How will Bitcoin SegWit2x be called?
VerCoin2? I think I’d take Roger’s bet. But after supporting VerCoin1 (bcash) who knows how much is left. 😂 |
|
|
|
I have a issue, I am generating millions of addresses with vanitygen, I have 55 thousand bitcoin addresses that I have saved in my computer and I want all my vanity addresses been checked if collide with any of my 55k addresses.
for example:
money.txt is my vanitygen addresses
cash.txt is the addresses I have with bitcoins in it
I need all addresses in money.txt compare with all addresses in cash,txt to see if found any collision.
How can I do it?
I liked xhomerx10’s answer the best, but... Use comm or grep or fgrep. E.g something like: grep -F -x -f file1 file2 |
|
|
|
"Don't use a bootstrap.dat. That's way slower than just resyncing the whole blockchain from scratch."
This statement proves you don't know what your talking about
...
For others reading this, downloading Bootstrap.dat has been much slower for many versions now compared to a regular sync and is not recommended. Regardless of what is stated above, bootstrap.dat is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin interferes with the philosophy of those in power in Hawaii-things that give people freedom aren’t welcome. The best advice for Hawaii is to vote out the party that keeps promising something for nothing in order to buy votes from those naive enough to believe in a “free lunch.” |
|
|
|
|
The “struggling country” language makes it almost seem like this is due to some natural disaster when in fact it is a man made disaster - totalitarian socialists, Communists, fascists et al have this as their end game. Enrich themselves while enslaving their country.
|
|
|
|
Last year, legacy exchange CME group provided a bitcoin price index with the intent of adding bitcoin futures. However, they decided not to follow through with those plans. Bryan Durkin, who heads Chicago-based CME, told Bloomberg they were not going to list bitcoin futures. He mentioned the technology is nascent, and that digitization technology is on their radar. He further stated, “I really don’t see us going forward with a futures contract in the very near future.” However, some investors want exposure to bitcoin. There is a market for indirect exposure via futures contracts. Bitcoin Futures ContractsThough CME will not provide futures pairings to its clients, some of their competitors are entering the futures markets. Chicago, CBOE Holdings Inc., is slated to add futures contracting for bitcoin to their platform. They plan on implementing futures contracts in the fourth quarter of next year, according to the Bloomberg article. CBOE formed an alliance with the Winklevoss venture Gemini Trust Co in order to bring clients these bitcoin future options. Outside of the United States, other companies have tried their hands at offering bitcoin futures. Straits, a Singapore based company, introduced futures trading last year. Straits partnered with Bitpay to make the transition seamless. Jamie Redman, writing for news.Bitcoin.com, covered this story: "Singapore-based Straits Financial offers a multitude of trading vehicles, such as commodity futures, OTC markets, and derivatives…Straits Financial says that Singapore has firmly established itself as Asia’s international financial hub. The company says it aspires to keep the country’s role in finance flourishing. By collaborating with BitPay, the brokerage house will give its clientele access to certain markets using Bitcoin." The growing introduction of futures markets signifies that investors and traders want more exposure to bitcoin on legacy financial exchanges. Continue reading > https://news.bitcoin.com/large-legacy-exchange-cme-group-bypasses-bitcoin-futures/All the news I’ve seen, e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/cboe-bitcoin-futures-winklevoss-brothers-digital-currency-exchange.html says that it will be 4th quarter of 2017, not “next year.” |
|
|
|
sir i have a account in nova exchange and i have changed my phone from ios to android and now when i am trying to login in nova exchange it is not accepting my android google authenticator code. please suggest me how can i login to my account.
You probably need to contact nova exchange. But, do you have your old phone to see if the new one is generating the same code? |
|
|
|
|
Can you post the debug log?
|
|
|
|
|
It seems surprising (to me) that showtime would knowingly use this script. I wonder if we’ll ever know the truth about whether it was planned, a rogue employee or malware.
|
|
|
|
|
The Communist party in China has to maintain their iron grip on capital. Hence the capital controls on both Chinese citizens and foreign companies doing business there. Similarly, the need to have the "Great Firewall of China" in order to control the internet to control what the people of China hear, read, and see.
Whatever flavor of authoritarianism they are embracing, it has at root the need to control the people. Whatever China has, it doesn't have freedom and the rule of law. Bitcoin allows people to escape that control both for transactions inside China and transactions to and from China. It allows the average Chinese person to escape the devaluation of the Yuan and protect their wealth, no matter the size. If a large enough number of people realize this and bitcoin continues to have a foothold in China, it will be yet another point of pressure on the rulers.
What the Chinese people need to realize is that they don't need exchanges. They can just hold and use bitcoin without ever having to exchange most of it back to fiat. They can use it to pay for services, goods etc. All the while bypassing their authoritarian rulers and helping to preserve their wealth.
|
|
|
|
Power hungry authoritarians hate freedom.
