Sad to see 5883 BTC wasted on the address ranked third. Other than that I see some well applied funds there
|
|
|
I was just in the process of checking out and I noticed https://www.jmbullion.com has Bitcoin listed as one of their checkout methods! $100-$10,000 orders. Good news indeed.The more merchants accept bitcoin,more people will adopt it.It will help bitcoin reach $10,000 Before reaching whatever price, merchant adoption is good news because it will help spread Bitcoin and have it accepted in more places...
|
|
|
still they are earning more than what they need to operate with their miners, so if they want to help the decentralization, there should be a rule that a % go to the full nodes
i'm not saying that they have not the rights to claim 100% of the fee and the reward, but they should let's say..."donate" a % to the full noders
I agree, they should, and they would probably be doing so if there were less nodes (and then again, I'm not sure if they would, some miners probably think their nodes are enough ). That being said, of course they're earning more than they need to operate the miners... Who would mine if they weren't earning more than they need to pay their bills? The question is how do you distinguish a full node from a fake full node. Lets assume that is solved. Do you pay a node thats barely running (e.g. 2 hours a day) and holding 8 connections (no inbound connections) the same as one that is online 24/7 and holds >100 connections?
Identifying fake nodes would be the hardest part, indeed. The second part is probably not a big issue, I think, bitnodes distributed Bitcoin through their rewards program by examining nodes, giving points to those who were contributing more to the networking and distributing funds using this algorithm, so it's possible to prioritize rewards this way. Suggestion box is open in order to avoid fake nodes
|
|
|
i would give them only a % of the fee for now which should be enough, not a % of the block reward itself
Miners also collect money from fees... So to them it's pretty much the same as taking it from a block. yeah but i can argue that it's an overkill, they don't really need all this money, so a % can be given to the full noders It's not overkill. You're mining for the coins... Who tells you miners do not need their coins? I think it's exactly the opposite. I don't think most miners and pools would be pleased to see a % of their income to be directed towards full nodes, at least for now.
|
|
|
i would give them only a % of the fee for now which should be enough, not a % of the block reward itself
Miners also collect money from fees... So to them it's pretty much the same as taking it from a block.
|
|
|
It's probably technically possible, but impossible in practice.
|
|
|
Voted "it's possible". For all we know Bitcoin can die tomorrow, so... Although that's highly unlikely, obviously I think that by the time Bitcoin mining ends we either have something better than Bitcoin or Bitcoin will have developed so much that we can't call it Bitcoin anymore. I don't think it will have an abrupt end and things like Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology won't cease to exist.
|
|
|
I've been paid 0.0128 BTC for 2016-03-06 (06:13:10), which is correct and links to the correct transaction. I've been also paid 0.0184 BTC for 2016-03-13 which is correct but does not link to the correct transaction (in this transaction I've been paid 0.02 BTC extra which I presume to be the "bonus"). However I have not been paid for the 0.064 BTC for 2016-03-06 (07:31:50), which I find odd because it's between two payments that have been correctly sent.
Any estimates on when payments will finally be on track? Should I send another PM to marcotheminer and/or Bitcoin_BOy$ ?
|
|
|
Funny try. Stats sites got tricked again! Is the attacker already known? I wonder how come this isn't obvious to everyone; i.e. why some believe that these are genuine nodes run by many users (they're not).
That's why the OP probably named the thread "virtual server" because that's what they are
|
|
|
And that's not even a bad experience for what concerns banks... You could have had something like this happen. ... Was chatting at some one when I made the mistake,tend to be focused when it comes to bitcoin transactions due to not having some one asking me about a former girlfriend that was crazy and how to word it to the guy interested in her. Did it once was just interested to see if they wave it or not and they failed.
So when you, yourself, make a mistake, you feel entitled to the $3.50 you lost? And actually call your bank about $3.50, and ask for it back?! What next? Calling your bank to credit you the tenner you lost trying to score some rock? How 'bout U Lrn 2 take responsibility for ur actions & stop cutting into the bank's profit margin with frivolous support calls, hmm? The user just moved money virtually inside the bank's network... Real, physical funds were moved from the ATM. He even "reversed" what he did right after. How does this cost 3.5$ to the bank?
|
|
|
Do these academics have any idea what it costs [...]
Do you have any idea how much these academics receive to say certain things in scientific papers/articles?
|
|
|
WD already had a storage solution for Raspberry's, so I don't really see why only this product was in the news... I hope it's an improvement to previous product and can run with a single psu and usb connection directly to the RPi while having really low power consumption. This will definitely be nice to run a small, inexpensive node
|
|
|
You have to update when your version is useless and cannot create valid transactions or when there are deep changes on the Bitcoin protocol...
|
|
|
I'm willing to bet that the forum simply doesn't update post count in real time.
|
|
|
My online Armory wallets are 93.3 and my offline wallets are 92.3 (Windows) and 93.2 (Linux). Will these offline wallet versions be compatible with the next release (0.94) and beyond especially with the implementation of SW?
Yes, it will be compatible, at least for now
|
|
|
Woah... That was one aggressive announcement. I used to like that website as it gives insight about connected nodes, not so much anymore.
If they really want people to switch to Classic, then hurry the Classic dev team to implement the changes they've proposed quicker and make their client offer better than we have with Core.
|
|
|
Even after knowing that this is a "lighter," I still can't see it. Do you ever post the original unaltered photos? I'd like to so the original.
Just click on the picture and you have the original one.
|
|
|
Probably. That seems to be an online wallet where you don't own your keys, so I'd say no.
With all due respect, I was referring to their escrow-service.. and not to their wallet. Their escrow is a multi-signature one, which means we all(the seller, the admin and me) hold one key of the 3... That's exactly the thing... If you want to use their service, use it offline without having them as a mediator. But ultimately it's your call I don't get you? how can I use it offline without having them as a mediator ? (I just simply don't request to have a mediator's public key in when I make the multi-signature escrow?) As it says on their page you can download their page and run it offline. Basically you can generate the addresses you need offline, with their tool (or any other), but if you really want to have a third party (escrow) in your transaction you'd better choose someone that's widely known and accepted and not just a random website. You have a few trusted escrow services available on the forum, I think some of them even accept working with multisig addresses.
|
|
|
Just tell them you believe the concept of being in charge of your own money. If people don't believe in Bitcoin the currency, they must believe on blockchain technology or at least the concept... No way of denying that storing your own money securely is infinitely better than giving it to banks. People will start thinking differently if you show them the basic concept.
|
|
|
|