Hi guys I have a suggestion for a new bitcoin feature Since we can store the wallet balance in the chain, what about some wallet settings? This would mean you can setup things like: - Maximum Amount to send per day/month etc
- Specific time of day which transaction is allowed to occur
- Whitelist of address to send to
- Charity donation address for each transaction
Transaction would be rejected if it broke the rules Think of any more? I think these would help with bitcoin security, stops people zapping your coins to nowhere So I could have my long term storage address, can only send to my daily expense address, max .5 per day. This would require separate verification than just the private key to modify. What do you think Seems more like unnecessary redundancy to me. The Bitcoin client can't do anything with your wallet.dat file as long as you encrypt it. If you have a keylogger or any other malware on your terminal, then none of those security features would matter since malware can just as easily take your wallet.dat file along with your password. The only security issue that your suggested features could potentially help with is against malware that replaces your clipboard with a malicious entity's own Bitcoin address, which one can detect easily if one pays careful attention to what he/she is doing. But like I said, malwares usually steal the wallet.dat files themselves, which means all of those features would just be unnecessary bloat in the code. |
|
|
|
Not a good idea to post your bitcoin adress on the forum. {It's frowned on by moderators} and it opens you up to being targeted by hackers.
Not really. Account hackers target anyone and everyone. In fact, posting one's Bitcoin address early in the account's lifetime might actually help recover the account if it is hacked in the future. I'm not sure if Theymos would accept the digital signature of an address included in an old post, but it is at least enough for more reputable members to vouch for the account owner if necessary. If you're talking about trying to hack the Bitcoin address itself, then that's just ridiculous. Any random person can easily find any address with some coins in it. The whole point of the Bitcoin address is that you can't discover the private key for one without going through an insanely huge subset of private keys. "Veiled begging" is not a good idea though, as mentioned. okay didnt know that it is dangerous to post my address here.
Why can hacker use this information of my address ? how would that make them possible to hack me ?
I saw those "donation" links on nearly every bitcoin site.
I don't know what the previous poster was trying to say, but you can't be hacked by revealing your address. Otherwise, the Bitcoin network would be rendered useless as one needs to reveal his/her address to receive any payments. |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of how a coin gets into an exchange, it is up to the trader to do his/her own due diligence on whether a new coin is legit. There's been plenty of scams. That's nothing new. You aren't children who need to be told the same thing every time. Yes, Bittrex should have been alert and paying attention -- that's their responsibility, and the fault for that lies on them. However, buying the coins is on the buyers themselves.
Most altcoins are useless, which means that some people will make a profit and some will end up as bagholders. People who complain about losing money only do so because they couldn't make a profit at the expense of someone else losing money. Let's put it this way: if the people who lost money on this recent scam made huge profits instead, then they would be bragging about their trading prowess and saying "you should have sold sooner" to those who lost money instead.
|
|
|
|
I made a topic about purchasing a forum account for signature advertising and someone has given me negative feedback for it. Even though it is within forum rules.
Can I please have this removed?
The trust rating is legitimate though. He/She finds you to be untrustworthy for trying to buy accounts. That is well within his/her rights to do so. Meanwhile, you already responded in kind, which you are also allowed to do. Personally, I agree with him. Buying an account to participate in a signature campaign is not an attractive behaviour. Many members here actually have worthwhile things to say and useful information to contribute, and those members are the ones that the signature campaigns are looking for. If you're just here for the money, then you aren't really a glimmering beacon of trust. Your actions may fall within the realm of acceptable Bitcointalk behaviour, but other members are free to give you a negative trust feedback if that same behaviour makes you seem untrustworthy to them. |
|
|
|
|
Not really. The scenario that you are describing entails a breakdown of the current social and political structure, which means that you prolly won't even be able to connect to the Internet anymore. Even if you could find some way to use your Bitcoins, online transactions won't really matter since looting is apparently an issue in this world order that you are planning for. What would be the point of ordering anything online with Bitcoins if the item would most likely never be delivered to your doorstep (assuming that you still have a doorstep to call your own)? Food and water are the currencies of an apocalyptic world, not Bitcoins.
Keep Bitcoins that you are not about to spend in cold storage. Forget about Bitcoins if you're planning for a T-Virus epidemic.
|
|
|
|
All it says is "pool spam" - yet i checked my messages (for the last 10-20 pages), and I don't consider a single post when a coin is launched to be spam.
If there is a specific issue of this, it would be nice to have this pointed out. Currently now, I am losing revenue, as I am unable to respond to pool members, any coin issues, new launches, or any of the existing coins - and this hurts me financially - so I would appreciate at least a reason why my account has been suspended for "5 days", when there are plenty of worse offenders who remain untouched.
