Jump to content
Bitcoin Foundation

Piotr Piasecki (ThePiachu)

Lifetime
  • Content count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Piotr Piasecki (ThePiachu) last won the day on April 21 2013

Piotr Piasecki (ThePiachu) had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

112 Excellent

About Piotr Piasecki (ThePiachu)

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Lets keep the Bitcoin wiki clean - remove Tonal junk

    If someone wanted to remove it, it would probably be pushed back heavily by Luke, who is one of the wiki admins. Seeing how he likes to remove people's opinion on deleting the page ( ) , or engage in endless edit wars (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tonal_Bitcoin&action=history) it would probably require a community effort. That being said, it looks like the Units page was cleared of the clutter (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units), and the Tonal page remains as a historical reference, so it is a good balance in the end.
  2. Lets keep the Bitcoin wiki clean - remove Tonal junk

    I'm reaching out to the Bitcoin community in the Foundation rather than the Foundation itself.
  3. Lets keep the Bitcoin wiki clean - remove Tonal junk

    Here are some talks on removing Tonal Bitcoins from the Bitconi wiki: - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Tonal_Bitcoin - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Units#Remove_Tonal_Bitcoins Lets keep our wiki clean of such clutter. The author of Tonal Bitcoins called them an altcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=218388.0), and seeing as the Bitcoin wiki does not have a page for Litecoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin) or Dogecoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Dogecoin) and he himself has removed any mention of altcoin-specific data from such pages as List of Address Prefixes (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=List_of_address_prefixes&diff=48686&oldid=24158), we should uphold those standards and remove Tonal Bitcoin from the wiki. Nobody cares about it, nobody uses it, lets remove this junk once and for all.
  4. Coin tracking

    Someone would try starting some block washing service where people would start sending transaction with higher fees just to wash them for a piece of clean coinbase transaction. Already the issue of washing coins by buying hashing power is pretty easy. Making something like this a clear way out pokes big holes in the system. Go onto some popular faucet website, or some social media site or anything, stand on a barrel and start tossing out coins to swarming masses of beggars. Everyone would be happy to get your tainted coins and mix them up with their normal money inflating the amount of tainted coins to high levels. "Oh hello there owner of the redlist. Here is a gag order for you to keep this conversation secret. You see, there is this organization that is leaking government information in an act of treason. Here is a warrant for you to redlist those addresses. If you don't comply, we will be forced to assume you are aiding the terrorists in getting their money and take you to court and put you away for treason as well." Remember Lavabit? As it goes, if the redlist is supposed to be successful, people will need to make it global. Global usually means "run in the US", which means "controlled by the US". If you have multiple redlists, they are worthless - people could just trade coins redlisted under list A for those redlisted under list B as long as A is green under B and vice versa.
  5. Coin tracking

    Someone would try starting some block washing service where people would start sending transaction with higher fees just to wash them for a piece of clean coinbase transaction. Already the issue of washing coins by buying hashing power is pretty easy. Making something like this a clear way out pokes big holes in the system. Go onto some popular faucet website, or some social media site or anything, stand on a barrel and start tossing out coins to swarming masses of beggars. Everyone would be happy to get your tainted coins and mix them up with their normal money inflating the amount of tainted coins to high levels. "Oh hello there owner of the redlist. Here is a gag order for you to keep this conversation secret. You see, there is this organization that is leaking government information in an act of treason. Here is a warrant for you to redlist those addresses. If you don't comply, we will be forced to assume you are aiding the terrorists in getting their money and take you to court and put you away for treason as well." Remember Lavabit? As it goes, if the redlist is supposed to be successful, people will need to make it global. Global usually means "run in the US", which means "controlled by the US". If you have multiple redlists, they are worthless - people could just trade coins redlisted under list A for those redlisted under list B as long as A is green under B and vice versa.
  6. Coin tracking

    If you can tell a difference between different coins, you destroy the fungibility of Bitcoin - making them less like money. Also, it wouldn't make much sense since rarely would you have purely tainted or pure coins - if someone creates a transaction with 90% pure coins and 10% tainted coins as input, would you consider that transaction as a redlist candidate? How about 99% and 1%? What about block rewards that earned a fee from processing tainted coins? This would be harder to track. Moreover, I think the "redlisting" of coins is a slippery slope. Here is how things could progress: You start with informing people of coins that were used for crime People start discriminating against tainted coins Someone from the US government would have the bright idea of redlisting coins that passed through wallets of "terrorist organizations", so say Wikileaks gets redlisted People that don't know better can't tell a difference between coins redlisted for crimes and ones redlisted by politicians for "war on terror", so they discriminate against them both. Term "terrorist" or whatever is the flavour of the month gets extended to more and more organizations that are inconvenient for the US - Anonymous, some foreign journalists that report on war crimes, government of a country that is "at war" with US or "harbouring terrorists", etc. Soon the redlist becomes a political tool - we start discriminating against the grey area. Say some place does research on human embryos or human cloning in a country where that is legal, but since some western country thinks that their law trumps over regional law, they start redlisting their addresses. Transactions and addresses are started to be added to it indiscriminately because some government agency says they are tied to this or that crime. Whoever is keeping the redlist can't say no since they have some order from the agency, and they can't tell anyone why they are adding those since they have a gag order. Soon you start having a currency controlled by the political powers of one country that houses whoever is making the redlist since they can muscle their way into controlling it. The current system might not be perfect, but trying to implement something that dramatically changes the anonymity of Bitcoin shouldn't be taken lightly.
  7. Historical research needed...

