This is not a phenomena that is exclusive to bitcointalk, internet forums in general are a source of heated debate.  |
|
|
|
+/- 60% of bitcoins are located in China.
That's just stupid, you're stupid. +1 |
|
|
|
Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.
Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. Look at the time of the transactions, not the order blockchain.info is showing them in. This is a problem with blockchain.info not bitcoin. So no need to worry. |
|
|
|
|
Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.
|
|
|
|
|
If mans contribution to climate change turn out to be insignificant, should we try and control the climate anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT!
If you are using a non-deterministic wallet then you will need to back it up every time new keys are created. You can determine if the wallet needs backing up again by checking if the wallet.dat file has been modified. Alternatively use a deterministic wallet, as the seed only needs to be backed up once.
|
|
|
|
This is a good illustration on the problem.
Where is it originally from?
I'm not sure who originally created the image, hopefully someone will enlightens us. |
|
|
|
I'm going to call Shenanigans on this one.
 |
|
|
|
|
It's easy, don't accept zero conformation transactions.
|
|
|
|
I'm not a programmer, but I envision a relatively simple program on some handheld device, i.e. smartphone, that would activate when a real transaction takes place at some physical location, i.e. M&B, sending two transactions semi-simultaneously to two different addresses, with the first one with the higher transfer fee (pre-programmed in) winning the race, thus the merchant losing.
Thoughts?
~TMIBTCITW
Possibly, but it would only work for merchants that process orders instantly with zero conformations and I doubt there are many of those. Also, it would be much simpler to use the method posted above, but then I guess the merchant could check that the transaction has a sufficient fee. |
|
|
|
|
Thinking about it some more, sending a transaction without a fee will work sometimes especially if it's a large number of bytes and/or low priority. The transaction will never be included in a block and will read as unconfirmed until the memory pool is flushed.
|
|
|
|
What I mean is, I've heard it's possible to pretend to send bitcoins so it shows up on the blockchain as unconfirmed. How easy is to do this? What would it look like on the blockchain... just a transaction that never gets confirmed or what?
I'm just wondering if it means anything when I buy a bitcoin from someone and it "shows up" in my wallet immediately without confirmations. Is that any evidence that they actually sent real bitcoins or could those easily be faked?
Essentially you need to send the same bitcoins twice, once to the address you want to create a fake transaction to, and the other to another address of yours. The time between the transaction must be short and you must make the real transaction more desirable to the miners than the fake one, this is achieved by giving the real transaction a high transaction fee. But as said, the window of opportunity is small. Take a look at; https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spendingEdit/ You could also use block withholding, if you had some computational grunt at your disposal. But the window of opportunity is still small. Edit/ Edit/ Sending a transaction without a fee will work sometimes especially if it's a large number of bytes and/or low priority. The transaction will never be included in a block and will read as unconfirmed until the memory pool is flushed. |
|
|
|
Alternate theories fire away!!
China decided to keep the coins. |
|
|
|
The bitcoin market has historically always been in one of two states. There are periods of high volittilitty, and then there are the times when it's just about to enter a period of high volitility. I would say we are currently in the second of these two states.
Yes, its been stable for a bit. Lots of potential energy about to be unleashed. I've avoided the word volatility because its such a bitch to type  Hehe, the touch screen on my palmtop has a scrattttch.. |
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin market has historically always been in one of two states. There are periods of high volittilitty, and then there are the times when it's just about to enter a period of high volitility. I would say we are currently in the second of these two states.
|
|
|
|
|
The thing you 'it can be done' guys are missing, is the fact that there is nothing about the bitcoin protocol that prevents applications from being patched and having its DRM removed. It doesn't matter how clever your DRM is if it can just be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
