Not really that strange, they were both geeks, and they both offered compliments as geeks, it goes like " Very 1337 Satoshi, it's one great system you have designed." |
|
|
|
to do a SUCCESSFUL double spend requires alot of speed and hardware. but to send out 2 transactions to 2 different addresses using 2 clients but only using one private key supply does not require expensive equipment. A successful double spend requires a confirm on both sides. meaning the 10 minute wait. but sending out 2 transactions that don't require waiting the 10 minutes is piss easy.
accepting unconfirmed transactions should only be allowed on products with delayed delivery. such as bitpay which can inform merchants that the payment has failed in 10 minutes and the merchant still has time to email the customer to attempt the payment again before losing their next-day delivery slot.
it is never EVER acceptable for instant access content.
examples.
if i sent
0.1BTC from 1HomeMachineAddress to 1VendMachineAddress
0.1BTC from 1HomeMachineAddress to 1VendMachineAddress
one of those transactions would instantly be ignored as it would appear as just an echo of the other, where many nodes pass around the same transaction (to avoid repeats)
but if i sent
0.1BTC from 1HomeMachineAddress to 1HomeMachineAddress
0.1BTC from 1HomeMachineAddress to 1VendMachineAddress
it would appear as 2 different transactions and would require a confirm to sort out the mess (10 minute wait)
Right but you are assuming that the receiver is not checking the balance on the address and that the user has spent in excess of the balance. That is not hard to do... If my address has 1 btc and I have 2 tx for 1 btc each... the receiver can tell me to wait 10 minutes.... honest actors are not going to do double spends... I still think an outright rejection for addresses with unconfirmed transactions is the most pragmatic way to go, buyers should be warned with notice that refund cannot be processed immediately. |
|
|
|
You don't know what I talked about. I meant iPhone, Macbook, LV, Chanel, Senn-heiser, Bose......Almost all foreign luxury/electric/cosmetic/many other products are vastly overpriced in China despite being mostly made in China.
That's true but, as I understand it, having items delivered by mail means import taxes can't be avoided, at least not usually. Which means it will still be overpriced. Bitcoin will only cut a small slice off the cost. The problem is not overpricing, it's completely lack of adequate payment method for this task, I can go on and on with this, you probably don't understand how many payment requests a Chinese oversea student/worker will receive per year on average. About delivery: obviously Bitcoin can't solve all the problems, especially those it's not designed to solve(there is one whole breed of "package forwarding companies" doing that), the whole oversea shopping industry has run for quite sometime under the nose of the Chinese customs. |
|
|
|
I have seen some speculate that mining empty blocks could be some kind of attack vector. I don't really understand it well enough to explain, but creating a fork of empty blocks is easier that full blocks.
the immediate consequence i see is that tx during that time period must wait to be included in the next block, which is more irritating than anything else. i'm sure i could figure it out if i dig, but maybe someone here knows who is doing this. not unreasonable to single these people out because they are kinda fucking up the infrastructure. Unless they control a significant percentage of the mining power, how can they fuck up the infrastructure? They waste their resource in exchange for just a small delay in the processing of transactions. |
|
|
|
|
I think everyone that was part of the decision making during the chainfork night should be in, they are effectively the guys who matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if the Gox website were to be turned into a phish site which records all the log-in paaswords, the crackers could't have just "wiped out" your wallet, Had Gox implemented cold wallet the way they say they do.
|
|
|
|
|
我认为比特币会成功，原因就是网络优势，算力最强的币会是最后的幸存者，没什么好说的。你讨厌ASIC，你讨厌显卡挖矿，你要是坚持CPU，来个僵尸网络K你，你就死的难看了，人家CPU可是比你多N倍。像LTC那样的要是想篡位，几个BTC囤得多的火起来，把没用的GPU矿场拿来配合上僵尸网络的CPU给你来次51%攻击，呵呵，没有哪个投资者会喜欢一个时不时就用不了的支付网络。抄袭BTC的blockchain设计，那是有代价有风险的。
至于Ripple，那倒是可以随便山寨，毫无风险，所以我认为它做不大。
|
|
|
|
Remember this, guys?  Now look at this:  Now, at what point do you think we are? Every crash looks the same, what matters is the difference, otherwise everyone will be able to make perfect predictions. I will leave it to you to find out where the differences are. |
|
|
|
I think Hal makes more sense to honor as a unit.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
You had better only pay homage to someone at least after he "disappears". If he is still around this sounds too "worshipish" and will probably bring inconvenience to the person.
|
|
|
|
You don't know what I talked about. I meant iPhone, Macbook, LV, Chanel, Senn-heiser, Bose......Almost all foreign luxury/electric/cosmetic/many other products are vastly overpriced in China despite being mostly made in China. |
|
|
|
|
Put a notice on the machine "any bitcoin coming from an address with unconfirmed transactions will not be accepted and refund may not be processed in real time-you have been warned."
|
|
|
|
|
Why can't we just build a tor-based exchange to buy/sell bitcoins? With multi-sig or third party escrow and credit rating system.
|
|
|
|
So does the old Berkeley DB bug still affect Litecoin?
The DB bug only happens when you also use levelDB as the bug breaks compatibility. You are right that it doesn't cause any damage, but a bug is a bug and it's possible to know if it's there. |
|
|
|
I am waiting for the Bitcoin vs Ripple version of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URJeuxI7kHoI have concluded that Ripple is not only by far the better protocol but is also the better currency. mBTC does not seem right to me.  Again someone who don't understand Byzantine Generals problem and the difference between centralization and decentralization falling for the tricks of Opencoin. Nothing to see here, move along. |
|
|
|
Because most of us are not stupid and will not spend our money on some crappy altcoins simply because the letters "CHN" are included in its name.
And here we go with definition with bitcoin and why people buying it. Ponzi scheme  You seem to know nothing about either Bitcoin or Ponzi scheme, not worth my time. |
|
|
|
|
Because most of us are not stupid and will not spend our money on some crappy altcoins simply because the letters "CHN" are included in its name.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, when will the European/American mainstream/electric/luxury/boutique shops start accepting bitcoins? Do they know how big the demand for foreign products is in China? And how inadequate all the current payment systems are for this task?
|
|
|
|
I suggest mass production, make about 100 million bring the price down to a few bucks each, ill buy a thousand,
I doubt they will bring down the price, in fact I doubt ASICMiner is thinking in a way similar to Avalon:if you want our mining rig please purchase with bitcoins, you have to be part of the economy so that we can remove our suspicions about some big governments/organizations are purchasing large quantities to undermine the network. |
|
|
|
Litecoin has value over and above bitcoin because transfers are faster. In fact, there isn't really a reason for bitcoin to exist (sacrilege I know) once litecoin becomes mainstream, because it's the same but slower.
Feathercoin, CHNCoin etc offer no benefit over litecoin, however...
Translation: "I have more Litecoins than Bitcoins." LOL  Indeed. If Litecoin is to prevail over Bitcoin because of its 2.5m block time then Litecoin will itself be toast because Feathercoin and Chinacoin are both much faster than that. One or both of those would prevail instead. The reason Litecoin survives is scrypt. But it also opens it up to possibility of botnet attack, at least for now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