    How about Candlemakers' Petition? http://youtube.com/watch?v=T52w6dFM3T4
  8. I Need Some Developer Help for the Annotated Satoshi Line

    While I'm not a developer, I have researched a lot of Bitcoin stuff - written a master thesis on the subject and so forth. I think I can help you with your project. Message me and we can talk.
  9. BrainPay - a new way to manage your Bitcoins with your brainwallet

    Yes, it sends change back to the original address.
  10. BrainPay - a new way to manage your Bitcoins with your brainwallet

    Well, you can always use it for spare change and review the code. The application does not divulge your private informations. I do understand your concern though.
  11. So, after creating a few Chrome Extensions (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search-extensions/tpidev) I finally got to the meat of what I set out to do. Combining my previous extensions focusing on balance checking, creating transactions and brainwallets, I created BrainPay - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tps-brainpay/aihogeigcnkcklfaljfimkefkmbmlomi . This cool extension lets you access your money stored in a brainwallet from a small popup and send payments to anyone without exposing your private keys outside of the extension. That's right - no more keeping your wallet.dat secure, no more storing long gibberish URLs, and no more letting other people keep your money "safe" for you in eWallets. Finally, your coins are both secure and easy to access for you. I got the idea for this extension from a fellow Bitcoiner that I met at a local Bitcoin Meetup. He is working on an interesting idea that uses the same technology I presented here for a bigger purpose, but I won't be going into that over here. So, lets talk about the features the extension has: * It automatically tracks the balance of your brainwallet address if you wish * It can fetch all Bitcoin addresses present in your current tab with just one button - you no longer have to manually copy the addresses over * You can send money to any number of addresses at once * When you are ready to pay, you just input your brainwallet passphrase and decide whether it is compressed or not (yes, we support compressed addresses for those people that are concerned about the blockchain ) * The app fetches your unspent transactinos from blockchain.info, creates an appropriate transaction and presents it to you for either later use (both as JSON and raw), or to be sent imidietly * Your passphrase or private key never leave the extension I hope you will enjoy this Chrome Extension. Source code is available here - https://github.com/ThePiachu/TPs-BrainPay - so you can review it and make sure we don't send your sensitive information anywhere. If you are also worried about our future updates being used to steal your money, again just use the source code and after review import it into your browser that way. Nobody can automatically update your apps if they are imported like that through a developer mode. And as always - create a new and secure brainwallet password for this new extension. Keep your cold storage safe while your spiffy new hot brainwallet handles the change .
  12. An idea that popped into my head about block size limit expansion

    Yes, but it will make the miners weigh transactions based on their fee when a block size will become unlimited. It will shift the mentality from "I might as well include this transaction as well, it cost me nothing and makes me a satoshi" to "these transactions cost me more to include than they are worth, I will deal with them when I will have free space". Hmm, I think that might be potentially dangerous. Say someone produces a block that is accepted by 90% of the network - this forks the 10% with the weakest computers. The rest of the network carries on without them, so they will eventually be forced to accept that block or be left behind. By tweaking the block size enough the malicious miner could be making such forks on regular basis, probably creating some semi-hard limit for everyone. Then again, maybe I'm just over thinking it.
  13. So a few days ago ago I was discussing some Bitcoin stuff and the topic of block size came up - its expansion and so forth. This got me thinking about the potential implications when the size will be increased. If we set a block size to any arbitrary limit, we probably will reach it sooner rather than later as Bitcoin adoption picks up. But since the blockchain is a shared resources we shouldn't allow for unlimited block size - it would open up a vulnerability to potential attacks (create a ton of microtransactions, bloat a block to 1GB size, kill the network). To counter that, we should introduce some cost for the miners to create big blocks. Preventing blocks from containing certain transactions (very small ones, very young ones, ones not seen by the client) would probably not go over well. Making the miner pay a part of the coinbase to generate a bigger block would also not work as it would screw with the coin generation schedule and not be sustainable in the long run. On the other hand, there is a way we can make the miners "pay" for creating large blocks - by having to do more work. We already have the normal means - target adjustment every so often to keep the blocks generating at a steady pace. Building on that, we could require miners creating blocks bigger than 1MB to solve the work for higher difficulty - 2MB would require difficulty x2, 10MB - x10 and so forth. This approach would allow blocks of arbitrary size to be created without the fear of bloating up the blockchain uncontrollably - it would be prohibitively costly for a malicious miner to do so. Honest miners could increase the block size as needed to accommodate lucrative transactions that are coming in to offset the increased size. The downside is that a miner would need to commit to the size of a block before mining - if they find a solution to a normal difficulty, they would not be able to use that to publish the block. So, what do you think about the solution? I haven't been following the talks on the subject, so I might be repeating what someone else has already proposed.
  14. Bitcoin Journal [potential Grant Proposal]

    Sounds similar to my previous grant proposal: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/59-grant-proposal-bitcoin-review/ It wouldn't be a bad idea to have, but as far as I understand such proposals are not suited for the grant.
  15. In the light of recent lawsuit between Coinlab and MtGox, there are growing voices of concern about BF's Executive Director Peter Vessenes acting against the interests of the Foundation: http://gawker.com/massive-bitcoin-business-partnership-devolves-into-75-487857656 http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dlsnl/open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_foundation_in_light_of/ I would like to ask the Foundation's members about their opinion on the matter. I personally agree that Peter has the right to act in the best interest of his company, but at the same time I would prefer if the board members would remain neutral if not positive in relationships to all Foundation members, especially corporate ones, if at all possible. While I value Peter's input to the organisation, I would rather not give any major Bitcoin companies a reason to leave the Foundation.
×