One thing I did notice that might be the cause of a problem. I sent an email to that crazy address of theirs and hotmail converted all the upper case chars to lowercase.
Email is not case sensitive. The local-part of mail addresses is indeed case sensitive. It may not be treated as case sensitive by all MTAs (i.e. mail to Sturle may get delivered to sturle, if this is the local policy), but they are case sensitive by definition in the standard and must never be changed in transit. The only exception is postmaster. Let me quote in full from RFC 822: 3.4.7. CASE INDEPENDENCE
Except as noted, alphabetic strings may be represented in any
combination of upper and lower case. The only syntactic units
which requires preservation of case information are:
- text
- qtext
- dtext
- ctext
- quoted-pair
- local-part, except "Postmaster"
When matching any other syntactic unit, case is to be ignored.
For example, the field-names "From", "FROM", "from", and even
"FroM" are semantically equal and should all be treated ident-
ically.
When generating these units, any mix of upper and lower case
alphabetic characters may be used. The case shown in this
specification is suggested for message-creating processes.
Note: The reserved local-part address unit, "Postmaster", is
an exception. When the value "Postmaster" is being
interpreted, it must be accepted in any mixture of
case, including "POSTMASTER", and "postmaster".
I'm not at all surprised if Hotmail, which has gone from sucking like a vacuum cleaner in 1997 to a universe threatening black hole today, ignores this standard as well as most other standards. It has become an isolated island on the Internet, unable to deliver mail to anywhere. I am surprised every time a mail from Hotmail actually reaches my mailbox. |
|
|
|
Can anyone figure out what the total computing power of the bitcoin botnet is?
We are right at 100 g hash/sec right now. That's 7.2 blocks per hour at the current difficulty. Someone mentioned that a 5970 GPU has about 5Tflops each, using those caclulations, the bitcoin network is closing in very quickly on one PetaFlop of processing power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhe-I the current fastest super computer has about 2.5 PetaFlops. .... wow ! FLOPS are irrelevant for Bitcoins. A Phenom II X4 is much faster than a 5970 measured in FLOPS, but a 5970 is 50 times faster than a Phenom II X4 at generating bitcoins. Fifty! You could count MIPS (Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed), which is a little bit more relevant, but in reality it is all about how many SHA256 hashes the hardware can do per time unit. The 5970 is exceptionally fast at just that. The 2.5 Petaflop comuter may not be faster than one or two 5970s at generating Bitcoins. It is probably optimized for double precision floating point with fast CPU interconnects, and simply not useful for simple integer calculations. |
|
|
|
... introduce junk in blocks ... If it's useful to the sender, the recipient, and the miner, then it's not junk. Bitcoin is supposed to be currency by definition. Anything in it that is not directly currency-related can be classified as "junk". Perhaps separate protocols can be created for sending additional information based on private/public keys that already exist in bitcoin. ++ Those who want other services integrated with Bitcoins, just make an ad hoc protocol with it's own chain. Let the people who store information there pay with bitcoins rewarded to those who create new blocks, or something. Just don't push it everyone who just want to pay for stuff on the net. It should be possible to run a Bitcoin client on a smartphone or tablet without downloading Wikileaks, porn, Gaga videos, spam, ads, warez, all of usenet, and whatnot at the same time. Please! |
|
|
|
It is in our interest that it would still be possible to run Bitcoin on normal home computers in the future as well.
It's likely that the continuing increases in storage capacity and drop in price per gigabyte will mean that it gets easier, not harder, to run Bitcoin on normal home computers. Great. Let's wait for that to happen. And let's ignore limited devices like smartphones, tablets, etc. But please keep spam away from the blockchain until unlimited broadband is commonplace everywhere. There is also the potential for block chain compaction which will reduce the storage requirements for a fully-functional home computer Bitcoin.
And there goes your storage. *poff* I wonder where you want to go with this. First introduce junk in blocks to make Bitcoins to heavy to use for other than large serverfarms, and then get rid of it. |
|
|
|
... I don't push all my encrypted internet traffic to every DNS user in the world ... Bitcoin's distributed nature is its strength, not its weakness. As bitcoin grows, there will be generators who operate large server farms that have no trouble with the network and storage requirements. And there will also be people who use Bitcoin through various cut-down solutions. This argument contradicts itself. If you want storage on large server farms, then buy centralized storage on large server farms. Don't try to push it upon Bitcoin, which strength is it's distributed nature. Let it be distributed. Bitcoin transactions will be very expensive in the future if your centralized large server farm idea wins. Spare capacity on home computers is free. Large server farms are not. It is in our interest that it would still be possible to run Bitcoin on normal home computers in the future as well. |
|
|
|
DNS Records can contain arbitrary text records, but that has never been a problem. Interestingly, the same kinds of arguments are heard against using the TXT records for unofficial purposes, but the DNS system hasn't yet collapsed.
