Like other indicated it was a guestimate and the number of coins (and discrete units) is totally arbitrary. Personally the only thing I wish was different is 1 use full 64bit (21M BTC * 1E8 =2.1E15, 64bit ulong = 1.84E19) for units and 2 make the subsidies base 2 so there would be a "clean" generation (i.e. 64 BTC, 32 BTC 16 BTC, 8 BTC ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshis 0).
Meh. The extra ~13 bits leaves headroom for accounting systems using modern CPUs, just in case it really takes off fast. Um the headroom would already exist if the bits were already used. i.e. use 64bits now = ~18,400 quadrillion units vs use 51 bits now = 2.1 quadrillion units expandable to ~18,400 quadrilion units if things take off.  No, see headroom is the difference between the size of the register and the maximum number of fundamental units. That's a definition. If you have 2^64 units, and you use a 64 bit register to count them, then you either have no headroom, or you aren't exact. (You can use a scaled format, but that just means that you have either headroom or exactness at any given step, but never both at the same time.) I'm talking about accounting, and we generally don't limit our accounting systems to according to our money supply. The notion of expanding the money supply is a different matter entirely. We may expand to a 128-bit format in the future, and I'm strongly suspect that we will do so for aesthetic reasons (as in, "we have 128-bit registers, why are we still hauling these half-words around?") long before the fundamental unit becomes economically meaningful. When we do that, if we do that, we will probably pick a scaling factor that provides even more than 12 or 13 bits of headroom at that time. |
|
|
|
|
If it isn't a normal transaction, then your client won't recognize it, won't update the wallet, won't show a higher balance.
What you normally think of as "sending to an address that I control" is a very specific transaction template. You can't just mash a bunch of bytes together and stick an address into the middle of it, hoping that the client just greps for known keys or something.
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty much it.
Of course, if you keep good notes, you only have to do it once, and then keep it updated. Or you can use one of the several sites on the internet that provide public access to their notes.
|
|
|
|
Like other indicated it was a guestimate and the number of coins (and discrete units) is totally arbitrary. Personally the only thing I wish was different is 1 use full 64bit (21M BTC * 1E8 =2.1E15, 64bit ulong = 1.84E19) for units and 2 make the subsidies base 2 so there would be a "clean" generation (i.e. 64 BTC, 32 BTC 16 BTC, 8 BTC ... 2 satoshi, 1 satoshis 0).
Meh. The extra ~13 bits leaves headroom for accounting systems using modern CPUs, just in case it really takes off fast. |
|
|
|
|
Also, there are practical difficulties involved with implementing Grover's. As far as I know, it has never been done, even in the most trivial way. By contrast, Shor's (the other quantum algorithm) has been done, giving correct factorizations of both 15 and 21 in a statistically significant fraction of attempts.
I'll personally start worrying about quantum attacks on SHA when either A) someone demonstrates a version of Grover's that doesn't require a "circuit", or B) when we develop the technology to start imagining how to begin thinking about ways to implement SHA as a "circuit". Either way, I suspect that our grandkids will have had plenty of time to ponder the suggestions that we leave in our memoirs on how to deal with the impending crisis.
|
|
|
|
Modern hard drives use fluid dynamic bearings. As long as you keep it spinning, it should be fine. While the drive is spinning, the bearing should be producing enough heat to keep from freezing even if the environmental temperature is well below the manufacturer's spec.
That said, you should use old drives that are out of warranty for this. Although I think you will be fine, the manufacturer would not be amused by out-of-spec operation.
Oh, and drives don't contain desiccant because they aren't sealed. What they normally have is a HEPA filter to trap particles pulled in through the pressure-relief port. It looks like a little tea bag.
Back in the late 90s, I had what I now believe to have been the first in-car MP3 player in Minnesota. It was really just a computer fed into my stereo by hacking the CD changer bus, but still... On a few of the coldest days of the year, it wouldn't boot because the hard drive wouldn't spin up, but it was just a matter of waiting a few minutes for the CPU and PSU heat to thaw out the bearings. That drive survived through several years despite below zero winters and over 100 degree summers.
