Well, maybe you're correct that a solid hashrate to defend against 51% attacks is just an urban legend.  Or maybe it also has to do with the idea that having a massive hashrate means massive interest in using a given coin.   I'll be sure to double-check that with the devs of the 1001 altcoins that have gone down the tubes over the past year for not having a single miner.

With respect to security, though, there's this:


So, I dunno, you're probably right bitcoin's usefullness and popularity are also just "urban legends".  But I'll have to double check that tomorrow after I buy some stuff for my house on overstock.com using bitcoin.

Some campaigns pay more to "legendary" than "hero".  This always seemed weird to me because you don't actually get a bigger space or any other extras with your signature when you get to "legendary".  Also, I always found that bitmixer.io thing very strange---that they pay all ranks equally.  That's why I jused to always just use the smallest signature when I advertized for them.  They paid me the same but I got to take up less space on the forum for the same amount of payoff.  In my opinion, everyone using bitmixer should probably be using the full member version unless they change this.

Looking at that japanese.txt wordlist file, they seem sorted to me.  What order did you want them to be sorted in?

DannyHamilton makes an interesting suggestion here about how non SPV-miners might attack spv-miners such that spv mining may no longer be trusted and therefore no longer viable.  If I understood his suggestion correctly and if he's right and if this happens, then perhaps spv mining will no longer be viable anyway.


gogxmagog: I don't think you're correct.  We *want* to see stuff like this because it builds confidence that the checks and balances of the network and core players are working as expected.  In my opinion we want to see little forks and hiccups so that our minds get expanded to the kinds of things that can happen and we can build more and more robust systems.  If everything was always boring, that's when we'd get lulled into complancency and some emergent situation would eventually come along and wipe us out.

I think this is the crucial calculation for someone who's running a big, non-spv mining pool.  From what I could tell, Danny H's attack seems like it has just been shown that it would work (we just saw it go down), and so the only real question is how much you'd have to "waste" by finding the bad blocks that you're going to throw at the spv-miners to send them down the wrong path.

So you're trying to install linux on your desktop?  I don't know where you got that js file or how it's related to your distro or your bitcoind install.  I have heard of the name "https everywhere", I thought it was a browser extention to try to force https whenever possible.

I think it's also important to point out that Mohammed Zakir != Mohammed Jihad.

Now, if you actually want an answer to your question "should I worry about this file"?  I think you have to tell us where you got it and what you wanted to do with it.  https.everywhere.js doesn't have anything to do with installing bitcoin-core on a GNU/Linux machine so at least at first glance, it's not really relevant to this thread.

Good luck!

One recent development from the dadice people is a chance to earn a reward for reporting spam/low quality posts from their participants.  They've got a form set up here

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/12aDTSEdbxwoVSofxj8RdmwPyr8Mf-h6rO2I_VNURkzc/viewform?c=0&w=1

and if someone is causing a problem in a thread by spamming/posting insignificant stuff/disrupting then they want to know and they suggest that they may pay rewards for the report.  I know I wish that other campaigns had this, the coinomat one seems especially pernicious these days---I see lots of low-quality stuff posted with coinomat sponsorship.

Anyway, I think it's related here because it turns the incentive back the other way, allowing people to make money by reporting and cleaning up excessive/useless posting.  If more advertizing campaigns were doing this kind of thing, I think we wouldn't have this many pages on the "delete signatures already" thread.

You know, it's something I never really had though of before hand, but all the folks that are really discussing banning signature ad campaigns should get together and start a campaign paying rewards to people who report spammers and low-quality posters.  At the end of the day, money motivates and if there's money offerred for doing the right thing then maybe that's how we make our world an even better place.

This is another one of the ramifications of using closed-source software---regular user's can't simply improve their experiences for themselves.  If we had an open API for poker then all of us without windows would have jumped in months ago, and you could easily implement that one liner to ring the bell when the seat opens up.