On this forum we regularly contemplate putting Bitcoin addresses into DNS TXT records. How ironic that there is resistance to putting DNS data into Bitcoin!
DNS doesn't push data on everybody. You have to ask specifically for the TXT record from the server serving the domain. Most requests are for A records, which are as as small as possible. DNS can also be abused to send arbitrary data. I'm a happy user of iodine myself to tunnel IP over DNS (encrypted) when I want to use some wifi hotspot for free. But the traffic only go between me, the hotspot DNS server and my own DNS server. I don't push all my encrypted internet traffic to every DNS user in the world. I'm sure DNS would have been redesigned long ago if this was even possible. |
|
|
|
I propose a law:
"He who makes the chain, gets to decide what it looks like"
This could work combined with: "Everyone can choose to accept a block or discard it" I don't want everyone to be spammed by blocks full of junk, and prefer to try to nullify it by generating a competing block without including the junk. The junk will of course make it eventually, unless the majority of miners switch on their spam filters. |
|
|
|
by default disallow non-standard transactions that exceed 128 bytes (or whatever threshold is agreeable)?
I would be happy with 128 bytes of arbitrary data. I introduced six persons to bitcoins yesterday, and one so far today, by giving them 20 BTC each for a promise to put the coins into circulation. They all had the same complaint: It took ages, for one of them almost two hours, to download the initial blocks! It doesn't get any faster by adding junk to the blocks. I don't get it? Why is it so important for people here to make Bitcoins slow and inefficient? Fees? Come on, miners! How much do you make from fees? |
|
|
|
I want to buy Bitcoins at the rate above.
I'm willing to pay first and receive the bitcoins after, but I'll need some assurances (people who vouch for you, escrow, etc.).
I can't promise I'll do this forever, I'm new to Bitcoins so want to see how it goes first.
PS. Before people tell me of the markets, I've tried them. Either they don't accept Paypal or are US only or I can't figure them out or I don't trust them.
How many? People are usually very helpful at #bitcoin-otc on freenode. There is a webpage, and web IRC client which connect directly to the channel. There is a trust system as well where people trust each other based on previous trades. |
|
|
|
+1
great idea
I want to buy one of these
I want to buy 50 if they are made of chocolate! A chest with chocolate bitcoins, and a paper with an address to claim the real bitcoins on the bottom of the chest. That would be a nice gift! |
|
|
|
It wasn't exactly frozen. It was restricted, [...] -1. I think you are overreacting. This is not true. When PayPal shuts down your account, they TAKE and KEEP all of the money in it. True, but according to the PayPal blog, it wasn't closed. It was restricted. It cannot receive donations, but it doesn't say anywhere it was closed, shut down or confiscated. Also, leaking military secrets can be considered treason and is a very serious crime in most countries. Free Speech always has legal limits.
Wikileaks have not stolen any secrets or signed any confidentiality agreements. They are just printing documents given to them by other people. The people who gave the secret documents to Wikileaks were probably doing something illegal. Not Wikileaks, or the newspapers which printed the leaked documents before they were available from Wikileaks. So, why aren't the editors of the newspapers arrested, threatened to be murdered, getting their servers and DNS shut down., accounts closed, etc? Because what they are doing is perfectly legal, and so is Wikileaks. Just unpopular among some who believes the press should write what the government tells them to write. |
|
|
|
It wasn't exactly frozen. It was restricted, and Wikileaks can't take donations directly via PayPal anymore. Hardly a problem, since several other organizations take donations to Wikileaks. No funds are confiscated in any country or bank, as far as public information goes anyway. None of the newspapers publishing the leaks in full have gotten their bank accounts frozen either. Their operation is perfectly legal in every country with free speech. This is nothing but a publicity stunt for PayPal, and it would be a better publicity stunt for the Bitcoin community to to the opposite. -1. I think you are overreacting. |
|
|
|
I am so worried about the intent behind this wikileaks thread that, if i could, would only want to have "legallysafe" bitcoins in my wallet that are not connected to wikileaks or any other illegal matter.