Sorry.... Totally irrelevant about the bearings.... you have obviously not understood my original posting. The amount of structural change in the materials over a given temperature range, dictates the reliability of the read/write circuits. OLD hard drives, strictly recorded ones/zeros onto (maybe in a manchester or other recording system) the media, so they were more reliable over extended temperature ranges, due to the massive size of the encoded magnetic domains. NEW hard drives DO NOT do this, and the data recovery is based on the probability of the signal recovered from under the noise floor being a one or zero NOT on a hard fact (very frightening but true). By changing the temperature you change the probability, due to material expansion/contraction, which means data recorded at a temperature outside the drives operating range may ONLY be reliably recovered at that temperature. Heh. Mechanical contraction and expansion are not issues here. Drives haven't used absolute positioning for like 25 years. The heads center themselves over the servo tracks using analog voice coils and feedback, not stepper motors. As for the magnetic systems, the entire read circuit is built around looking for the difference between parallel and anti-parallel domains, not at absolute levels. As long as you stay away from the Curie point, the changes in magnetic properties are tiny compared to the other forces that a hard drive has to deal with, and well within the capabilities of our modern DSP techniques and redundant encoding schemes. If the spindle is physically capable of spinning, the drive should be fine. |
|
|
|
It's okay. My name isn't Oliver either ;-)
Oh usagi are you still refusing to acknowledge your name? How's your wife W. doing? I have a complete proof that your name is Oliver and isn't Serena. I would really prefer that crap like this not show up here. You can hardly fault the guy for wanting to keep a bit of privacy by obfuscating his name or address. His customers had no problem dealing with an unknown entity calling himself "usagi", so bringing up the details of his personal life now seems petty and vindictive; hardly evidence of dishonesty. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your answers so far! it probably shouldn't just be a random string, because someone may suspect that you want them to sign your public key. Hmm, I don't get it. Why would I want someone to sign my public key? And which public key do you mean? In some systems, signing someone's key has special meanings. Like an endorsement. The "random" signed text could be the hash of a message that you disagree with, or a contract, and again it could look like you endorsed it. As far as the bitcoin system goes, the software (and thus network) doesn't attach any special meaning to signatures. Still, people can and do, even when they know better, so you are best off never signing anything provided by someone else. Stick to writing your own text, include a time stamp (which can't be verified, but whatever), and maybe let them suggest a word or a phrase to include to prove that you didn't pre-generate it. |
|
|
|
How about this; if anyone believes BCB is being fair and is capable of resolving this, speak up now. I mean wtf, who wouldn't jump at the chance to negotiate a cash settlement? It's clear BCB is not looking out for shareholder interests here. The companies are closing down; this would only help shareholders.
Considering how muddled this is, and your attitude, I suspect that BCB is about as fair as you are going to get. And I really doubt that he, or anyone else, is capably of resolving this, but that is because resolution seems impossible unless you change yourself. You seem slimy, and you get worse with nearly every post. My opinion, which matters not at all, remains that you started out with honest intentions, and then made some mistakes, but then clung stubbornly to them. I'm thankful that I'm not the one that has to decide if that rises to the level of "scamming". Scammer tag or not, your reputation has taken a terrible hit from this incident. If you are interested in salvaging something, resolve to change your ways. Practice some humility, listen to what people have to say, develop some respect for what the rest of the world considers to be appropriate handling of fiduciary duty, make a big show of winding down your closing ventures correctly and publicly. |
|
|
|
|
Modern hard drives use fluid dynamic bearings. As long as you keep it spinning, it should be fine. While the drive is spinning, the bearing should be producing enough heat to keep from freezing even if the environmental temperature is well below the manufacturer's spec.
That said, you should use old drives that are out of warranty for this. Although I think you will be fine, the manufacturer would not be amused by out-of-spec operation.
