Follow up to question below. Your question will vary based on a few factors including how much you are transferring, is your account verified, what day of the week is it, what hour of the day is it, the size of the payout queue, the size of the support queue if there is a problem, the color of "the developer"'s socks, and more. If you are asking for International wire, that will always be at best about a half day because of the difference in time zones. For the transfer from Mt. Gox to Dwolla, that can range from very quick (hour to several hours range). Once they do the send though the Dwolla transaction (an account-to-account A2A transaction) is instant. Then your withdrawal from Dwolla is about two business days, assuming you've already linked a bank account to your Dwolla account. They may do a hold if they decide to require your identity (upload a photo of your driver's license). |
|
|
|
Here's the money shot: Here’s what beautiful about this experience: It doesn’t matter in the slightest what Paul Krugman thinks. It doesn’t matter how many economic experts Paul Krugman lines up to oppose Bitcoin. It doesn’t matter how many Nobel Prize winners denounce it and oppose it. That’s because Bitcoin is not a “policy” invented by elite and privileged intellectuals. It is a market-based currency, one created by an entrepreneur and chosen by market players. [emphasis mine] And that is exactly the message that needs to be shared. If bitcoin continues on its current trajectory being wildly successful (specifically its recognition and use as a currency) and that success will bring huge shifts and dislocations, then there will be a huge shifts and dislocations. (And hopefully they come to the bloated financial sector first  ) But it is like the entertainment industry saying how they don't like MP3 sharing. Well, they can stomp their feet and make a bunch of theatrics but in the end MP3s will be shared. Bitcoin, like the internet, routes around "damage". The genie is out of the bottle. |
|
|
|
and for the designated drivers: the Merkle Root Beer
Ha, clever! I stole that for a tweet. |
|
|
|
If we trust cryptography we dont need to see the transactions to accept that double spending has not occured - correct?
No. This is the data that is needed.  A transaction is a signed section of data that is broadcast to the network and collected into blocks. It typically references previous transaction(s) and dedicates a certain number of bitcoins from it to one or more new public key(s) (Bitcoin address).
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions |
|
|
|
Is it technically possible to encrypt the blockchain so the transactions becomes totally impossible to trace for others than the two parts involved in the transaction?
The reason: make it impossible for government to trace how much bitcoins you have, who you have transactions with and so on.
The architecture of the Bitcoin ledger is such that each node can verify that a transaction has not been previously spent. There's no way to verify that the transaction hasn't previously been spent without knowing the address and the transaction details (transaction hash and index). There is a somewhat related project, Open Transactions, that allows Bitcoin transactions with blinding. - https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/wiki |
|
|
|
Time to label a scammer tag, And really remind people that just because someones trustworthy for a little while, Doesnt mean that they always will be
Does anyone know anything about this service? - http://bitcoinfunding.com/It is hosted at the same IP address as BitLotto.com. They also are registered with privacy protection. And it was another service that, if successful, would receive payment and then hold large amounts of funds until eventual payout. Which is an interesting coincidence. |
|
|
|
|
This is one of those use cases where the race attack double spending method is definitely a risk they are exposed to but it is simply uneconomic for the attacker to try. The bar will earn more profit from my unsuccessful attempts than they would lose from an occasional successful one. And the attacker would be passed out long before a successful trial anyway.
So I'ld be curious what method EVR is performing to know if a double spend had been attempted (e.g., using a payment processor that has multiple monitoring nodes and upon nodes seeing double spends an alert occurs?)
And I'ld be curious what would happen if a double-spend attacker tried (and was caught)? Would the attacker simply be escorted to the door, ... or charged with broadcasting some bits out port 8333 that resulted with the ability to get "free" drinks?
|
|
|
|
Don't know how reliable it is or who the owner is, but I used it yes, to short a little bitcoins from $98 as a hedge for the main position. It worked as expected (i.e, margin call when prices moved above 140  ). Yup, leverage is a bitch. Now if the exchange rate drops back down below $98 you have no hedge left and have direct exposure again. Simply sell your BTC, and pretend you're going long the dollar.
