China will be the first country to crack down on Bitcoin.
It's trivial for them to block Bitcoin communications over their network, they have the most advanced proxy filtering systems in the world.
Maybe... But if the government were against it, why would they let it go on CCTV then?that's the million bitcoin question my first visit to china was during the 08' olympics; imagine my surprise when i couldn't access my fav *ahem* video sites; well last year i noticed baidu (during a regular search for 'movie') started listing some sites; when i told my friends NO ONE believed me (but seeing was believing lol); so yeah there is progress (seems to be slow but steady) I'm in Shanghai...
In my mind, the bitcoin ecosystem here is still underdeveloped. BTCChina and it's competitors are a good start, but they aren't able to compete with the big Western exchanges in terms of security or useability (and that's not saying all that much -- aiming for parity is hardly shooting for the moon).
For the past couple of months, we've been working on a new China/Global BTC exchange that will hopefully change that. We plan to advertise online and in Shanghai's financial districts... including a 0.1 BTC giveaway for new users.
No URL yet -- we're still doing stress testing and getting all our ducks in a row. But watch this space. Next weekend, all going well...
are you planning to actually HOST the servers in shanghai as well? which channels will you support for cny <=> btc at launch? ------------------------- fyi - btcchina is back up and it looks like the downtime was caused due to a switch over to cloudflare for ddos protection; their ip is now being sourced out of europe -- things are looking up for them  Payment has never been a problem, you have no idea how Bitcoin-friendly Alipay(every Chinese network user uses it) is, compares to Paypal, at least until now. Think of BTCChina as another BTC-e, no public relation and never felt the need to do it. |
|
|
|
In the long run, I'd like to have a server version that uses a real database. By that, I mean a hardcore database with all the ACID robustness in it, to be run by those that really want to run a server. Right now, I'm constrained by the requirement that the database I choose must be easy to distribute, run in isolation, and have a license agreeable with distribution with Armory. LevelDB is a great choice for the end-user version of the software. But for the server version, I can have something more heavyweight. And I don't have much experience with that, so I wouldn't mind offloading that somehow. but definitely can't even think about it for a few weeks until after the conference.
This scares me a lot. The reason I like armory so much is that it was the closes thing to a full node we currently have for home users. I hope you can still keep it as much as to a trust-less system as possible. I plan to keep the full version. And keep it "encouraged,", but there's gotta be a lighter version of it for the non-power-users. There's only so much impact Armory can have in its current incarnation of making users wait 8+ hours to download the blockchain (and it will be much longer as time goes on). I have a few directions I want to go with it, but there will always be a full-node version of it. And the server/super-node is for the radix-tree stuff, so it can act as an oracle for arbitrary wallets, much like Electrum servers do right now. Also, the radix-tree stuff has the goal of eventually improving the network in a lot of different ways. It will make lite nodes almost as secure as full nodes. And it looks like it may not be an excessive amount of extra work for full (but pruned) nodes. If it's successful, I think it can change the network. amiller/socrates actually believes there's a way to expand it to allow lite-nodes to do full verification.. I'm not sure I believe him, but I haven't had the time to try to grok his proposal. I just know it's something I'm looking forward to looking into when I get all the immediate priorities out of the way. Just curious, do you see any unusual growth in the number of downloads/pageviews in the last two days? The state-controlled television in China did a half-hour program on bitcoin, which may have driven the daily bitcoin-qt download count of China to go up by about 20 times, putting it ahead of U.S, by a 1000% margin, I wonder if the impact can also be felt by Armory. |
|
|
|
我准备在这边，高寒地区，有人合作吗？
怎麼個合作方式？ 同问，最好搞个太阳能的。 |
|
|
|
|
How difficult would it be to create a "lite mode" which only stores block headers, like Multibit does? I have also read your idea about the blockchain compression using radix tree structure, any chance for to implement it in the Armory? If you think we should get someone else to do it, I can contribute part of the bounty.
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised that the tone is very positive in this report, since CCTV is a government owned media, this indicate that some higher level government officials admitted their support. Typically chinese people only listen to what government agency says, so this is a green light for bitcoin in china actually Maybe these corrupt officials finally find a way to move their bribe money out of china  You sure that they only listen to what government agency says? I'm pretty certain that the average Chinese national doesn't believe or take value from what their government says - trust in their government is probably at an all time low. Even if the government disapprove of Bitcoins, people there will still take interest in it, much like anything else. That is the mindset of people in US, not in china. I lived in China for some years and I know if you disagree with the government, you risk of being classified as "politic criminals" and put into prison, there are several major constitutions that classify anti-communist party activities to be criminal activities Nobody gives a damn about "constitutions" here. Bottomline is: as long as you pay your bribe and don't meddle with politics, CCP would want to stay as far from you as it can, in case you may seek help and support from it. Another interesting thing to note: unlike in the West, there are still a lot of high-level CCP leaders with a science/engineering background, it might be a remote possibility that they might "get" it quicker than their Western counterparts. |
|
|
|
Cool. So now we're trading off news of news? It's like the community keeps moving further and further away from trading the fundamentals.
