Hive Wallet is already using bitcoinjs and crypto-js (I think). You could ask them how they used them.
|
|
|
|
if the fundamentals aren't good a coin will die.
But Bitcoin itself has good fundamentals, doesn't it? I think if such publicity is done for Bitcoin, it will be successful. |
|
|
|
yes but that looks pritty gay,
Don't worry, electronic devices have notion of neither sex nor gender. |
|
|
|
PoS has been proven to be quite secure by now. The only reason Bitcoin doesn't change, is because miners would not agree since it would make their hundred of millions of dollars worth of equipment obsolete.
Doesn't PoS just make the rich richer? |
|
|
|
Namecoin had a huge innovation on its hands with its integrated domain system that could lead to the web becoming decentralized. Imagine if bitcoin integrated something like that, we would see massive growth. However it seems many people in the Bitcoin community look down on any new innovation and don't want to see the protocol progress.
Namecoin has a different purpose than Bitcoin. It's not an improvement, but a different product. As simple as that. |
|
|
|
And now they are going to dump this 237 BTC on some exchange site and cause the market to drop....
They're using Coinbase, so they've already “dumped” them and received USD back. |
|
|
|
I'll sell you my left nut for 500 btc.
I'll sell mine for 200 BTC Nice, now I can have a new pair of nuts just for 700 BTC! |
|
|
|
stop being so negative
Stop trying to be so positive about something you don't understand how it works. |
|
|
|
|
I remember that thread. Basically, the developer failed to create a secure client, which was why it was rejected by Microsoft.
So, there are no evil plans. If they were, app stores wouldn't even exist.
|
|
|
|
If i fucked up, and no one helps my oopsie… it makes everything bitcoin look bad. A giant ugly mole on its face that keeps growing.
This sounds like you made the “mistake” on purpose in order to try to give Blockchain.info or Bitcoin itself bad reputation. However, that's not the way things work. |
|
|
|
So, the bitcoin client can send a special transaction which contains the rule, rather than an amount to spend.
Then that transaction can be seen by the miners when they confirm new transactions from that address.
I think Ethereum, with its Turing-complete scripting, will be capable of doing this kind of transactions. |
|
|
|
Nope. Windows Phone sucks bigtime for Bitcoin.
Have people even attempted to develop wallets for Windows Phone? The app OP is talking about is the only one I've ever seen, and (at least in these forums) I have never seen anybody complaining about Windows not approving their apps (unlike Apple). |
|
|
|
I think the 21 million limit has been good and necessary for bitcoin to become the success it is today. However, in the future the 21 million limit will prevent bitcoin from becoming a huge mainstream currency. Those who own bitcoins today would then become too superwealthy.
Isn't this a contradiction? You say that the 21 million limit was necessary, but we aren't even halfway there and you already want to remove it? Using your own logic, then the limit was never necessary to begin with. Not that I agree with any of that. |
|
|
|
Uh Miners? You make it sound like there are testnet pools and such. If you are lucky and catch the right moment you can solomine a block with your cpu. So while I theory you are right, it makes little sense to charge a fee for the testnet.
I thought that Testnet was created to test Bitcoin features without risking any money. If fees are part of Bitcoin, shouldn't they be a part of Testnet too? |
|
|
|
3. pay them to make it a high priority
I don't thing something like a background image would be a high priority even if the devs were paid for it. |
|
|
|
Since we can store the wallet balance in the chain [...]
First of all, wallet balance is NOT stored on the blockchain. “Balance” is calculated by adding all the inputs and subtracting all the outputs. 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 [...] This would require separate verification than just the private key to modify. This could only be useful for self control (so you don't spend your life savings), or for parental control in case your kids use your computer too often. The reason this can't work against a hacker stealing your coins is that if those features are at the wallet level, then you just need to get the private keys and load them in another wallet, and then spend them. For this to be effective, it would have to be done at the protocol level (which I think it's too complex to include, but maybe someone knows better). |
|
|
|
Myth: Bitcoin is more secure than traditional money transfer methods
Bitcoin is quite obviously more secure than traditional money transfer methods as there are no middlemen to mess with your transaction. As long as you keep your private keys safe  So as long as you ignore the factor that makes it unsafe, it's safe. Cool Nothing is 100% safe. Also, you could keep your bank password unsafe, and your account would be emptied before you knew it. |
|
|
|
The idea that the value of bitcoin will continue to rise over time is false, because that is not how markets work.
I have no problem with that concept, to be honest. I'd rather its value stabilizes. I would makes some things simpler, such as selling products at a fixed BTC price. |
|
|
|
You should NEVER enter you private key in any website. If you want to use it, you should download it and run it locally first. |
|
|
|
|
Why is everyone talking about Bitcoin 2.0 if we haven't even reached version 1.0?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
