Ledger Nano X - The secure hardware wallet


a guest Aug 15th, 2016 3,644 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. <keepcalmandfork> hola new people
  2. <keepcalmandfork> how are we doing tonight
  3. <luke-jr> doing okay
  4. <luke-jr> planning to post a status update on my HF code soon
  5. <_FeltPen> excellent.
  6. <keepcalmandfork>  nice; let us know and we can add it to the forks list on the btcforks site
  7. <keepcalmandfork> we'll probably run a test version on our testing network to compare to other forks too, once that's ready in a few weeks
  8. <luke-jr> I don't expect the code to be finished that soon, unfortunately. Still much to do.
  9. <keepcalmandfork> fair enough, we will probably not have any code to run it against for several months anyway, but I'd like to prepare a wide area testing infrastructure so it's ready
  10. <luke-jr> sounds like a good plan
  11. * _FeltPen has quit (Quit: Page closed)
  12. * Disconnected (Connection reset by peer).
  13. * keepcalmandfork sets mode +i keepcalmandfork
  14. -NickServ- This nickname is registered. Please choose a different nickname, or identify via /msg NickServ identify <password>.
  15. * Now talking on #btcfork
  16. * Topic for #btcfork is: We are forking Bitcoin || https://bitcoinforks.org/ || No illegal discussion or harrasment tolerated
  17. * Topic for #btcfork set by keepcalmandfork at Thu Aug 04 16:54:46 2016
  18. -NickServ- You are now identified for keepcalmandfork.
  19. <spunky> Creating this new coin
  20. <luke-jr> spunky: no
  21. <spunky> Good
  22. <luke-jr> I am working on hardfork research for Bitcoin only.
  23. <spunky> Also good. It seems like you guys know there is a massive group of people who are silent/silenced and are happy
  24. <keepcalmandfork> Bitcoin Core only*
  25. <keepcalmandfork> spunky, silenced by whom?
  26. <spunky> Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers
  27. <keepcalmandfork> certainly stupid people in large numbers have no power to silence you on the Internet
  28. <spunky> Hahah nice nick dude
  29. <keepcalmandfork> thanks
  30. <spunky> Just so you know where I stand, I am a fence sitter
  31. <keepcalmandfork> it nicely mirrors my opinion that hard forks are the essential mechanism for cryptocurrency governance and evolution :)
  32. <keepcalmandfork> welcome, this is a place for discussion and comparison of all forks (including the current chain)
  33. <luke-jr> the current chain isn't a fork :p
  34. <keepcalmandfork> I disagree.
  35. <luke-jr> then you're wrong.
  36. <keepcalmandfork> eloquent rebuttal
  37. <spunky> It has forked in the past, being the "successful fork" makes it the handle technically
  38. <keepcalmandfork> when a forking event occurs, there will be two forks
  39. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: that's not how consensus systems work.
  40. <keepcalmandfork> again, eloquent rebuttal
  41. <keepcalmandfork> you are incorrect; it is exactly how consensus systems work
  42. <spunky> Hey so... you know Ethereum has cancer right?
  43. <keepcalmandfork> define cancer
  44. <spunky> A cell in the body that doesn't want to die
  45. <spunky> In this case, a fork
  46. <keepcalmandfork> we don't know yet whether it will die or not
  47. <keepcalmandfork> the market will decide
  48. <keepcalmandfork> and markets only work in the long term
  49. <keepcalmandfork> but let's assume for the sake of argument it does not
  50. <keepcalmandfork> that is actually a good thing
  51. <keepcalmandfork> because it means there are two disjoing market needs which cannot be reconciled through network effects
  52. <keepcalmandfork> the users that felt strongly enough to fork would have left for alternatives on a t->infinity time scale
  53. <spunky> It is my opinion that one must die, or the whole thing will
  54. <keepcalmandfork> so better to serve all participants on a shared codebase between which changes can easily be ported
  55. <keepcalmandfork> it is empirical fact that you are incorrect
  56. <keepcalmandfork> we have a multitude of cryptocurrencies
  57. <keepcalmandfork> some of which even bootstrap off each other
  58. <keepcalmandfork> this does not mean cryptocurrency will die
  59. <keepcalmandfork> there is no reason one of the two resulting forks cannot survive a forking event
  60. <spunky> I think competition is not good among clones
  61. <keepcalmandfork> if it does die out it will be due to market demand, and this has nothing to do with a fork
  62. <keepcalmandfork> we have many Bitcoin clones
  63. <keepcalmandfork> even Litecoin has clones
  64. <keepcalmandfork> they compete every day
  65. <keepcalmandfork> the only difference is they do not share a chain
  66. <spunky> If I make a clone of you, and then make you race each other, it's not good
  67. <spunky> It is a corrupt form of competition
  68. <keepcalmandfork> there is no reason two coins that did share a chain could not do the same
  69. <keepcalmandfork> if the clone has no technically meaningful changes it will be rejected by market/users/community
  70. <spunky> Exactly
  71. <spunky> You said it , not me =)
  72. <keepcalmandfork> if it does have technically or politically  meaningful changes the race becomes quite significant
  73. <keepcalmandfork> and the community's opinion essential to fair resolution of the differences between the clones
  74. <spunky> End user doesn't care about internal differences, end user only sees two identical products. Given this choice, end user often chooses neither.