That's just stupid. I don't want to have any drug money in my wallet, but that is hard. 99% of all bank notes are tainted with cocaine, according to a british study. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/464200.stmDon't donate to Wikileaks if you don't want to. Wikileaks is perfectly legal in most countries. Only The US government, China and a few arab states takes measures to sensor Wikileaks. |
|
|
|
The new funding option for Mt. Gox should influence prices in a positive direction. It is now much easier for people in the Euro-zone to get money into Mt. Gox, and buy bitcoins there.
New funding option? Did I miss something? Add Funds, bottom of page: Add Euros This process is done by bank transfer with minimal fees but is still manual. Send us an email. |
|
|
|
The new funding option for Mt. Gox should influence prices in a positive direction. It is now much easier for people in the Euro-zone to get money into Mt. Gox, and buy bitcoins there. The coins can then be transfered to BCM and sold for PPUSD there at a higher price, or sold in other markets. The price gap between PPUSD and LRUSD will lower, since european PayPal users can withdraw their PP funds to their bank account and buy more bitcoins at Mt. Gox for a low fee. This will ultimately push the price at Mt. Gox upwards, and access to bitcoins is getting easier for everyone. |
|
|
|
My statement was based on the number of people who regularly complain that it's not quick and easy to get funds into MtGox. (Note that I said "I think", not "I guarantee".)
It's my own experience too. If I could get PayPal funds into MtGox "instantly", I would buy bitcoins there.
There is a lot of demand for MtGox USD or LR in this community, and trade for PayPal. This is does not help getting more funds to Mt. Gox, because the funds are already there. It would help if Mt. Gox had more funding options. E.g. Liqpay, which is preferred by some. There are other ways to trade Bitcoins. Why don't people use Bitcoin Market or #bitcoin-otc if they want to pay with other currencies? If the price difference is high, then use it! Get LR the slow way, buy coins at Mt. Gox and sell them for PayPal. The way to "use' this opportunity would be to get money onto MtGox to buy and sell on BCM. People are suggesting that getting money onto MtGox is the hard part. On a related note. I'd like to buy some MtGox for PP if anyone is interested. Getting money into Mt. Gox isn't very difficult, but it costs. You could buy BTC for PayPal at BCM or #bitcoin-otc, take your BTC to Mt. Gox and exchange there. If this increases demand at BCM, someone will surely do the PPUSD -> LRUSD conversion for you, and get the money back to Mt. Gox with a profit. This will again lead to increasing money inflow and BTC outflow at Mt. Gox, which leads to increasing prices and a growing BTC economy. In the end every BTC owner profits. |
|
|
|
My statement was based on the number of people who regularly complain that it's not quick and easy to get funds into MtGox. (Note that I said "I think", not "I guarantee".)
It's my own experience too. If I could get PayPal funds into MtGox "instantly", I would buy bitcoins there.
There is a lot of demand for MtGox USD or LR in this community, and trade for PayPal. This is does not help getting more funds to Mt. Gox, because the funds are already there. It would help if Mt. Gox had more funding options. E.g. Liqpay, which is preferred by some. There are other ways to trade Bitcoins. Why don't people use Bitcoin Market or #bitcoin-otc if they want to pay with other currencies? If the price difference is high, then use it! Get LR the slow way, buy coins at Mt. Gox and sell them for PayPal. |
|
|
|
In the beginning, this is intended largely to demonstrate a 'getwork' miner. It is written in straight C, with minimal dependencies (libcurl, libcrypto, jansson).
Cool, I like simplicity of your code. I want to try similar implementation in javascript. Partially because of curiosity and partialy because (inspired by hashcash) it can generate few hashes by fighting comments spam :-). I just made few tests. In four javascript threads I get ~4khash/s, which is EXTREMELY slow. Probably because javascript is interpreted and without any JIT yet. Would be great if javascript supports GPU. Flash will support GPU soon, so we will see  . Is your JavaScript code available? I wish the getwork RPC command could be allowed for non-authenticated users from other hosts. It isn't revealing any secret information, is it? |
|
|
|
I mean is this coffee bitcoin only as I want to buy some for Christmas but don't have enough bitcoins yet. So I was gonna look at normal stores if they sell the same brand or from the same company.
I'll be happy to sell you some bitcoins at market price. So will many others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