Oh, and drives don't contain desiccant because they aren't sealed. What they normally have is a HEPA filter to trap particles pulled in through the pressure-relief port. It looks like a little tea bag.
Back in the late 90s, I had what I now believe to have been the first in-car MP3 player in Minnesota. It was really just a computer fed into my stereo by hacking the CD changer bus, but still... On a few of the coldest days of the year, it wouldn't boot because the hard drive wouldn't spin up, but it was just a matter of waiting a few minutes for the CPU and PSU heat to thaw out the bearings. That drive survived through several years despite below zero winters and over 100 degree summers.
|
|
|
|
I started stacking in 2008. Never very seriously, and I tended to give them out as gifts too, so I'd typically net one sealed tube of eagles, a couple loose, and some odds and ends (quarters, dimes, nickles, etc) each year. I discovered bitcoin in 2011, and my 2012 silver money was spent expanding my modest mining system rather than expanding my modest silver stock. I don't consider myself a serious PM-bug, but I do keep a very close eye on this chart. |
|
|
|
They are arrays. The first one is an array of arrays, the second is not nested. $bitcoin->createrawtransaction(
array(
array(
"txid"=>"aed23bb3ec7e93d69450d7e5ea49d52fcfbef9d380108f2be8fe14ef705fcea5",
"vout"=>2
),
array(
"txid"=>"b28c740c66726ab2f0397be29f2d25f091b8ab353b98b9ebf9e6ccfd080cdf49",
"vout"=>3
),
),
array(
"1GTDT3hYk4x4wzaa9k38pRsHy9SPJ7qPzT"=>0.006,
"1ApD64wpNUM6GBeSmKYhsyaNwFot3FMC5y"=>0.004,
)
);
|
|
|
|
|
The Mises Regression theorem only seems to be necessary to understand how monopoly money (gold) was invented the first time. Now that the concept is well established, it seems pretty obvious why we would all want to switch to a better monopoly money (bitcoin).
Yup, I said that gold was the first monopoly money, and I meant it.
|
|
|
|
Anything that makes people want to hold onto bitcoins more also makes others want to encourage them to part with bitcoins more. This. I'll repeat it for emphasis. Anything that makes people want to hold onto bitcoins more also makes others want to encourage them to part with bitcoins more. If I were granted one wish, and one wish only, it would be that 100% of the kids in the world learn and understand the concept of a dynamic equilibrium by the time they leave school. If you don't understand this concept, you make all sorts of silly posts on the internet about how some system or another will run off to infinity. However, if you do understand this concept, like JoelKatz clearly does, you can see how nearly everything in the world around you is a balance between opposing forces, and instantly spot the correcting feedback that others can't see. If you are still fuzzy on the concept, ask yourself how many people are going to starve to death while waiting for their bitcoins to buy 10% more food tomorrow. |
|
|
|
The rate of inflation of the USD as a result of the bond buying of 85 GUSD/month is not completely clear cut. There could be some multiplication due to fractional reserve banking, as the bond end up as reserves. Also, if the general level of trust should go down and lending would shrink, the M3 could go down.
Just FYI, the two terms I bolded are essentially synonyms. They can't go up and down at the same time. Also, just as a technical note, in modern (real-world) fractional reserve banking, the lending comes first, and the reserves are found later. Adding reserves does not cause lending because the primary constraint on lending is the bank's assessment of the borrower's ability to repay. |
|
|
|
|
A brief history of recent rumors of the death of the penny:
"US Gov't Phasing out the PENNY and NICKEL in 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013."
|
|
|
|
|
Do you need init scripts or something?
|
|
|
|
Damn, that seems pretty expensive for what it is. I want one as well, but damn, not for that price.
It actually is pretty cheap compared to alternatives. Remember this is a TRNG. Other "cheap" ones run $300 to $500. FIPS certified devices for enterprises tend to run $1K to $20K+. Yeah, that's the problem. This is the cheapest one available, by far. The second cheapest option is to buy a geiger tube and build your own. And a tiny USB stick is way more datacenter-friendly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
