Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
⭐ Merited by MagicByt3 (1)
...snip...
Remember when Craig announced that he was working on true fungibility and mixing for BCH? I do!
Remember when Craig announced that he was working on true fungibility and mixing for BCH? I do!
Jep - but that's not against tracability IF YOU NEED IT to prove against regulatory instances where your ownings came from. Otherwise you ll get rekt or blacklisted anyway
Mixing (on or off chain) is probably the worst way to do privacy, anonymity, or to prevent traceability etc., This only provides plausible deniability, at best.
What people don't currently realize is "Oblivious Transfers", won't even add 'true' fungibility. - SWIM
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
Definition of oblivious;
1 : lacking remembrance, memory, or mindful attention
2 : lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness usually used with of or to
Synonyms;
clueless, ignorant, incognizant, innocent, insensible, nescient, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, uninformed, unknowing, unmindful, unwitting
This is a very interesting topic. If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.
Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations. It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.
The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist? It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that. If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any ideas on this?
It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.
We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.
Originally, a coin can be just a chain of signatures. With a timestamp service, the old ones could be dropped eventually before there's too much backtrace fan-out, or coins could be kept individually or in denominations. It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions.
The challenge is, how do you prove that no other spends exist? It seems a node must know about all transactions to be able to verify that. If it only knows the hash of the in/outpoints, it can't check the signatures to see if an outpoint has been spent before. Do you have any ideas on this?
It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.
We're trying to prove the absence of something, which seems to require knowing about all and checking that the something isn't included.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge_proof
Quote
This example requires two identical objects with different colours such as two coloured balls.
Imagine your friend is red-green colour-blind (while you are not) and you have two balls: one red and one green, but otherwise identical. To your friend they seem completely identical and he is skeptical that they are actually distinguishable. You want to prove to him they are in fact differently-coloured, but nothing else; in particular, you do not want to reveal which one is the red and which is the green ball.
Here is the proof system. You give the two balls to your friend and he puts them behind his back. Next, he takes one of the balls and brings it out from behind his back and displays it. He then places it behind his back again and then chooses to reveal just one of the two balls, picking one of the two at random with equal probability. He will ask you, "Did I switch the ball?" This whole procedure is then repeated as often as necessary.
By looking at their colours, you can of course say with certainty whether or not he switched them. On the other hand, if they were the same colour and hence indistinguishable, there is no way you could guess correctly with probability higher than 50%.
Since the probability that you would have randomly succeeded at identifying each switch/non-switch is 50%, the probability of having randomly succeeded at all switch/non-switches approaches zero ("soundness"). If you and your friend repeat this "proof" multiple times (e.g. 100 times), your friend should become convinced ("completeness") that the balls are indeed differently coloured.
The above proof is zero-knowledge because your friend never learns which ball is green and which is red; indeed, he gains no knowledge about how to distinguish the balls.
Imagine your friend is red-green colour-blind (while you are not) and you have two balls: one red and one green, but otherwise identical. To your friend they seem completely identical and he is skeptical that they are actually distinguishable. You want to prove to him they are in fact differently-coloured, but nothing else; in particular, you do not want to reveal which one is the red and which is the green ball.
Here is the proof system. You give the two balls to your friend and he puts them behind his back. Next, he takes one of the balls and brings it out from behind his back and displays it. He then places it behind his back again and then chooses to reveal just one of the two balls, picking one of the two at random with equal probability. He will ask you, "Did I switch the ball?" This whole procedure is then repeated as often as necessary.
By looking at their colours, you can of course say with certainty whether or not he switched them. On the other hand, if they were the same colour and hence indistinguishable, there is no way you could guess correctly with probability higher than 50%.
Since the probability that you would have randomly succeeded at identifying each switch/non-switch is 50%, the probability of having randomly succeeded at all switch/non-switches approaches zero ("soundness"). If you and your friend repeat this "proof" multiple times (e.g. 100 times), your friend should become convinced ("completeness") that the balls are indeed differently coloured.
The above proof is zero-knowledge because your friend never learns which ball is green and which is red; indeed, he gains no knowledge about how to distinguish the balls.
This example cannot be applied to bitcoin since it is interactive. You convince just the colorblind friend and nobody else. And, by the way, even in this case, there is no way you show him are there any unspent coins inside those colored balls. This is what you failed to understand. You will say that you provided the link for Non-interactive zero-knowledge proof and Pairing-based cryptography and it's further implementation to ZCash protocol.
I will say that this is not needed. 0-conf is not needed in Bitcoin.
From Bitcoin whitepaper:
And another quote from satoshi on this forum:
Bitcoin TX's may be fast, bitcoin can even scale(BSV), however, they are not instant and were not designed to be so. Failed delivery, rerouting, damage in delivery (malicious maltreating included) or simply delayed all arise with Bitcoin transactions.
Cool tournament, by the way.
I have not failed to understand what the real Satoshi meant (who is most certainly not CSW).
I also do not require your help in any matter whatsoever either ...
Bitcoin TX's are not fast, they are in fact more or less instant, when broadcast.
Transaction throughput (network confirmation time etc.,) is largely what governs scalability. Not block size.
It is mostly the 10 min. blocktime which directly hinders throughput / volume of congested bitcoin transactions. Changing this "Set in Stone" value obviously would alter the economic distribution model, something which is far from acceptable.
This is why Hal said off chain transactions were important to scaling bitcoin and for mass adoption.
Good luck with the BSV big blocks 'sand pit'. All BSV will do is increase centralization of it's own network / protocol.
I made a quote on this forum in this regard very early on in BTC days, something to the effect of "It does not matter what you do, eventually you will run out of space."
Better, faster, more private blockchain's are coming.
...
Oh wait, actually you could request that your BSV 'fraudtoshi' leader (CSW) create a new account on this forum and drop me a PM ...
Ask him to tell me what Satoshi told me that he/she/they wanted to build for bitcoin before I left this forum ?
It would also be preferable if the message was signed with Satoshi Nakamoto's PGP Key ...
- https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/satoshinakamoto.asc
I will wait until May 2020, although I will most certainly continue to wait longer.
- https://youtu.be/vA2vCG6WwQA
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188
BitcoinFX, can you pm or email me, I have a couple questions about back in 2010.
Is/was that you CSW ? Fishing for Luckies ? lol
and ...
How to be a "Faketoshi", better than any other "Faketoshi" !?!
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148607.0