Thanks
In addition to what BadBear has posted, I would like to assert that your loss of revenue is not due to the fact that you are unable to post on this forum but because you are not advertising your service legitimately. Posting about your service on this forum is free advertising, and therefore should be treated as additional revenue instead of common revenue. Business entities do not "lose revenue" by not posting in third party forums. The fact that your service is esoteric and is aimed primarily at members of this discussion board does not obligate the staff to indulge you for whatever reason. If you are selling a service that cannot survive without relying on an external party allowing you to freely advertise on its forum, then your business model is clearly fundamentally flawed. Blaming the forum for a supposed "loss of revenue" because they won't allow you to post as you please is just ungrateful and completely unprofessional. |
|
|
|
I am new to crypto-currencies but want to share an idea with you. Would it be possible to create a cryto-currency with an inbuilt income for everyone who uses it? That way no matter what people will always have enough for the bare necessities of life. People will still be able to increase their 'income' (for lack of a better word) but they've got the inbuilt income to fall back on.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would work the way that you expect it to. People can easily abuse an unregulated system like that by using fraudulent means to "multiply" their "income." But if you regulate it, then it will become centralized even if that isn't your intent. Who would define what the "bare necessities of life" are? Someone who is about to become homeless would surely insist on being given rent money for free for the sake of "fairness." And why would the currency have any value if everyone can get them without having to do anything or invest anything exhaustible? People would just end up passing inflated money around while goods continue to be consumed without replacement. It would look like a perverted form of neo-communism designed for the digital age. Just a few more things to add. You said this currency would not have value but how would it be any less valuable than bitcoin? I mean bitcoin isn't backed by anything apart from trust. And each user would receive a fixed income. It would be just enough for them to get by. And, If, for argument's sake, a person was about to become homeless and needed enough money to pay their rent then if their fixed income didn't cover it then they would have to find somewhere within their budget I suppose. And you're right. It does seem like a perverted form of neo-communism which wasn't my intention. Perhaps someone can improve on this idea or think of some sort of variation. Hashing is necessary to generate more Bitcoins though. That is a costly and time-intensive process. The entities who are currently generating the largest amount of Bitcoins have invested fiat into the network, which means that wealth is being transferred into the system. In the proposed system, coins are regularly generated as income for simply being part of the network. That makes it extremely inflationary and not sustainable in the long term. Some existing coins (not saying which) already generate coins for similar arbitrary reasons in a centralized manner and will someday lose all of its speculative value once massive inflation forces the entities pumping their prices to stop doing so. |
|
|
|
I would surmise that having 0.5% of the total network hashrate would be enough to find at least 3 blocks a week. Luck would obviously play a huge factor, but 0.5% might be consistent enough as is. It would be much more prudent to at least have 1% though, since the network hashrate is continually increasing. Anyway, if my information is accurate, then 0.5% of the current total network hashrate would amount to over 677 Ths. That would require an investment of over a million dollars, not including electricity, maintenance and housing costs.
With 0.5% of total network hashrate, you should expect to find 0.5% of the future blocks and so you should get 10 blocks every 2016 blocks (usually, 12-13 days) on average.  That's a theoretical estimate based on proportional percentages. I did not base my estimate on that because it is unreliable when small numbers are involved. I was surmising based on a squared-percentage principle, which from my personal perspective, provides a better estimate for real world values. Essentially, my assertion is that one's estimated found blocks are more likely to be squarely proportional to one's controlled percentage of total network hashrate rather than directly proportional. For example, having 0.1% of the total network hashrate will net you an estimated (0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01)% rather than 0.1%. Obviously, that is due to luck or lack of it. However, like I said, I find that it functions as a better estimate for real world values. It's all irrelevant anyway. Anyone who can do fourth grade math can easily calculate percentages on their own if they believe that probability is the same thing as statistics. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.