If you are going to do that and don't need the cash right now ... there is a high level of contango so that gives a way to sell and lock in a certain exchange rate. So let's say using the example above BTC/USD was $90 and BUM3 (June 14th 2013 settlement) was $98 as you said. With 1 BTC to short, you could sell 10 BUM3 contracts and essentially have essentially zero exposure to margin call. So let's say BTC/USD on June 14th is $140. You then have about 0.7 BTC remaining on June 14th but the exchange rate at that time is $140 so you can sell those 0.7 BTC and get $98. But if the exchange rate drops to $70, you then have a little over 1.4 BTC, which at BTC/USD $70 can be sold for ... $98. So instead of selling today at the spot market you can sell futures contracts and gain a nice little profit from contango. |
|
|
|
Without your script, I probably wouldn't have recovered my wallet.
Great to see access to another wallet saved! There's going to be a growing need for someone to offer this service commercially. |
|
|
|
So it appears that the impression is that hoarders are hurting Bitcoin because we are not using it as its intended purpose, as a currency.
Which is only a problem when instead of hoarding these speculators turn into dumpers. If the coins were mostly used in commerce for purchases, then there would be less volatility based on whatever the response is to the next news article on Bitcoin. But when the (temporary) price top is reached and the exchange rate direction turns south -- those hoarders all stop hoarding and race to the exits. Some will have made it out with plenty of gains, others roughly break-even, and the last ones who bought will see losses, sometimes heavy. Now if the merchant can set prices in dollars and uses a payment processor who converts all bitcoin revenues to dollars at the spot rate at the time of sale (less the conversion fee), then the merchant can be pretty much agnostic about the exchange rate (though 10% swings in a day mean delays simply in waiting the hour for payment to confirm before the coins can be sold is something that will eat into profits) But if the exchange rate is dropping and the hoarders start dumping, they will also be using their coins making spend purchases. So bitcoin wins either way thanks to hoarding. When the exchange rate is on the way up hoarding causes the exchange rate to rise which attracts others to buy bitcoins causing them to become familiar with buying bitcoins and using them in transactions. When the exchange rate is headed down bitcoins get spent with merchants causing it to gain traction as a payment method. |
|
|
|
1. If i generate an address offline by going to the page, disconnecting wifi and generating a new address is this address now good to go? Depending on whether or not your system is compromised. Let's say you have malware that does a screen shot a couple times each second and uploads next time you reconnect the images of QR codes it snagged? [Update: The solution is to use a LiveOS, i.e., boot to an operating system you know was not tampered with. Then while offline load the static .html page that was originally obtained from bitaddress.org and verified using the sha1sum to be the same release as from github or from the site.] 2. How do i check the balance on the address? Blockchain.info will show transactions where that address was used. 3. How do i move the balance from there to another address? You need to import the private key somewhere. Bitcoin-Qt from the debug console has a way to import private key. - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_import_private_keysBlockchain.info/wallet provides an import private key method. Using a mobile, EasyWallet.org has "one touch" scanning to do this. Also Mt. Gox has the ability to redeem a private key in which they sweep the funds into your Mt. Gox exchange account. |
|
|
|
Funds have now moved. [Update: And the domain was just renewed another year. Ughh.] |
|
|
|
by Elli Androulaki, Ghassan Karame, Marc Roeschlin, Tobias Scherer and Srdjan Capkun Evaluating User Privacy in Bitcoin Presented at Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2013 Seventeenth International Conference, April 1–5, 2013, Okinawa, Japan - http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-3.pdf - http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffc13.ifca.ai%2Fproc%2F1-3.pdf <-- Web browser view using Google Docs - http://fc13.ifca.ai/slide/1-3.pdf - http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffc13.ifca.ai%2Fslide%2F1-3.pdf <-- Web browser view using Google Docs Abstract:
We evaluate the privacy that is provided by Bitcoin (i) by analyzing the genuine Bitcoin system and (ii) through a simulator that faith-fully mimics the use of Bitcoin within a university. In this setting, our results show that the profiles of almost 40% of the users can be, to a large extent, recovered even when users adopt privacy measures recommended by Bitcoin. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that comprehensively analyzes, and evaluates the privacy implications of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
it's in today's PRINT EDITION of NYT.