I agree with this. Banks shutting down exchange accounts is the biggest deal right now IMO. Just when I thought Coinlab was going to rectify the situation everything goes to shit. I think China is a great environment for Bitcoin but I wouldn't get overly zealous just because it was in the news. Think this way, this thing can went on a state-controlled TV program without government regulators in stern face threatening "severe punishment" for anyone involved probably means atm they won't give a shit if we continue to buy BTCs with Alipay. And most importantly the ASIC workshops can remain intact. |
|
|
|
700 Yuan for 1 BTC is outright unattainable if you aren't upper-middle class and above.
Huh?  People can buy less than 1 BTC of course, so what's the problem? If a poor farmer has only X amount (like 70 yuan) to invest, if BTC rises 100x he still multiplies his investable money by 100. If 700 yuan is outright unattainable for him, he'd probably be very happy to have 7,000 yuan. Bitcoin is the only investment I've ever seen where it's possible to invest time amounts. This part of his post is mostly bullshit, while China has a huge population of poor and destitute people, not everyone out of the upper elite class lives in such poor and desperate conditions, in fact the elite class most probably would not care, what's a few billion dollars to them? The most probable buyers of BTCs in China are IT employees and technically-inclined youths living in coastal areas, and most of the Chinese BTC users I know disdain CCP to a certain extent. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I buy the claim that high ranking CCP members hold large amounts of bitcoin. Anything to substantiate this claim?
It's easy to discern from looking at events. The CCP runs nothing like a normal government in a normal country. Everything is centralized in an authoritarian structure with no checks or balances. What can and can't be broadcast as news via the CCP's media network is strictly controlled. There is a Propaganda Ministry for a reason, and a member of the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee governs the Propaganda Ministry for a reason. Bitcoin is a technology that provides a certain level of anonymity and freedom on an economic level, which contradicts the CCP's overall modus. Specifically, it makes it very easy for CCP members who are embezzling money out of China to do so with relatively little opposition. It goes against the CCP's survival. So, in my opinion, if the CCP's Propaganda Ministry broadcasts a piece like this it is because it benefits the personal interests of high ranking CCP members. Furthermore, the common Chinese citizen can in absolutely no way afford to dabble in BTC. They are impoverished and destitute. 700 Yuan for 1 BTC is outright unattainable if you aren't upper-middle class and above. Even less is it safe for them to do so when the entire country's Internet is strictly controlled by the CCP's massive surveillance network. Assuming that the common Chinese citizen can get involved with BTC is even more naive than believing the people in western slums are going to get involved with BTC. So, who can afford to dabble in BTC? China's wealthy. Who are China's wealthy? CCP members and those closely affiliated with them: http://www.forbes.com/2011/09/14/china-rich-lists-opinions-contributors-john-lee.htmlIf you think that's not true, keep in mind it is very, very difficult to exist as a business or a wealthy person in China without the blessing of the local CCP bosses. Bo Xilai's various campaigns in "countering corruption" were all fronts to eliminate his enemies and competitors in business. People routinely get charged on false charges and get sent off to labour camps to endure years of torture, rape, and murder because of this type of factor. There's just no reason for CCTV to air this article unless someone has a vested interest in a pump. Every single one of you who thinks that CCTV runs as a normal journalistic outlet does in the West, or even one as degenerate as Fox, simply does not understand the Party. It is no different from giving credit to North Korea's media when it shoots its mouth off. Partly true, partly bullshit. |
|
|
|
BTCCHINA shows no parabolic thing at all.
The amount of BTC traded per day has increased from some hundreds to now over 10K per day over the last few months - it might not have increased as rapidly as some are suggesting but for certain it is rising dramatically (it is now the 5th highest listing on the bitcoincharts.com list). That's correct. During the bubble (< 10 april) the btcchina price was always 10$ or so above mtgox last. However during the last days it was below. Right now, it's a few dollars above. This report imo is not gonna cause a lot of movement. However, we will see. There is no need to predict such a move, if it happens, like these guys are sure about, you can just get in early. Which BTCChina did you look at? The price has been about 10% higher than Gox for a few days. |
|
|
|
I thought I found someone as paranoid as me - my cold wallets are never used to prevent the public key from being public. That's not paranoid, you should only disclose the hash of your public keys, to protect you against a quantum-computer equipped thief. |
|
|
|
Couldn't some big gov entity just swallow up a bunch of ASIC wafers and get 51% that way? If a government really wants to kill Bitcoins, if the banks wants to kill Bitcoins, it shouldn't be too hard to get that type of computing power.
