-natural antibiotics. He resided for a number of years in Belize, but after several disputes with the authorities in Belize and Guatemala, he returned to the United States in 2013.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee

 

[Sly21C]

2 points on the price of bitcoin.

Right now, people are still able to own a bitcoin (that is not the intention), people must own Satoshi. Bitcoin will be the equivalent of a gold bullion for example and the everyday currency people use will be Satoshi.

Thus Bitcoin's price, should bitcoin remain relevant will far succeed $100k.

--
Back to blockchain, I am a lot more interested in what IOTA can do especially considering the very real push for IOT looking at Tesla and the likes.

I think personally, this is the next evolution of whatever you call these things.

Example, Fire, Flight, Industry, Internet, communication/digital and now we'll have the next one.

I'm still trying to program my mind to price alt coins in terms of Satoshis, and not in terms of US Dollars. For example, Ether is 7 million Satoshis, instead of US$300.

I'm in love with IOTA and their Tangle. But I'm not invested in them anymore for now because their rate of growth is slow. I'll accumulate MIOTAS once I start making profits. The IOT is going to be huge. M2M communication will be huge.

 

[JerryMungo]

^^Hard to take the guy seriously

Supposedly some big drug boss is writing his biography?

 

[Thor]

^^Hard to take the guy seriously

Supposedly some big drug boss is writing his biography?

If Bitcoin where to be what it is intended to be then that number isn't so shocking.

People need to stop thinking in terms of bitcoin and start understanding Satoshi.

 

[balky]

People need to stop thinking in terms of bitcoin and start understanding Satoshi.

The name "bitcoin" was not the best choice because "coin" implies a physical entity which confuses some noobs, and also "coin" makes you want to own at least one whole bitcoin. Satoshi should have called it bitcash, with say 100 000 sats = 1 bit or something like that.

 

[JerryMungo]

If Bitcoin where to be what it is intended to be then that number isn't so shocking.

People need to stop thinking in terms of bitcoin and start understanding Satoshi.

I can only assume you saw what John thought he wrote :crylaugh:
c'mon! It's stuff like this that loses people money daily.

 

[JerryMungo]

The name "bitcoin" was not the best choice because "coin" implies a physical entity which confuses some noobs, and also "coin" makes you want to own at least one whole bitcoin. Satoshi should have called it bitcash, with say 100 000 sats = 1 bit or something like that.

Or it was never about noobs or leets but ordinary people who could relate to coins rather than satoshi.

 

[balky]

How'd your Coinye investment go? Dogecoin? ****coin? T1tcoin? etc. etc.

IMO what the system lacks right now is a human friendly interface for transfer. I mean, I get that the address has to be unique and all, but a shorter address coupled with a second or maybe third vector, such as the recipient's email address and their own unique code for the address would be more helpful. It's the difference between being able to dictate someone's physical address and postal code vs their GPS co-ordinates over the phone... I know which is likely to be more accurate.
Until that is resolved, the system will remain a geek / millennial and later friendly offering.

Not only does it have to be unique, but it has to fulfill certain requirements. When creating a bitcoin address, a 256bit random number is generated. This becomes your private key. This is then applied to the RSA algorithm which generates your public key. Your public key is then hashed twice, a (zero value) byte is added and then it is hashed again. The 1st 32 bits of this last hash is added as a checksum, and the whole string is converted to base58.
You sign a transaction with your private key, and provide your public key. The miner which verifies the transaction can also verify that the public key is linked to your bitcoin address.

TL;DR: It is not possible to choose a bitcoin address - you can only choose a private key, and from that your public key and bitcoin address is derived.

Sure, but you can use the blockchain to store user defined vectors along side the unique key to give you a unique way of identifying an address by the vectors. It's a great practical application of blockchain technology.

You originally said use a shorter address btw. Adding an extra vector to the existing address has 2 problems:
1) It makes the transaction larger in size which will cause even more scaling issues then they already have.
2) You would have to ensure that nobody uses the same vector that you use, which would require a 3rd party to manage.

