Perhaps twitter gives different views to different people? There is nothing in there where Andreas "is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake". Maybe you meant to post a different link? Nope. I thought you were looking for a quote that showed Andreas' support for segwit, but it appears that you are looking for a quote from him that contains the exact words from the original poster's obvious paraphrase of Andreas' position. I think the original posters point was simply that Andreas' supports swgwit, which is clearly true - and trying to nit-pick his paraphrasing of Andreas' position seems to me to be pretty silly - but don't let me deter you from your chosen path  |
|
|
|
Where did you get those price per bitcoin numbers from? It seems like some arbitrary value. Is it just made up?  I would guess that it comes from dividing the marketcap number by 21 million. I don't know enough about economics to know if that is a good way to calculate price. Thanks for sharing though.  Well, the market capitalization of bitcoin is, by definition, the number of coins multiplied by price. In this case I think they just used the maximum number of coins that will ever exist, so $50/coin X 21M coins is ~1 billion dollar marketcap, and so on down the chart. |
|
|
|
Where did you get those price per bitcoin numbers from? It seems like some arbitrary value. Is it just made up? I would guess that it comes from dividing the marketcap number by 21 million. |
|
|
|
[There is a new icon in the lower right hand corner of the window that says "HD". If it is grayed out with a slash through it, then you are not using an HD wallet. If it is not like that, then you are using an HD wallet. Mousing over that icon will also tell you whether HD is enabled or disabled for your wallet.
I have a 0.13.0 installation using a legacy (non-HD) wallet, but I don't see the icon you describe. Are you running a client built from source != to the official release? |
|
|
|
What???
Blockchain.info says that the block reward for block # 420000 is 16.666 BTC ?
The fees no? It's 15btc plus 1.666btc of fees? No, it looks like several sites have a bug in how they are displaying the new block reward. The block reward + transaction fees in block # 420000 was 13.07569681 BTC. |
|
|
|
Um.... why is the reward on the last two blocks 16.66666666? Did someone forget how to divide by 2?
The generation transaction is correct, but it looks like there is a bug in the blockchain.info display... |
|
|
|
|
What???
Blockchain.info says that the block reward for block # 420000 is 16.666 BTC ?
|
|
|
|
what is CSV? (in bitcoin, i don't mean the filetype). CSV is checksequenceverify. It allows bitcoin transactions to be locked until a relative time from when the transaction is included in a mined block, as opposed to CLTV ( checklocktimeverify) which allows a transaction to be locked until a specific time or block height. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0112.mediawiki |
|
|
|
I disagree. I think you give the writer too much credit. A natural reading of what's written is that it is impossible to break Bitcoins algo in this universe.
Quantum mechanics is very much part of this universe.
Disclaimer: Not even an armchair scientist.
The threat from QC is that Grover's Algorithm greatly reduces the space you need to search for solutions. It is impossible to brute-force a problem with 2^256 solutions, but it is a lot easier if you can effectively make the problem smaller, and that is what Grover's algorithm does. Mmmmkey, what's your point? That QC algorithms can make problems solvable that were previously unsolvable with classical computing. A problem that would require potentially 2^256 attempts to reach a solution would be impossible to ever solve, for the reasons illustrated in the image above. If you can reduce the number of computational steps to 2^128, or 2^64, it starts to become very possible. Actually, it would be a lot more accurate to say that Grover's algorithm is one of the threats, not the threat. |
|
|
|
This talks about bits. It is my understanding that qbits are significantly different from bits. Sorry that I can't illuminate further. "...until computers are built from something other than matter..." We can get semantically cute and argue both sides, but in my book a quantum computer passes this definition. Armchair scientist here, but - the differentiating criterion of a quantum computer is the existence of these chained qbits. A problem with 2^8 possibilities has 256 solutions. Our normal computers take that O(n^2) problem and solves it by traversing all n^2 solutions. Computer science demonstrates we can solve big-O problems in less than the brute force number of times. However, we cannot reduce Big-O-COMPLEX problems