how this go from someone trying to buy a vanity address, to now we talking about what clever people use 3* addresses
I think this is what happens at the end of a thread. All that can be said on topic has been said (which really wasn't much) and increasingly off-topic posts, like this one, don't have any place to go but inline at the end...no sub-posting a la slashdot. |
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say what the announcement is....but I will say that you are all wrong and no one is even close lol (Well...some of you were kinda close)
-Charlie
You mentioned something once before I think, about a surprise that will change what people think the government thinks of bitcoins... so I'll guess its some sort of basis for bitcoin being protected legally Ok, I take it back. Your the closest. Nuff said, Im gonna get shot for saying this much. You'd think a government would announce something like that. And any change in the law would require an act of congress or the supreme court...I doubt Uncle Sam is ever going to be happy about Bitcoin unless they can control it. Will we see a fork for UncleSamCoins? I doubt that too. Is Uncle Sam gonna allow banks to hold Bitcoin as currency for meeting reserve requirements? I doubt it. But now I really am curious... You know there are governments other than the US government, right? Uhhh....yes. |
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say what the announcement is....but I will say that you are all wrong and no one is even close lol (Well...some of you were kinda close)
-Charlie
You mentioned something once before I think, about a surprise that will change what people think the government thinks of bitcoins... so I'll guess its some sort of basis for bitcoin being protected legally Ok, I take it back. Your the closest. Nuff said, Im gonna get shot for saying this much. You'd think a government would announce something like that. And any change in the law would require an act of congress or the supreme court...I doubt Uncle Sam is ever going to be happy about Bitcoin unless they can control it. Will we see a fork for UncleSamCoins? I doubt that too. Is Uncle Sam gonna allow banks to hold Bitcoin as currency for meeting reserve requirements? I doubt it. But now I really am curious... |
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say what the announcement is....but I will say that you are all wrong and no one is even close lol (Well...some of you were kinda close)
-Charlie
Dang it! Now I have to read it all carefully again...after finally agreeing with the multisig camp... At least it's fun though  |
|
|
|
|
Seeing as this thread is already way off topic, I figured I'd throw in my two cents. I want a phone that works. I do not like that an arbitrary decision can be made to exclude a program, however, that's the price I'm willing to pay to have my phone just work. Bitcoin is bigger than Apple. Whether Apple realizes this or not is irrelevant.
P.S., I didn't type this and I'm posting from my iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
I think some general education about forking the block chain is in order -- for myself included, as I am not an expert or terribly well-informed. However, I believe that if such changes were to occur, they would have no impact on those already holding Bitcoins. These new rules would define a new crypto currency and people would likely give it a new name; however, if they didn't, it would be really confusing.
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many people fired up vanitygen trying to find the keys for that one large address? I know it would take millions of years, but you never know, you might get lucky.
What you describe is essentially trying to brute force break ECDSA for secp256k1 (the public key crypto mechanism used by bitcoin). The conjectured security level of ECDSA 256 bit keys is 128bit (source: http://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/elliptic_curve.shtml). It's in fact likely to be closer to 2^256, the size of the space of all possible secp256k1 keys. That means : breaking an ECDSA 256 bit key would take, using the best known algorithms today, on the order of 2^128 attempts. That's 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 attempts. Assuming your computer could try a billion per seconds (it can't, according to the vanitygen post, vanitygen can do ~20 Million attempts per second on a 6990), that'd still take you, oh, about 10790283070806014188 years. Even if you managed to somehow harness processing power equivalent to that of the whole bitcoin hashing network today, you'd still have to wait about 10 '790 '283 '070 years. That's 10 billions years. In other words, chances are you'd witness the heat death of the universe before you actually "get lucky". So....give it a try? Sometimes a simple "no, silly" speaks louder than eloquent, precise logic Enjoyed your post! |
|
|
|
I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYtNow, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon. OK so differentiating between "valid" and "usable" is a bit pedantic IMHO but let's go ahead and change the language we're using anyway. Whether or not they're valid, they're not USABLE. Let's see what happens if we try to send coins to 3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt with some various clients/services: Blockchain.info wallet:  MtGox withdrawal:  BitcoinSpinner Android Client:  Bitcoin Wallet for Android by Andreas Schildbach:  I haven't had a chance to test with the Satoshi client yet since this is a work PC and I don't (can't) have Bitcoin installed on it, will update when I get home. At the very least I can say at this moment that none of the web-based or Android-based clients support this Bitcoin address version yet, which makes it largely unusable. I suspect that the 0.6.3 Satoshi client doesn't support them without special configuration either. Even if it does, none of the exchanges, eWallets or other services will send to such an address so it would only be usable in the one direction. I suspect that all the 3* addresses in the blockchain folks are linking to as "proof" are live tests of OP_EVAL using experimental forks. So 3* addresses are usable by clever folk, not people like us |
|
|
|
You guys should put your money where your mouth is and stop supporting Bitcoin blocking Apple. Buy some Bitcoin loving Android phone.
Except then I would have an android phone. +1 |
|
|
|
unclemantis if you obtain the privkey for that address we all might as well give up and go home because it would imply that bitcoin is fundamentally broken
Or the owner responds and gives you the private key. I doubt he even knows he has it in his wallet, presuming its not lost. |
|
|
|
|
Seems to me like a real Bitcoin wallet...that keeps the coins on the server, not on the phone. Not a Bitcoin client. Pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYtNow, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon. |
|
|
|
|
+1. This is what mining will be about in the future...
|
|
|
|
|
A link to a tutorial...it's kinda a lot of work to redeem a private key with the Satoshi client. Maybe a link to blockchain.info?
|
|
|
|
|
@Coinabul -- What's the good word?
|
|
|
|
Not many people use ellipses in place of commas or periods...Bruce was one of them...guess he's saying you're bruce...we'll never know...
Edit:...
Not many people use "…"? ...just like every freekin Mac user who doesn't notice the OS making that substitution for three periods. |
|
|
|
|
Sorta, but it's not easy. It's not like someone can just look up all your wallet addresses in the block chain...but making connections based on spending patterns and ip addresses with some degree of certainty can be done. Bitcoin isn't perfectly anonymous, but it has good enough anonymity for a reasonable number of uses.
|
|
|
|
No. the very reason, IMO, that ppl invest in Bitcoin is b/c of the projected fixed supply.
Bitcoin is rapidly inflationary now, with decreasing inflation caused by the fact that the creation of Bitcoins is never proportional to the circulating supply and the halvings of the subsidy/reward. Keeping the block subsidy/reward steady at 50 btc just slows down the rate of inflation decline -- but both models end up in the same place -- only a trivial fraction of the circulating coins are created each year for many many years. |
|
|
|
It is amazing that people think Bitcoin is somehow more evil than dollars... Someone needs to do a Bitcoin magazine article on this concept. Illicit activities will be the first thing governments try to use as a reason to sway public opinion to allow legislation to get passed to try to outlaw Bitcoin. 100 years ago, everybody used non-traceable, anonymous cash and try weren't all SR fans, pornographers, or criminals. Somehow people seem inclined to believe that Bitcoin is bad because even they could use it to launder money...but they ate quick to forget that laundering is a privilege given only to the wealthiest people in the current system. |
|
|
|
He could set up a 'generate me a new donation address' button thing if he wanted to be a little safer. I'm interested to see what if anything anyone does anyway though. What are his opponents like?
+1 that is wise. And ask his donators to not reuse the same donation addresses. Some of the sites accepting Bitcoin donations on the thread below have utilized the single address for all donations approach...I looked at the block chain for a few of them...no one has gotten much by way of Bitcoin donations...the biggest I saw was 700 or so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