 

[JerryMungo]

You originally said use a shorter address btw. Adding an extra vector to the existing address has 2 problems:
1) It makes the transaction larger in size which will cause even more scaling issues then they already have.
2) You would have to ensure that nobody uses the same vector that you use, which would require a 3rd party to manage.

You're misunderstanding completely. Shorter address - yes - your email address. The other two vectors are optional and for your own accounting.

You have two transactions - one to the 'address blockchain' that indexes all addresses and provides an alternative human readable address and one to the transactional blockchain.

The address blockchain is optional and up to the recipient (whether they use and advertise the human readable or the non-hr address). If you choose not to have a human readable address, it's business as usual with the existing system. The existing blockchain is agnostic to the human readable address blockchain.

The index in the hr-blockchain is the transactional address... as for uniqueness, your email address is unique, and under that you have two further configurable vectors to make it unique within your own ecosystem -that's totally under your control. If you care about privacy, then this system may not be for you, if you're a public entity, then the privacy question is moot... that said, the hr-blockchain can hash the address data, so privacy is not an issue from that point of view... your address will still be hidden.

 

[balky]

How'd your Coinye investment go? Dogecoin? ****coin? T1tcoin? etc. etc.

IMO what the system lacks right now is a human friendly interface for transfer. I mean, I get that the address has to be unique and all, but a shorter address coupled with a second or maybe third vector, such as the recipient's email address and their own unique code for the address would be more helpful. It's the difference between being able to dictate someone's physical address and postal code vs their GPS co-ordinates over the phone... I know which is likely to be more accurate.
Until that is resolved, the system will remain a geek / millennial and later friendly offering.

Not only does it have to be unique, but it has to fulfill certain requirements. When creating a bitcoin address, a 256bit random number is generated. This becomes your private key. This is then applied to the RSA algorithm which generates your public key. Your public key is then hashed twice, a (zero value) byte is added and then it is hashed again. The 1st 32 bits of this last hash is added as a checksum, and the whole string is converted to base58.
You sign a transaction with your private key, and provide your public key. The miner which verifies the transaction can also verify that the public key is linked to your bitcoin address.

TL;DR: It is not possible to choose a bitcoin address - you can only choose a private key, and from that your public key and bitcoin address is derived.

You're misunderstanding completely. Shorter address - yes - your email address. The other two vectors are optional and for your own accounting.

You have two transactions - one to the 'address blockchain' that indexes all addresses and provides an alternative human readable address and one to the transactional blockchain.

The address blockchain is optional and up to the recipient (whether they use and advertise the human readable or the non-hr address). If you choose not to have a human readable address, it's business as usual with the existing system. The existing blockchain is agnostic to the human readable address blockchain.

The index in the hr-blockchain is the transactional address... as for uniqueness, your email address is unique, and under that you have two further configurable vectors to make it unique within your own ecosystem -that's totally under your control. If you care about privacy, then this system may not be for you, if you're a public entity, then the privacy question is moot... that said, the hr-blockchain can hash the address data, so privacy is not an issue from that point of view... your address will still be hidden.

So you are saying have 2 blockchains, one being the 'address blockchain'.
What would be the motivation for miners to mine the 'address blockchain' ?
My wallet uses a new address for every receipt of btc, so I would have to link multiple btc addresses to my email address, and probably pay a fee for each one.
How would the 'address blockchain' resolve the correct btc address in that case?
What if someone used my email address linked to their btc address?
Will there be enough hash power for me to trust the 'address blockchain', because this now adds an extra layer which can be compromised? In other words if I send btc to your human readable address, it may go to someone else.

 

[JerryMungo]

So you are saying have 2 blockchains, one being the 'address blockchain'.
What would be the motivation for miners to mine the 'address blockchain' ?

Use an existing blockchain to store the address or create a new coin around the project. There's a business to be made around it... or you get enough of the community's support to invest their own time and effort developing and supporting it.

My wallet uses a new address for every receipt of btc, so I would have to link multiple btc addresses to my email address, and probably pay a fee for each one.