But yet people don't take any actions to make an end to this. People for once should learn to stand up for themselves, and see that the government with their slavery system isn't bringing them anything at all. It's a mentality problem that the average joes are suffering from, and if this doesn't change, and I don't have any hopes for it to change, then they will remain stuck in this debt/slavery based system for plenty of more decades. As we speak, I have over 60% of my wealth sitting in Bitcoin, and if the price keeps going up in the forthcoming years, and that's definitely going to happen, this will likely push it to a ratio of 90% Bitcoin, and 10% fiat. It feels great knowing that no other entity than myself has access to these funds.  I agree, most people don't take actions. I read that somewhere "only" 15% of the Americans fought in the Revolutionary War....so you don't need 99%, just enough people who will, and who have the backing of others to protect freedom. |
|
|
|
I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version? Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume) Edit: Oh wait I just realized this: https://bitcoin.org/en/version-historyIt looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me. The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made). I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0 I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so.. You can. Satoshi wanted to go to 1.3 in 2010 - from 0.3 edit: Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217.0Im not sure if caling Bitcoin 1.3 would be a good idea. 1.0 means usually "final version". If you add additional numbers behind 1.x, that x just means patches that fixes bugs but the final design is already there. Maybe Satoshi wanted to call it 1.x+ because he wanted Bitcoin to stay as it was for life and additional changes would be just that, bug fixes over the same design (which would mean no blocksize increases btw). Well we will never know what Satoshi exactly wanted, what matters is now and I think 1.x sounds too much like "final version" to me so we might as well keep increasing the 0.x number into infinity. You can read his thoughts in the link above. In short, he wanted it to "lose the Beta". But then at the end of the thread just figured it would stay at 0.3. This was 2010, remember. |
|
|
|
After installing Bitcoin Core, I keep getting an "out of memory" error message while the blockchain updates. Then it closes the program. Im using a 4 TB external hard drive on Windows 10. Any suggestions?
Hello, I have currently the same issue in an old server I'm trying to set as a Bitcoin full node. It seems the problem is because of low RAM memory, I have tried to use the indications in this URL https://gist.github.com/laanwj/efe29c7661ce9b6620a7But It still shutdown after a few hours. My next step is to download a set a pruned node in my laptop and then migrate it to the old server and even to a raspberry pi. I will keep you all informed of the results. Are you running 0.15.x? |
|
|
|
Why? Why not just support the Govt issued currencies? Why to hide your transactions from government?
How’s that camera in your bedroom working out? Bathroom? Why hide anything from the government? I guess if you don’t care about liberty, then you’d be okay with someone monitoring everything you do, but some people care about freedom. |
|
|
|
|
>”It's creating something out of nothing that to me is worth nothing," he said. "It will end badly."
Is he talking about the Yen, Euro, Dollar, Yuan etc?
Of course governments don’t like bitcoin, just like they didn’t like gold or silver backed currencies. It is outside their control and they can’t steal freedom m huge numbers of people via the inflation tax. Power hungry authoritarians hate freedom.
|
|
|
|
I arrived here in the times of 0.7 and I just realized we are back to 0.15. Why is this? I guess the number of the version went back to 0.1 when Bitcoin-QT was renamed to Bitcoin Core? but why would you change the number of the version? Well I guess it makes sense because we were getting way too close to 1.0 and we are obvious years away from calling the client "final version" (is it even possible to call it final version ever? It will always keep improving I presume) Edit: Oh wait I just realized this: https://bitcoin.org/en/version-historyIt looks like the number just keeps increasing. It's confusing because 0.9 looks closer to 1.0 than 0.15 to me. The version number was not reset to 0.1. It kept increasing. After 0.9 was 0.10, then 0.11, etc. Notice how there is no dot (.) between the numbers. It is a higher number. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a 1.0 release because that would indicate some level of finality, and we don't want that nor can we agree at what point should there be a 1.0 release. Right now it seems that we might just keep incrementing that middle number to infinity. I am in favor of just dropping the 0. in front of the version number or changing our version number scheme to the one used by Ubuntu (2-digit year followed by 2-digit month for the year and month that the release was made). I understand the never-release-1.0 thing but isnt software made to be always evolving? There is never a final release of a software just because it is 1.0 I mean you can have 1.1 , 1.11 and so and so.. You can. Satoshi wanted to go to 1.3 in 2010 - from 0.3 edit: Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217.0 |
|
|
|
I know that you can already set a lock time which allows you to set the future block for which a transaction has to wait until to be confirmed, but would there be a way to specify locking any transaction after that by a set amount of blocks?
Like I send 2 bitcoins to address 1XYZ which is locked for 1 month (a certain amount of blocks). Then once 1XYZ has access to the funds they send to two different addresses, 1ZYX and 1WXY but they both have the same delay of 1 month. And those transactions also have a delay and so on and so on...
I ask this as I am trying to figure out a programatic way of conforming to some certain SEC regulations for something. We are still flushing some things out but I just want to know if this path is possible.
So you are asking if you can encumber all or some number of future transactions that follow the initial one with a delay? (It doesn't seem like the previous answers were talking about more than locking the 1st transaction). e.g. 1. 2 bitcoins to address 1XYZ which is locked for 1 month 2. then after that month, whomever controls 1XYZ sends to two different addresses, 1ZYX and 1WXY which should also be locked for another month no matter who has the private keys to 1ZYX and 1WXY? 3. Then 1ZYX and 1WXY send elsewhere and those transactions are locked for a month worth of blocks? 4. Does this continue infinitely or does it stop after some number of transactions? etc I don't believe that you could encumber future transactions that all originate from a single root as bitcoin is now under the scenario above. Perhaps you could do so with some type of payment channel, but if you can give an example of what you are trying to accomplish, perhaps that would help determine a method to do so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