What was the new rule from BIP66 that v3 blocks now follow?  I understood that SPV miners were ignored the validation step so they were building blocks on an invalid chain but what was the specific difference in block structure b/t v2 and v3?

Luke-Jr, you would know better than me, but if I see that there's a transaction on the network which spends coins to an address I control, then I guess you're pointing out that nothing stops me from sending out a transaction signed by that address which sends them elsewhere.  Is that right?

But I know none of the wallets I've used allow this ("this will become spendable soon...").   And I'm surprised that a transaction referencing an output which isn't yet confirmed wouldn't be rejected as invalid.



Yes, and the coinomat people are starting to get infamous for this.

It was just signature-ad spam.  Omkifuse is getting paid to post, so he posts, it doesn't have to be interesting for the coinomat bot to pay him (that's been shown elsewhere---and the coinomat ppl have shown no interest in hiring a human to review the posts they're paying so ...).  That's that.  I report a lot of these kinds of nonsense posts to the moderators but it seems that only about half of them are actually deleted.

Of course Litecoin might have received a bit more traffic this week, but I think it would be hard to show that that was due to an increased avg transaction fee for bitcoin.  I mean consider that that's only really going to happen for people who have both litecoin and bitcoin wallets and some sort exchange account.  Sure, there are such people, but it's hard to believe that the majority of bitcoin users have an exchange account with bitcoin already deposited that they can withdrawal into litecoin so that they can send someone a transaction and that the person on the other end of the transaction is in the same situation (ready to receive what would have been a bitcoin payment in litecoin).

That said, I could believe that in a future where cryptocurrencies were the norm and Litecoin was nearly as popular as Bitcoin that such a usage swing based on transaction fees could occur.  But I don't think that day is here yet.

Trying to make sure I follow Dooglus' explanation of orphaning in CLAM:

When you gave the example of a solo staker vs JD finding a block at the same time then you said that JD has a 75% chance of being able to build on it's block and the solo staker I guess has the other 25%.  Is this because of the volume of clams that JD is holding?  By holding such a large amount JD has a better chance of finding the next block and orphaning sologuy's?  Or is it because of better connections to peers than solog guy?  Or some combination thereof?

Thanks in advance for the clarifiication!

MZ suggests above that it may have to do with some sort of file-access violation in WINDOZE.  If I were you, I'd run bitcon on a UNIX-like OS anyway, but in any case it's not that hard to set up a virtual machine these days with a headless linux to run bitcoind.  At least then you'd be able to get better advice when things go wrong.  GNU/Linux is more or less well understood, who knows what windows does at the kernel level (closed source!)?

Right, but in this analogy, you can't reply or act on the information in the email until you figure that out (no spending coins that aren't confirmed yours yet).  Actually, the analogy is getting rather stretched by now as you aptly transition to below.

On the assumption that you're actually trying to find a faucet rotator (and not just covering up for the suspicious link which was removed automatically from the first version of your post).  I'm going to offer you this one:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bitcoin+faucet+rotator

Again, on the assumption you aren't merely setting up to spam a ref link or some malware, you should probably be reading the board on "micro earnings":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=212.0

You probably don't have the issue of a company spending thousands of dollars to spam it with useless transactions either.  If you did, you might not consider that "blacklisting" to be problematic.

Step one is have the private key for your old btc address in hand.  It sound like you might have gotten stuck before that (given that you're having trouble unlocking your wallet).  If that's the case, can you confirm you're using bitcoin-core (it sounds like you are) and that at least some of the RPC commands are working well?

Once you get your private key in WIF format (starts with a 5) then you can either trust dooglus to dig for you by putting that key into the just-dice chat, or you can dig with the clamd software yourself.  Which one are are you trying to do?

I haven't used the hand histories or any other poker aide software, but I'm pretty good at slicing and dicing on text files.  If you give me a description of the two formats (or link me to it it), and a dataset to play with, I'd be happy to script you up a converter (for tips!).