Do you pay a fee for every address for BTC? What benefit do you get out of using multiple addresses?

How would the 'address blockchain' resolve the correct btc address in that case?

What case - you haven't articulated a clear use case. If you had an address blockchain you wouldn't be dealing with your wallet as it stands.

What if someone used my email address linked to their btc address?

Finer details to be discussed but flip, this is hardly an issue. We're not developing anything, it's a concept. Email confirmation link for one, how else do you confirm that a person is the owner of the email address they claim to be?

Will there be enough hash power for me to trust the 'address blockchain', because this now adds an extra layer which can be compromised? In other words if I send btc to your human readable address, it may go to someone else.

Not if the system is designed properly. Again, this is a no brainer to solve. When you send a wallet address, how do you know you'll actually receive the cash? Answer: because that's how the wallet and system are designed... and if it weren't so, your product would simply fail. So you design the system to work the way you want. As for hashing power, like almost every other 'coin' out there, it's not about the coin itself but a problem the ecosystem is trying to solve... but it's monetized for incentive.

If you think this system is going to remain the same for the next 10 years, it's because you're not paying attention.

 

[balky]

Use an existing blockchain to store the address or create a new coin around the project.

Please explain how you would achieve this by using an existing blockchain

Do you pay a fee for every address for BTC? What benefit do you get out of using multiple addresses?

No. It is actually a widely used practice not to store all your coins in one address for security purposes.

What case - you haven't articulated a clear use case. If you had an address blockchain you wouldn't be dealing with your wallet as it stands.

"My wallet uses a new address for every receipt of btc, so I would have to link multiple btc addresses to my email address, and probably pay a fee for each one.
How would the 'address blockchain' resolve the correct btc address in that case?"
I.E. the case with multiple bitcoin addresses linked to 1 email address.

Email confirmation link for one, how else do you confirm that a person is the owner of the email address they claim to be?

Are you seriously suggesting that a blockchain is going to send out emails? For this you would require a centralised 3rd party. No thanks.

Not if the system is designed properly. Again, this is a no brainer to solve. When you send a wallet address, how do you know you'll actually receive the cash? Answer: because that's how the wallet and system are designed... and if it weren't so, your product would simply fail. So you design the system to work the way you want. As for hashing power, like almost every other 'coin' out there, it's not about the coin itself but a problem the ecosystem is trying to solve... but it's monetized for incentive.

You are missing the point. Bitcoin has proven that it is a safe system, and users trust bitcoin. Now you are introducing another layer which would compromise the security of bitcoin.

If you think this system is going to remain the same for the next 10 years, it's because you're not paying attention.

At no point have I ever thought that the system is going to stay the same. I have always been pro-segwit and anti-big blocks.
I agree that the current addresses add complication for a lot of users, and it would be great if this problem can be solved, I just don't think your solution would work.

 

[JerryMungo]

Please explain how you would achieve this by using an existing blockchain

https://letstalkpayments.com/22-com...n-for-identity-management-and-authentication/

No. It is actually a widely used practice not to store all your coins in one address for security purposes.

Doesn't matter really, functionally you can use one or many, and having many is exactly a good use case for human readable addressing.

"My wallet uses a new address for every receipt of btc, so I would have to link multiple btc addresses to my email address, and probably pay a fee for each one.
How would the 'address blockchain' resolve the correct btc address in that case?"
I.E. the case with multiple bitcoin addresses linked to 1 email address.

There are three vectors - your email address and two of your own choosing. Think of them like invoice numbers at a business. How does SARS uniquely identify a sale or purchase on your books? Business name, transaction type, docket number, etc. etc. Nothing new. My suggestion of three was merely an example. Email address, date, transaction number are sufficient for most.

Are you seriously suggesting that a blockchain is going to send out emails? For this you would require a centralised 3rd party. No thanks.

It's a value added service and there are many out there based on blockchain. You use them all the time lol. Blockchain does not sending out your 2fa requests or ask you to confirm your email address when you use the many services that employ it.