  75. <spunky> It is in this project's best interest to rename, I think
  76. <spunky> Bytecoin
  77. <spunky> Heh
  78. <keepcalmandfork> nope, there will not be renaming
  79. <keepcalmandfork> remember these are forks
  80. <keepcalmandfork> and your opinion that the end user is non discerning is very silly IMO
  81. <keepcalmandfork> even if users do not understand the difference, they will defer to their network of trust towards people who do
  82. <keepcalmandfork> in aggregate users very much do understand the difference between two similar products, much better than developers
  83. <keepcalmandfork> the end users who care what Bitcoin *is* will research the differences, the ones who just want to use it as an ends to a means will just use whatever the parties they transact with recommend
  84. <keepcalmandfork> this is how market consensus is formed, and there is academic research out there that suggests it is quite efficient given a large enough market size (though obviously imperfect, it's clearly superior to miner voting or other decision mechanisms currently in use)
  85. <keepcalmandfork> ETH is a great case study for this
  86. <keepcalmandfork> think about the alternatives to the fork
  87. <keepcalmandfork> imagine the ETH foundation insisted on immutability, and did not fork.  the ecosystem would have knowledge that a large (10% of all in circulation) dump was coming in August, and many would have left the ecosystem as publicly stated
  88. <keepcalmandfork> would the price of ETH (1 chain) in that point be greater than sum(ETH + ETHC) today?
  89. <keepcalmandfork> doubtful
  90. <keepcalmandfork> now imagine the ETH foundation forked, but their difficulty changes did not allow for minority dissent (as would have happened in Bitcoin), and Classic was unable to fork / was DoA
  91. <keepcalmandfork> many users who valued immutability would be headed for the door.  would price of ETH be greater than sum(ETH+ETHC) today?
  92. <keepcalmandfork> it's hard to say exactly, but intuition paints a pretty clear picture that market cap is preserved when the maximum of use cases are catered to
  93. <keepcalmandfork> and network effects matter, but because users may have joined/left anyway because of the conflict that caused the fork (in this case, over DAO funds or not trusting that future bugs could be reverted), there is no evidence that network effects were diminished by the fork
  94. <keepcalmandfork> same w. the blocksize - look how many businesses we are losing
  95. <keepcalmandfork> nobody talks about merchant adoption anymore because it's gone
  96. <keepcalmandfork> all we have are highly speculative and unproven apps, and even in that space we are getting the shit kicked out of us by competitors
  97. <keepcalmandfork> all the major Bitcoin businesses that just two years ago people would insist would make coins be worth $10 or even $100k each today
  98. <keepcalmandfork> the ones people looked at with starry wistful and hopeful eyes, are all pivoting away
  99. <keepcalmandfork> and not to traditional systems, upper layer solutions, or side chains, but to competing crypto
  100. <keepcalmandfork> the writing is on the wall here for anyone that's looking
  101. <keepcalmandfork> and I say this as someone who literally holds 90% of his net worth in BTC and changed his career to be in the space
  102. <spunky> So if there was a fork, would you sell all your Bitcoin for Bytecoin?
