Interesting! I will refrain from digging into QC right now, per Alan's
suggestion. :)
--
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up.
I studied with Jeffrey Hoffstein at Brown, one of the creators of NTRU. He
told me recently NTRU, which is lattice based, is one of the few (only?)
NIST-recommended QC-resistant algorithms.
We talked over layering on NTRU to Bitcoin last year when I was out that
way; I think such a thing could be
00582cc323897a582e9368a5c3dfbcdcf73e78b261703e1bd1ba
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
900 Winslow Way East / SUITE 100 / Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
811 FIRST AVENUE / SUITE 480 / SEATTLE, WA 98104
--
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
, Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com
wrote:
Can some enterprising soul determine if there were any double-spend
attempts?
I'm assuming no, and if that's the case, we should talk about that
publicly.
[snip]
I agree it would be good to confirm no one was ripped off, even though
we can't say
We've been toying with the idea of a 'dead' button, one that issues a bunch
of pre-generated txs sending stuff out to a previously secured 'backup' set
of addresses (we don't think in terms of wallets, just keypairs).
In this scenario, you have a long-term storage address (or set of them),
and if
My reply-all forward was blocked (over 40k), sigh. I figured I'd spammed
the list enough for one night.
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance
I meant sent twice, a.
No double-spends that I'm aware of. Sorry for the loose verbiage!
Peter
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com wrote:
This is small, but an interesting tidbit from BTC
And, finally, when I say Ditto to above I mean I have no idea, not
nope. Double oops.
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856 / SKYPE: vessenes
811 FIRST AVENUE / SUITE 480 / SEATTLE, WA 98104
--
Got visibility?
Most devs has no idea what their production app looks
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856
This is a good idea. I think I can come up with the cash, I will
follow up with gavin.
Sent from my smartphone!
On Jul 29, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
MacOS X 10.8 makes application signing borderline mandatory, in that
you cannot run unsigned apps unless you tweak
/
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@exmulti.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Peter Vessenes pe...@coinlab.com wrote:
The proposal is simple, and it's a small change for miners, I imagine.
My question is: why?
I worry about stuffing too many requirements
/
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
--
[image: CoinLab Logo]PETER VESSENES
CEO
*pe...@coinlab.com * / 206.486.6856
This is super cool!
I have a feature request: it would be awesome to be able to provide private
keys at the command line with the signature, turning the client into a
wallet-less signature machine.
Peter
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
I
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Analysis, comments, constructive criticism, etc welcome for the following:
==Background==
At present, an attacker can harm a pool by intentionally NOT submitting
shares
that are also valid blocks. All pools are vulnerable to
OK, I have a few thoughts on this:
1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will
not get implemented by miners.
2) Coinbase is hard-limited to 100 bytes; this has to include space for
voting as well as extra nonce, etc. So, I'm not sure that a full URL is a
good plan.
I suppose I mean that I don't understand how to reverse that into a URL
when one is presented only with a block, or perhaps a coinbase in a
transaction.
Best,
Peter
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:28:56 PM Peter Vessenes wrote:
I
adds significant cost to the network as a whole over
the next 10 years.
Peter
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:36:34 PM Peter Vessenes wrote:
I suppose I mean that I don't understand how to reverse that into a URL
when one
for the 'maybes' to participate -- hence small
courtesies like allowing text/plain or text/html.
Peter
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:05:18 PM Peter Vessenes wrote:
1) Germane to the original conversation, anything hard to implement will
not get
We just implemented our own mining tool, soup-to-nuts, and I would say that
the likely motivation for what I presume are botnet owners is just economic.
It's a lot more work to make sure your merkleing and keeping up-to-date are
happening than it is to just get an 80 byte header from a central
Thanks for this, Amir.
My initial reactions:
1) This is cool and useful (but see 3)
2) This is significantly less secure than validating an entire blockchain;
it's certainly worth working out some use cases here in more detail than
just a sample conversation. More on this below
3) What about
Blocks already checksum; they hash to a low number.
Also inre: block headers, you are furnished with a previous hash in the
first 80 bytes of the block. You can always cut the connection at that
moment if you've already seen the block headers.
Peter
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Zell Faze
These are interesting thoughts, karma for bitcoins essentially.
I would like CoinLab to publish a 'cost of subverting 1-n transactions with
90% probability' metric soon, and I think it would help everyone to
understand what that number is.
When we started out, you probably needed to wait 5
I agree that it would be nice if the protocol stayed stateless.
I also think we should try and keep in our heads the aggregate
bitcoin-universe cost of implementing any protocol change; even a very
small change, something that truly only takes one hour of time from each
bitcoin node client
I don't think it's minimally invasive to layer PGP's web of trust on top of
Bitcoin, in fact, the opposite.
From a certain angle, bitcoin exists as a sort of answer / alternate
solution to the web of trust. Digital cash with an existing web of trust in
place was a working concept in the
It seems to me that the internet as a whole has got this one covered. I say
this as someone who thinks that BitCoin needs to choose its battles and
craft its reputation extremely carefully; this isn't the most important
fight for BitCoin, nor the most deadly.
I do think SOPA and PIPA could impact
29 matches
Mail list logo