You are missing the point. Bitcoin has proven that it is a safe system, and users trust bitcoin. Now you are introducing another layer which would compromise the security of bitcoin.

Nothing of the sort, I'm stating the case for a value added service like every other you already use but probably don't realise you do.

At no point have I ever thought that the system is going to stay the same. I have always been pro-segwit and anti-big blocks.
I agree that the current addresses add complication for a lot of users, and it would be great if this problem can be solved, I just don't think your solution would work.

I've provided very little technical details of a solution, this is merely an idea that can be developed. You're sticking on technical details that haven't even been presented.

 

[balky]

https://letstalkpayments.com/22-com...n-for-identity-management-and-authentication/

Those services are used as proof of identity, to replace things like FICA. They do not provide a service to search the whole blockchain for a string and link it to another string.

Doesn't matter really, functionally you can use one or many, and having many is exactly a good use case for human readable addressing.

So if you have multiple bitcoin addresses linked to you uniqui ID, which address will the system use? Do you see the problem?

There are three vectors - your email address and two of your own choosing. Think of them like invoice numbers at a business. How does SARS uniquely identify a sale or purchase on your books? Business name, transaction type, docket number, etc. etc. Nothing new. My suggestion of three was merely an example. Email address, date, transaction number are sufficient for most.

3 or 30 vectors doesn't change my argument.

It's a value added service and there are many out there based on blockchain. You use them all the time lol. Blockchain does not sending out your 2fa requests or ask you to confirm your email address when you use the many services that employ it.

2FA has absolutely nothing to do with blockchain. 2FA is a 3rd party service that websites use as authentication. Some of the websites happen to be exchanges that trade in crypto currencies, but 2FA is used by the exchanges and not the blockchains.

Nothing of the sort, I'm stating the case for a value added service like every other you already use but probably don't realise you do.

The value added services that I use add a layer of security. In your proposal you are adding a layer of possible weakness - a value added service that is centralised and requires trust in the 3rd party. A blockchain is a decentralised trust-less system.

I've provided very little technical details of a solution, this is merely an idea that can be developed. You're sticking on technical details that haven't even been presented.

If you can come up with a workable solution you will probably make a lot of money. It's just not as easy as you think.

 

[JerryMungo]

Those services are used as proof of identity, to replace things like FICA. They do not provide a service to search the whole blockchain for a string and link it to another string.

They are merely examples of solutions developed on existing blockchains. No, the're not there to solve the issue were discussing, that's why I brought it up - it's something that likely needs to happen.

So if you have multiple bitcoin addresses linked to you uniqui ID, which address will the system use? Do you see the problem?

Don't jump the gun, rather read it all before answering.

3 or 30 vectors doesn't change my argument.

You have an email address - how many people share that? Now how many records / vectors do you have to check against the plain text address used? It's merely an indexing system for addresses that allows one way translation of a human readable 3 field address to a blockchain address.

2FA has absolutely nothing to do with blockchain. 2FA is a 3rd party service that websites use as authentication. Some of the websites happen to be exchanges that trade in crypto currencies, but 2FA is used by the exchanges and not the blockchains.

Now you're getting it. The exchange is a value added service that profits off blockchain. What I'm talking about is a service that links a uniquely identifiable entity to a human readable address when you want to pay them. No need for centralization - the wallet can do the work.

The value added services that I use add a layer of security. In your proposal you are adding a layer of possible weakness - a value added service that is centralised and requires trust in the 3rd party. A blockchain is a decentralised trust-less system.

So? Blockchains without the centralised value adds are pretty much useless.

If you can come up with a workable solution you will probably make a lot of money. It's just not as easy as you think.

It's not about it being easy, it's about it being necessary if the system goes mainstream. The solution is coming and it may or may not take on a form similar to what I described, but that's besides the point.

 

[JerryMungo]

Oh look...
http://www.coinfox.info/news/1919-netki-changes-bitcoin-addresses-into-human-readable-names
https://www.factom.com/blog/netki-factom-announce-partnership