It's going to be an interesting week. |
|
|
|
In the wake of last month’s fork, the elites in the Bitcoin community effectively changed the rules in a matter of hours. The article's author doesn't specify what rules changed. The rule that was not followed was that miners always extend the longest chain. When BTC Guild decided to abandon the v0.8 client and mine using v0.7, that wasn't a "rule change". That was an operational change. The developers really had no way to force that switch to happen other than to suggest the consequences if the switch back to v0.7 were to not happen. From the logs of the first minutes after the block delta was identified as being not a problem isolated to a few people but instead a v0.8 vs. pre-v0.8 hard fork scenario, it was the BTC Guild operator who saw that Mt. Gox was using a pre-v0.8 client. The "elites" didn't have the power. Gavin nor any other developer had the power to "change the rules". BTC Guild didn't even have power to change the rules (i.e., to force everyone still on v0.7 to go with v0.8 ). No ... the decider was ... what side of the fork was Mt. Gox on. Mt. Gox currently serves as the economic majority. Whatever for Mt. Gox was on, that's the side whose newly mined coins have value. Mt. Gox used a pre-v0.8 client. Therefore, mining a v0.8 client was yielding worthless coins. It was the Mt.Gox tail that wagged the BTC Guild dog. If Mt. Gox was on v0.8 I would bet the other merchants, miners and users that hadn't yet upgraded would be quickly alerted to install a patch that adjusted the settings so the locking issue wouldn't happen. Here's a post on the hard fork: Bitcoin Lied, Confirmed Transactions DiedIs there a lesson to be learned from the March 11th hard fork? - http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/47048259653 |
|
|
|
Timothy B. Lee writes Four Reasons Bitcoin Is Worth Studying Even if you think the current value of of more than $140 is a bubble, it’s clear that Bitcoin has some genuine applications. The number of daily Bitcoin transactions has soared from around 1000 at the beginning of 2011 to about 50,000 today. Figuring out the “fundamentals” that drive the currency’s long-term value seems like an interesting theoretical puzzle.
[...]
A core part of Bitcoin’s appeal is that it’s not under anyone’s control. Supposedly, nobody has the authority to change the Bitcoin money supply, cancel or reverse transactions, or otherwise change the attributes of the protocol. But in practice that’s not really true. In the wake of last month’s fork, the elites in the Bitcoin community effectively changed the rules in a matter of hours. In principle, there’s no reason those same elites couldn’t make other changes to the Bitcoin protocol.
[...]
In principle, these two pools might be able to join forces and execute a 51 percent (or 53 percent) attack on the rest of the network. But doing so might prove foolish in the long run, since that kind of power grab might undermine public confidence in the currency’s long-term viability, since a mining cartel might have the power to change the rules of the Bitcoin protocol in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of ordinary users. - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/04/07/four-reasons-bitcoin-is-worth-studying/2/There had been some discussion already in the thread below, using a sensationalist thread title, however that thread has since been locked. Forbes : the Biggest threat to Bitcoin is Gavin - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169681.0 |
|
|
|
When I’ve got enough feedback and a final design, I’ll publish a web page that will generate these wallets with just a couple of clicks.
Will you also be providing a method for redeeming them? e.g., a page that takes two fields: Withdraw (for scanning the private key) and the Send To (for the Bitcoin address to pay). That way I can simply do two scans, first the private key from the paper wallet, and the second I show my QR code for my mobile wallet. Also, will this work with only a black and white printer? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