Another uninformed post... Bitcoin is not anonymous; it is pseudonymous. It offers more transparency than fiat does. Can you tell me how many criminal hands have touched that dollar in your wallet? Bitcoin can tell you how many times a coin in any address has moved. Is your problem related to the fact that you don't know who the owners of the past addresses are? The last time I checked, I don't know who that store cashier who gave me my change was. Should I spend the next 2 years locating that person to find out if that person is a criminal? Fiat is the most anonymous form of currency. Why do you think illegal drug and gun sales are cash-only transactions? Bitcoin also offers greater protection to the merchant than any other digital payment processor can. Chargebacks are impossible, which means that theft and fraud are irrelevant in a legitimate merchant-based transaction. How could a merchant be victimized by a customer if the merchant always gets paid first? If the merchant is allowing the customer to pay later, then that's an issue with the merchant's business practices and not with Bitcoin. If you were a cashier in a store, would you let a customer that you've never seen before pay for goods with an IOU and a maybe-not-fake ID? How many times has all of this been discussed before? 10 million? 20? 50? Maybe more than Bitcoin's entropy set for addresses? My point is that bitcoin's structure and nature is affecting its adoption and use by the general public. I agree with you that the payment system offered by bitcoin is more secure than any other payment processors out there, but the mere fact that it's also used for shady transactions and any other fraudulent works make it unappealing for those who might use it. Fiat can also be used for this kind of transactions, but using it is very easy to trace. These are the primary reasons why most merchants and businesses have not yet adopted Bitcoin: - The spending value of Bitcoin is volatile. - There is still a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding the government's stance on Bitcoin. - Many people do not understand how Bitcoin works. This is especially important if those people comprise the majority of a merchant's customer base. The fact that Bitcoin can be used for fraud and illegal dealings is not a deterrent for businesses to start accepting it. That has never stopped a business from accepting fiat. That has also not stopped many businesses from accepting payment from credit cards and from Paypal and other payment processors. In fact, a lot of businesses have to deal with chargebacks worth hundreds of thousand of dollars daily. You need to do more research before you get back on the podium. |
|
|
|
I think this needs to be proof of concept, because you aren't giving a lot of technical details to go off.
The OP is just asking if using the digital signature of Bitcoin addresses is a feasible method of verifying software licenses. Also what if I use your software for a 10000000 years but in 10 years you are out of business, now I can't unlock the message cause it sounds like some centralization is involved.
Try to make it decentralized that would be awesome!
Most commercial software are designed to be supported for only up to 5-10 years. If you are using software that is over 10 years old, then you are using outdated software that has not been patched for any possible exploits. It may still work, but it is pretty much guaranteed that faster and more efficient variants of that software had been written within that span of time. Centralization is obviously involved -- in fact, it is required. The point is to make sure that the end-user paid for the license to use the software. Why would a business need to decentralize that? What point is there in decentralizing it? Your idea would work, but wouldn't stop piracy. All someone would have to do is drain the bitcoin wallet and create a new one. Then distribute the private key so anyone can use the software.
If I were using the OP's method, then I would add an "Invalidate this license" feature to the software. That way, if a private key was being shared around to pirate the software, then the software vendor (or anyone) could simply use that same key to invalidate the license key of every copy of the software using it. If the software required the user to connect online every 15 minutes or so, then the license key can still be invalidated post-verification. |
|
|
|
My roommates account was also banned for this reason supposedly. I've reviewed last couple of pages of his posts and though I agree there is a fair amount of fluff or attempts at humor I fail to see why he was banned. If this is a question of you guys thinking we are the same person because we have the same IP address let me lay those worries to rest. It says 7 days after his account so I'm sure he'll be asking himself when he's allowed to post again. Anyway, if this is the criteria your going to start using for banning people I can see a huge percentage of these posters getting banned left and right. Will probably improve the overall quality of the threads but I guess only time will tell.
You are more likely to get banned if you are participating in a paid signature campaign than if you are not. It's a "better safe than sorry" ruling. Since the staff members aren't able to tell if a sig campaign participant posting increasingly insignificant posts is only doing so in order to test the waters and eventually escalate to spam-like posts, then a temp ban is a practical warning to that member that he/she has been noticed and needs to change his/her posting habits. Many would prefer to be warned verbally and not by a temp-ban, but I think a 7-day "timeout" sends a far clearer message in general. As for other people who are posting insubstantial posts intentionally but who are not currently participating in any paid signature campaign, they get banned eventually. They get banned even faster when people actually report them though. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the quick responses!
I will stay away from faucets I guess.
I do have some skills I am a computer science major and work in technology. I'll check those links later here and keep in touch!
Thanks!
