|
Yes. In fact, it is used by many pools. They compute the first part of the header which will not change during the current block mining, and send that to the miners. This is called the midstate. Then the nonce and everything else in the header is computed by the miner and somehow added to the midstate and the whole thing is sent back to the pool.
|
|
|
|
|
It kind of does, but that is why there are some exchanges and peer exchanges that allow you to anonymously buy bitcoin. You can use something like localbitcoins to buy bitcoin anonymously.
|
|
|
|
|
That very long email brought up a ton of points. I don't think that Hearn or Gavin have actually read that message and considered half the things mentioned or asked in that message. The fact that neither Hearn nor Gavin have directly answered those questions makes me seriously question whether it is a good idea to follow the XT fork or not. Originally I was, but now, after seeing what Hearn is trying to do and his arrogance, I probably won't switch.
|
|
|
|
|
That could be posted by some guy that is pretending to be Satoshi. Most of the people claiming to be Satoshi can't prove it and are pretending or trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't move all of it, that could be very risky. If you think that Bitcoin will appreciate in value, you should buy some, but keep some money in fiat, in case Bitcoin crashes.
|
|
|
|
So why should people use a brand new coin that is an exact clone of Bitcoin when Bitcoin is the exact same thing but has been around longer, has the largest use, and has the largest user base?
Why? Because the Corporation will promote Corp Coin on its website. It will have giveaways and prizes if you start using it. It will give away free Corp Coin USB miners. It will be exciting and fantastic. BTC around for longer. And? Actually, BTC being around for longer could be spun as a disadvantage. A lot of people whine that the early adopters have a shit ton of coins, and that's "unfair". Now, the Corporation comes in, and launches a new coin that's open to everyone around the world. No unfair early adopters. Everyone can get as much as they want. Largest use. No it doesn't. All of the businesses that accept or use BTC can very easily start using Corp Coin. It's just a few lines of code for them. Once they see the exploding user base for Corp Coin, they'll start accepting it. Largest user base. Not so fast. With 1 billion customers worldwide, even if 10% of them start using Corp Coin, that's 100,000,000 users. BTC probably has around 1,000,000 users. So Corp Coin will have 100x the users right away. If you create such a coin and you have such a large number of users, how many do you think would actually begin using Corp Coin when all they hear about cryptocurrencies is all the negative stuff that the media reports? How many people would actually use Corp Coin within its first few weeks of launch? By the time that people begin using then, they will also complain about how the early adopters in those first couple of weeks who were able to mine with cpu and gpus or maybe even ASICs have over 90% of the coins. If people with several terahashes of SHA256 ASICS they could point them at this new coin, make the difficulty spike and earn tons of Corp Coin (Free Money!!) in the first few weeks. Then they could pull away their miners and go back to Bitcoin and leave the difficulty incredibly high, leaving your network insecure and impossible to mine without more ASICS. Your USB ASIC miners would soon be just as out of date and worthless as they are now in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I would recommend you never use an online wallet. You should get a hardware wallet for cold storage and use a software wallet on your computer. I would suggest using Bitcoin Armory.
|
|
|
|
|
So why should people use a brand new coin that is an exact clone of Bitcoin when Bitcoin is the exact same thing but has been around longer, has the largest use, and has the largest user base?
|
|
|
|
An IPv4 address mapped to IPv6 will look like this This is what one looks like in the Bitcoin Core code in hex: {0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0xff,0xff,0x82,0xd3,0xb1,0xbe} |
|
|
|
The topic has been demoted to the altcoin section. Theymos could be against the hard fork?
It is actually in the alternative CLIENTS section because Bitcoin XT is technically an alternative client, not an altcoin. |
|
|
|
I am using windows 7 64bit, the bitcoins were in a nxt wallet and now everything seems to be saved as either a Text Document or as a Chrome HTML Document
Bitcoin cannot be in an nxt wallet. Bitcoin and NXT are two different cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty much every exchange out there will have 2 factor authentication. This helps secure your account, especially after 6 months. If you don't login after 6 months, I'm pretty sure most exchanges will still have you go through the 2FA in order to make sure that you are actually you. Without this security, someone could login into your account and steal your money. Sure it might be annoying to need to do 2FA after not logging in for a long time, but it will help secure your account if you forgot about it and it gets hacked. On the short term, every exchange has the option to save your computer. Just check that box and make sure you aren't in incognito mode or you aren't deleting your cookies.
You could always disable 2FA if you don't care about security. There should be an option in settings somewhere.
|
|
|
|
I really think the whole mining segment will have a radically different look in 20 years, if Bitcoin doesn't collapse before then. All the existing massive mining infrastructure can't be supported by BTC transaction fees in terms of electricity costs alone. I really have never understood (believed) the "end game" for mining. How many Petahsh and mining companies are really needed to support Bitcoin once it tries to be a currency for real. Right now most folks treat Bitcoin, myself included, like a highly volatile speculative commodity. At this time, as a currency, it blows (to put it bluntly).
The idea is that by the time the block reward runs out, Bitcoin will be mainstream and actually used as a currency. At this point, it should have enough transactions to produce enough fees for the miners. Also, while many treat Bitcoin as a speculative commodity, many others, myself included, see Bitcoin as the future of currency. |
|
|
|
|
Blockchain providers are not necessarily miners. They should be the full nodes, which have a copy of the blockchain and all transactions and validate them. Miners on the other hand, are connected to full nodes and generate blocks which every full node then retains a copy of. I think that Miners and blockchain providers should be separate, or miners should be a subset of blockchain providers.
|
|
|
|
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story. His motivation for that would be if the miners and the rest of the community disagrees. This would occur if the majority of the miners don't want to switch but the majority of the users do. Since the current method of forking (which is coded into Core) watches the number and percentage of the last 100 blocks that have a certain number, the miners have the power to control whether the fork occurs or not. What Hearn is doing is to ignore the mining majority if they don't switch and put checkpoints into Bitcoin XT to ignore the miners, thus violating the >90% of the last 1000 block rule. You can find out more about this around the 58 -59 minute mark in this video interview with Mike Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w |
|
|
|
|
You can use blockchain.info's api, but it might not be entirely trustworthy. Blockchain.info has had some issues recently.
|
|
|
|
In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. Well, now I'm confused for sure. I thought that the point of XT was to develope a branch which would enforce a hard fork only after the super-majority consensus. Now you say XT will ignore the majority check---but that seems to imply that the consensus check is in core. But if it's in core, what's the point of XT? Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the screenshots, they are rather helpful. This behavior is odd, and it shouldn't happen. I'm sorry, but I can't help you, I have no idea why it is doing that. Your guaranteed solution is to wait for it to finish downloading and indexing, but that will take a very long time.
|
|
|
|
In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