But they can not do it secretively, they will have to join the network and thus revealing their identity to have an impact, and this directly defeat the purpose of existence of "No Such Agency". |
|
|
|
|
So people here are like "Even if this three-letter agency were to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money just to disrupt a civilian network run partly by American citizens, I would do nothing but get others to harden my network", really?
|
|
|
|
|
CIA to NSA:"WTF dude? We just finished the transition from cash in shopping bags and you did this?"
|
|
|
|
Anyone care to inform me why the hell was this person elected as director in the first place? Self appointed So essentially he created this foundation and invited every power ranger to join? |
|
|
|
|
Anyone care to inform me why the hell was this person elected as director in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Dito Can't get in either.
Do they try to prevent panic selling?
I've only heard people's pet theories that they do by slowing down user access during panic selling periods but I reckon it's just their kit being overloaded. Same nonsense spread by "doom and gloom" bears again, I and many others have seen gox becoming slugox when price went up countless times. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a strange and evolving beast that doesn't make sense to a lot of people.
I should say it's complex enough to solve the problem it addresses.
|
|
|
|
Nope sorry. No logic. Neither the wiki nor the poster uses logic. LTC is going to Gox. It's time for BTCers to deal with it. No matter what you say you can't change that LTC is headed to GOX. Defame all you can it's futile and we all see right through it.
Really? problem is; its just a copy of btc with holes in it and there is no development behind it to improve upon it. I wonder, is it susceptible to the same fork we had some weeks ago? Lastest Bitcoin version is patched, but is Litecoin? The github repo shows no activity in the code for at least 6 months. Are the contracts implemented in Litecoin? Are there multisignature transactions? Is there a block size limit? Will it be removed/modified? Has anyone looked to add Zerocoin on top of Litecoin? I see a bunch of dedicated developers for Bitcoin, but I don't really see anything on the Litecoin side, except some people trying to hype it. IMHO its biggest problem atm: someone arranges 300K half-decent CPUs and the network will be 51%ed, not that difficult for some botnet operators. If LTC can survive for another 1-2 years, with the network hashrate growing by another 10-fold, I can see it as "here to stay", now it still isn't. I think in Satoshi's paper, the argument for why you wouldn't expect a 51% attack was that it wouldn't be economical for the attacker. That's still true for Litecoin. You wouldn't make money doing it, you would just cause chaos. One reasonable scenario is someone with vested interest in Bitcoin trying to ruin the LTC network, let alone the possibility that government/corporations will back such an attack. What will be the source of a possible attack is not important, the important thing is that investors still can not see the LTC network as a reliable alternative to the BTC network. |
|
|
|
Nope sorry. No logic. Neither the wiki nor the poster uses logic. LTC is going to Gox. It's time for BTCers to deal with it. No matter what you say you can't change that LTC is headed to GOX. Defame all you can it's futile and we all see right through it.
Really? problem is; its just a copy of btc with holes in it and there is no development behind it to improve upon it. I wonder, is it susceptible to the same fork we had some weeks ago? Lastest Bitcoin version is patched, but is Litecoin? The github repo shows no activity in the code for at least 6 months. Are the contracts implemented in Litecoin? Are there multisignature transactions? Is there a block size limit? Will it be removed/modified? Has anyone looked to add Zerocoin on top of Litecoin? I see a bunch of dedicated developers for Bitcoin, but I don't really see anything on the Litecoin side, except some people trying to hype it. IMHO its biggest problem atm: someone arranges 300K half-decent CPUs and the network will be 51%ed, not that difficult for some botnet operators. If LTC can survive for another 1-2 years, with the network hashrate growing by another 10-fold, I can see it as "here to stay", now it still isn't. |
|
|
|
I cant change default transaction fee 0.0005(this is reap off when I send 0.01) I try set lower then 0.0005 but armory don't let me do it its bolox....
Some transactions must have a fee, and that is determined by the network, not Armory. Armory simply determines whether the network will require a fee, and then tells you you must include it. Many transactions, especially those over 1 BTC, can usually be sent for 0.0 fee. Small transactions, using coins that were recently received, almost always requite a fee of 0.0005. The network does this to prevent people for sending out millions of tiny transactions for free, or moving coins billions of times between two of their own wallets and clogging the network. can also be done with 1 or more BTC. Small sums are normally used for tests, to check the functionality of backups, clients etc. See no reason to punish tests with fees. "input_age" is also considered when calculating the priority, which partially determines if a fee should be applied. And it's ultimately not up to Armory to decide if you should pay a fee or not, if miners don't want to include your transaction for the lack of a fee included, they won't deliver you a message to inform you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