into a problem set that is small enough for a regular computer to solve. A quantum computer would look at this problem and say, okay, I need 8 qbits. One to store each of the two possible outcomes for each of the 8 possibilities. Having those, the solution is O(1) - it is already solved. Each qbit holds BOTH states, so a 2^8 problem requires 8 qbits. A 2^512 problem requires 512 qbits and it is solved. A standard computer could never solve it. The writer of that quote understood that notion. He understood that a fundamentally different process must occur than the one we use today to make the next evolutionary leap in processing. I would argue that since the 'core' of the machine relies not on a measurement that is physical, but on the underpinnings of quantum theory which rather fly in the face of matter...that the quote is quite correct. I disagree. I think you give the writer too much credit. A natural reading of what's written is that it is impossible to break Bitcoins algo in this universe. Quantum mechanics is very much part of this universe. Disclaimer: Not even an armchair scientist. The threat from QC is that Grover's Algorithm greatly reduces the space you need to search for solutions. It is impossible to brute-force a problem with 2^256 solutions, but it is a lot easier if you can effectively make the problem smaller, and that is what Grover's algorithm does. |
|
|
|
If I were Satoshi I would have done a spend from the Genesis block and signed it "I am Craig Wright". Then I would go back into hiding forever.  The genesis block coins are not spendable. All he can do is sign a message with the genesis block key. It would be extremely entertaining to see such a signed message show up. The genesis coinbase reward is not spendable. The address, however, holds more coins than just the coinbase reward. Do you know the address of that genesis block? I would like to see how many bitcoin are there beside that initial 50 BTC. I heard that people were sending there donations for years. You can just type "0" (for the block height) in the search box on blockchain.info to see the genesis block and associated transactions. |
|
|
|
<SNIP>
You forgot to mention how he twice has presented "proof" of being Satoshi that was demonstrably faked and/or designed to mislead. |
|
|
|
so TX fees are not explicitly stated in a TX, the fee is the leftover funds after the TX is complete, for example you have a TX says:
use this 50BTC address to send 1BTC to addressA and 49BTC to addressB(change address). then you're paying 0.0BTC TX fees
OR
use this 50BTC address to send 1BTC to addressA. then you're paying 49BTC TX fees
i can see how this would lead to this kind of mistake when users try to construct three own TX with some tool and they dont know what they are doing.
Yes, that is correct. Fee = inputs - outputs Good question |
|
|
|
this makes you wonder how mistakes like this happen...
what client were they using?
dosnt core warn you if you try and send a fee that is 100,000times higher then the amount you are sending?
you'd think most wallets have implemented some common sense checks before sending.
It usually happens because someone who doesn't understand how change transactions work in bitcoin tries to spend a portion of the funds in a paper or brain wallet. If you send funds from a paper or brain wallet, you need to make sure to send ALL of it at once to your wallet, then spend a portion from that. When you spend bitcoins, the amount you spend comes out of chunks you have received (inputs), and usually, there will be at least two outputs - one is the spend, and the other is the change, which is sent back to an address you own. If you create a transaction that spends from one or more inputs without spending ALL of the funds contained in those inputs, and you don't provide an output to a change address you own, any funds in the inputs that exceeds the spend will become transaction fees paid to the miner that mines the block containing the transaction. All software and hardware wallets, as far as I know, handle that stuff for you, and yes, Core, at least, will warn you if you try to send with an excessive manual fee. |
|
|
|
That total of $100,000 is only a little more than 200 BTC. That would be microscopic volume, unless you are talking about, say, one or two 5-minute candles. That, plus bath salts, plus child porn. A couple 5-minute candles here, a couple there... It all adds up Lambie, you should really stick to the funny GIFs. They are a lot more engaging than endless CP and drug quips. |
|
|
|
That total of $100,000 is only a little more than 200 BTC. That would be microscopic volume, unless you are talking about, say, one or two 5-minute candles. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