  103. <keepcalmandfork> likely not
  104. <keepcalmandfork> the other 10% of my net worth is in ETH, and I still hold both full ETH and ETC
  105. <keepcalmandfork> even though I do not believe in the ETH project nearly as strongly
  106. <keepcalmandfork> the beauty is if you're holding you can always hedge
  107. * Concerns (9185b4a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #btcfork
  108. <keepcalmandfork> and if you're entering the ecosystem you get a fair choice
  109. <spunky> That is the sentiment I'm getting too, some people want to continue the experiment, others want to bunker down and be more conservative
  110. <keepcalmandfork> and the beauty is we can have both
  111. <keepcalmandfork> almost brings a tear to my eye
  112. * Concerns has quit (Client Quit)
  113. * SN (9185b4a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #btcfork
  114. <keepcalmandfork> what is not OK is when those on one side of the debate attempt to aggressively deride all other approaches
  115. <spunky> It would be good to see the ETH/ETC scenario play out, I think one of them will die. I would be very surprised if it was ETH that did. Is that the endgame for this Bytecoin? To see Bitcoin die?
  116. * SN is now known as Guest22502
  117. <keepcalmandfork> the end game is to allow the market to decide
  118. <spunky> Rationally it seems like it, since a name change is not on the table
  119. <keepcalmandfork> also it will not be called Bytecoin
  120. <keepcalmandfork> and there will not be one fork
  121. <keepcalmandfork> we will investigate many forks
  122. <keepcalmandfork> and provide the resources for market choice
  123. * Guest22502 is now known as bitcoin
  124. * bitcoin is now known as Satoshi
  125. <spunky> Yeah, it's tricky. As a business man, I can't work with that
  126. <spunky> Can't build a business on sand, yannow
  127. <keepcalmandfork> you can call the current chain btc-c (bitcoin-core)
  128. <keepcalmandfork> your business can be fork aware
  129. <keepcalmandfork> we will investigate the tools for this as well
  130. <keepcalmandfork> in fact, if your business is not fork aware right now it is massively vulnerable to attack
  131. <keepcalmandfork> because a fork can happen at any time
  132. <spunky> I want to focus on my business, not the politics of my chosen technology
  133. <luke-jr> not changing the name is just dishonest and likely illegal, unless you have consensus for the fork.
  134. <keepcalmandfork> whether accidentally, intentionally, maliciously, in response to a bug, etc.
  135. <keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, there is no trademark on Bitcoin
  136. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: there is.
  137. <keepcalmandfork> then I look forward to challenging it in court
  138. <luke-jr> you will lose.
  139. <keepcalmandfork> doubtful
  140. <luke-jr> not because of the trademark itself, but because you are false advertising
  141. <spunky> End users will lose, the longer this dispute continues
  142. <keepcalmandfork> that is a separate law and a separate issue
  143. <luke-jr> your fork is not Bitcoin, and you are advertising it as such
  144. <keepcalmandfork> your argument is very dynamic
  145. <keepcalmandfork> choose one
  146. <keepcalmandfork> are we being sued for false advertising
  147. <keepcalmandfork> or breach of trademark
  148. <spunky> Why is the name so important?
  149. <luke-jr> you brought up trademark, not I
  150. <keepcalmandfork> we will not lose a false advertising case either, I am confident in this
  151. <Satoshi> what are your thoughts on replay attacks?
  152. <keepcalmandfork> we are using the Bitcoin blockchain, Bitcoin token distribution, Bitcoin genesis, etc.
  153. <luke-jr> you will if you advertise a forkcoin as "Bitcoin"
  154. <luke-jr> no, you're not.
  155. <keepcalmandfork> Satoshi, any fork should change TX format to prevent replay attacks
  156. <luke-jr> you're breaking off the Bitcoin blockchain
  157. <keepcalmandfork> ETH screwed up there
  158. <keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, the Bitcoin blockchain is breaking off us
  159. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: changing tx format breaks nlocktime txs
  160. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: wrong
  161. <keepcalmandfork> we have clear indication that this is the original project vision
  162. <luke-jr> that's a lie, and any competent court will see through it
  163. <keepcalmandfork> so nonconformance is itself a fork
  164. <luke-jr> no, you don't
  165. <Satoshi> then your time line is too ambitious
  166. <keepcalmandfork> saying "any competent fork will see through it" is hand waving
  167. <spunky> My point is, 2x bitcoins = bitcoin has cancer. So I think a name change should seriously be considered
  168. <keepcalmandfork> spunky, there will be 2 bitcoins at some point anyway
  169. <keepcalmandfork> let's accept it and move forward productively
  170. <keepcalmandfork> a hard fork is inevitable
  171. <spunky> Will there?