Aemon
You don't necessarily have to avoid faucets. While I do agree that most faucets still alive are essentially scumponds, there are a few that are relatively decent. It's fine if you want to get a drip from a few good faucets when you have a minute or two to spare. Just don't fall victim to the mindset that faucets are a source of Bitcoin income. Many irrational people share that mindset, not realizing that faucets are a way to teach newbies how Bitcoin works, and are not a free source of Bitcoin wealth. |
|
|
|
|
[ANN] and [PRE-ANN] tags aren't standard forum tags though. Thread starters affix that to the thread title on their own. If you think about it, the tags are completely unnecessary to begin with since the sub-forum is called "Announcements (Altcoins)." If you want to have a different tag for different threads, then you should contact the thread starters themselves. Also, enforcing tags on a sub-forum that many trusted members of the community avoid is a wasteful use of the staff's time.
|
|
|
|
I run coffeecoin.pw and I buy and sell Starbucks gift cards. The restrictions are making it very inconvenient to trade for me (e.g. one post every six minutes, 5 pms an hour)
What can I do?
Once you raise your Activity high enough, your posting delay will be lowered to a tolerable amount. Of course, the smart thing to do would be to use the forum to tell people about your service and to use an irc or chat client, a program like Skype, your own forum or email to communicate with any potential customers. After all, it isn't a good business practice to run your own website while completely piggybacking on a third party forum for communication. |
|
|
|
|
I would surmise that having 0.5% of the total network hashrate would be enough to find at least 3 blocks a week. Luck would obviously play a huge factor, but 0.5% might be consistent enough as is. It would be much more prudent to at least have 1% though, since the network hashrate is continually increasing. Anyway, if my information is accurate, then 0.5% of the current total network hashrate would amount to over 677 Ths. That would require an investment of over a million dollars, not including electricity, maintenance and housing costs.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's concept of anonymity is a hot target for the greedy. Its structure helps criminals do their criminal acts. They can easily participate on illegal transactions without being traced (or a high possibility of not being traced) by the authority. Decentralization also helps them in accomplishing some serious thefts and laundering because nobody has the power to freeze their money unless they're traced by the government. This is just one of the many things why merchants all over the world doesn't accept the idea of using bitcoin into their business. It seems to risky for them to touch knowing that there are many possibilities that they can be victimized by theft and frauds.
Another uninformed post... Bitcoin is not anonymous; it is pseudonymous. It offers more transparency than fiat does. Can you tell me how many criminal hands have touched that dollar in your wallet? Bitcoin can tell you how many times a coin in any address has moved. Is your problem related to the fact that you don't know who the owners of the past addresses are? The last time I checked, I don't know who that store cashier who gave me my change was. Should I spend the next 2 years locating that person to find out if that person is a criminal? Fiat is the most anonymous form of currency. Why do you think illegal drug and gun sales are cash-only transactions? Bitcoin also offers greater protection to the merchant than any other digital payment processor can. Chargebacks are impossible, which means that theft and fraud are irrelevant in a legitimate merchant-based transaction. How could a merchant be victimized by a customer if the merchant always gets paid first? If the merchant is allowing the customer to pay later, then that's an issue with the merchant's business practices and not with Bitcoin. If you were a cashier in a store, would you let a customer that you've never seen before pay for goods with an IOU and a maybe-not-fake ID? How many times has all of this been discussed before? 10 million? 20? 50? Maybe more than Bitcoin's entropy set for addresses? |
|
|
|
All of the latest posts of the user RDMINER are exact copy-paste replies posted by other users from the same thread. I have reported at least one of those posts, but that user has spammed so much copy-paste text that it would simply be much more efficient to report the actual member. This is the spammer's profile page. |
|
|
|
I am new to crypto-currencies but want to share an idea with you. Would it be possible to create a cryto-currency with an inbuilt income for everyone who uses it? That way no matter what people will always have enough for the bare necessities of life. People will still be able to increase their 'income' (for lack of a better word) but they've got the inbuilt income to fall back on.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would work the way that you expect it to. People can easily abuse an unregulated system like that by using fraudulent means to "multiply" their "income." But if you regulate it, then it will become centralized even if that isn't your intent. Who would define what the "bare necessities of life" are? Someone who is about to become homeless would surely insist on being given rent money for free for the sake of "fairness." And why would the currency have any value if everyone can get them without having to do anything or invest anything exhaustible? People would just end up passing inflated money around while goods continue to be consumed without replacement. It would look like a perverted form of neo-communism designed for the digital age. |
|
|
|
How are is the units of Evil thing calculated when making someone pay in order to start posting with an account? What criteria is used to make someone have to pay at all?
From what I understand, if you are creating a new account from an IP address which had previously been used by a malicious entity (banned account, spambot, etc.), then you would be required to pay a small amount before you can use that account. It's a deterrent against spammers, scammers, spambots and trolls who try to abuse the liberties provided by the forum by posting from proxies. Suffice it to say that if you're creating a new account using Tor, then you won't be free to do what you want without shelling out some cash. |
|
|
|
For future reference, this board uses standard BBCode. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
