All posts made by polyclef in Bitcointalk's Wall Observer thread

Take a look at the volume of buys vs sells, this looks like big money trying to pick up cheap coins.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-richard-wyckoff-stock-trading-method-2013-2?op=1

http://imgur.com/dd06XeE

I think, and am hoping, that this is the sound of the last straw landing on the camel's back.

I've just signed up to the Bitcoin Foundation myself so I can at least help people to try and change it from within. I would suggest others join me.

If that fails then the Bitcoin community might as well reject the Bitcoin Foundation wholesale. And that might not be a bad thing.

Bitcoin does need a voice - a focus as an advocate.

However, the foundation has little has little if any credibility - so if it is possible for fresh faces (and respected ones) to move in and push for change, it can't do any harm.

You would have my vote, take Jorge with you? Wink

Thank you - I appreciate that vote of confidence. The more I think about this the more I feel like taking off my coding hat and picking up the evangelist one. Anyone following this thread knows Jorge and I are often in disagreement but I have a great respect for his work and would love to have him on board. Smart people capable of disagreeing with each other whilst recognising the value in the work are few and far between. Wink

There are plenty of smart people here that could help have an impact. So please do. Grin

I've made my first post of dissent at the BF now. I'd welcome anyone interested in promoting and progressing Bitcoin that joined me.

If we can't effect change from the inside then we'll just set up another one. Cool

[/quote

The foundation consists of Karpeles (who has mismanaged Mt Gox), Vessenes (of double-failed CoinLab - exchange then incubator of Alydian), Matonis (who was CEO of HushMail, don't know if he left before they started backdooring it for governments).

Andresen seems solid and I have no idea about Ploshay or Malka, but it seems stacked to fail given the first two.

http://i.imgur.com/UcXgitG.png

Quote from: magicmexican on February 25, 2014, 05:28:09 PM

http://gyazo.com/0a699f7367cba4cfd31318566e1e25d7.png

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc. Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

Quote from: Holliday on February 27, 2014, 08:07:01 AM

Quote from: Peter R on February 27, 2014, 08:05:19 AM

Quote from: Holliday on February 27, 2014, 08:03:22 AM

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

Quote from: mb300sd on February 27, 2014, 09:01:57 AM

Quote from: raid_n on February 27, 2014, 08:56:46 AM

Quote from: Peter R on February 27, 2014, 08:45:01 AM

Quote from: raid_n on February 27, 2014, 08:37:57 AM

Quote from: polyclef on February 27, 2014, 08:37:20 AM

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc. Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

Quote from: Holliday on February 27, 2014, 08:07:01 AM

Quote from: Peter R on February 27, 2014, 08:05:19 AM

Quote from: Holliday on February 27, 2014, 08:03:22 AM

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

+1

These are good points too. Turing completeness in a scripting language means that "anything computable, can be computed by running the appropriate script." So there is an infinite surface of potential problems that would slowly show themselves, I think. The Java exploits are a good analogy.

just think about something like
{ while true; }
in the scripting language. I send you such a transaction. Will your machine lock up in an endless loop?

No comment on weather this is a good idea or not, but theres a simple solution to this particular problem: fees.

Only execute the first x operations, where x=fee*const. Sure, you could make a machine freeze up for a half a second, but you'd be paying out the ass to do it.

Agreed, fee/clock cycle fixes this pretty well, but that's not the real danger. The real danger is when the code can escape the boundaries defined for it as we see in exploit code. It's been over 25 years since the Morris worm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm) and we still see ever more elaborate mechanisms for executing arbitrary code. It's easy to avoid if the language is limited. As soon as you get to Turing completeness, there's always another way to construct things.