  172. <keepcalmandfork> there is no other way to loosen rules
  173. <spunky> Most hard forks have a super majority condition
  174. <keepcalmandfork> if you believe the rules must never be loosened, you do not understand software evolution
  175. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: if you don't change the name, other people will de facto pick one for you
  176. <spunky> Meaning the cancer is removed almost immeidately
  177. <luke-jr> probably "btcfork"
  178. <keepcalmandfork> that's fine
  179. <spunky> luke-jr: Very good point
  180. <keepcalmandfork> people can call the tokens whatever they want
  181. <luke-jr> lol
  182. <keepcalmandfork> that is how this works
  183. <luke-jr> "btcfork" sounds stupid
  184. <spunky> You might as well be the one who chooses a nice name
  185. <luke-jr> ^
  186. <keepcalmandfork> spunky, no.  we are talking about a fork of Bitcoin.  We will designate the fork
  187. <luke-jr> not to mention the name "Bitcoin" has a bad reputation
  188. <luke-jr> it almost makes sense to rename whether forking or not
  189. <keepcalmandfork> concern trolling
  190. <keepcalmandfork> we love bitcoin, and so do many people
  191. <keepcalmandfork> we proudly wear the name
  192. <luke-jr> if you want to change Bitcoin without consensus, you do not love Bitcoin, but rather what you imagine Bitcoin ought to be.
  193. <keepcalmandfork> what consensus
  194. <keepcalmandfork> we are operating on network consensus only
  195. <keepcalmandfork> of which hard forks are an essential mechanism
  196. <keepcalmandfork> this idea of community consensus you have is all in your head
  197. <keepcalmandfork> it does not exist, it is an impossibility
  198. <Satoshi> Luke, you're being bullying
  199. <keepcalmandfork> Satoshi, let him show his true colors, I'm doing just fine :)
  200. <keepcalmandfork> you cannot bootstrap a consensus protocol with social consensus
  201. <spunky> I think the problem is you didn't earn the name
  202. <keepcalmandfork> or you can use that social consensus to bootstrap something much more efficient than the blockchain
  203. <keepcalmandfork> who is "you"?
  204. <keepcalmandfork> this project is everyone who uses it
  205. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: there is no such thing as "network consensus" for a hardfork
  206. <keepcalmandfork> and by investing in Bitcoin, they have earned the name
  207. <spunky> Pick any open source product, you can't just fork it and steal the original creators name
  208. <keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, hard forks are an essential mechanism for network consensus
  209. <keepcalmandfork> have you read our website per chance?
  210. <luke-jr> all consensus protocols are established by social consensus
  211. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: hardforks define network consensus.
  212. <keepcalmandfork> potentially correct depending on how broad your definition of "social consensus"
  213. <Satoshi> Satoshi favors a hardfork for inclusion of ecosystem
  214. <keepcalmandfork> if you consider code social consensus then sure
  215. <keepcalmandfork> I will however make that distinction
  216. <spunky> I think if you want this project to be successful, if you want people behind it, do the right thing and pick a different name. Just my opinion.
  217. <keepcalmandfork> spunky, you can call it whatever you want
  218. <keepcalmandfork> right now we are just establishing infrastructure to explore forks of BITCOIN
  219. <spunky> I don't mind Bytecoin
  220. <keepcalmandfork> what you call those forks are up to you
  221. <keepcalmandfork> we are not releasing a single coin
  222. <keepcalmandfork> or a new token
  223. <keepcalmandfork> just to be clear
  224. <keepcalmandfork> so choosing a name like that would be nonsensical
  225. <keepcalmandfork> we are looking at forks of the current highest-weight Bitcoin blockchain
  226. <spunky> Well like it or not luke-jr  makes a pretty good point
  227. <keepcalmandfork> therefore we are "Bitcoin Forks"
  228. <spunky> People are just gonna call it btcforkcoin or some rubbish
  229. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: a fork without consensus *is* a new coin
  230. <keepcalmandfork> it creates two new coins
  231. <keepcalmandfork> both of which are an evolution of the original coin
  232. <luke-jr> no
  233. <keepcalmandfork> yes
  234. <luke-jr> the original remains as it was already
  235. <keepcalmandfork> no it does not
  236. <Satoshi> There will be consensus over the field, just organise the wallets around it good
  237. <keepcalmandfork> by definition if the fork is significant the ecosystem has been altered
  238. <luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: if you cannot understand this, you're too incompetent to fork
  239. <keepcalmandfork> and the operation of the code as well (through network effects)
  240. <keepcalmandfork> and if you don't understand this, you're too incompetent to develop for a billion dollar+ financial project
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand