I no longer hold any BTC for the forum.

(the 50 BTC I was last holding was returned to @theymos)

Calling it an "extortion attempt" I think is a little ridiculous - but whatever (funny how one silly mistake overrides over a year of holding 250 BTC which was held at the time that BTC was approaching its all time high - the initial return of 200 of that 250 was because I was actually worried that someone might try and locate me).

Huh?

(as Satoshi's wallets were created before encryption was even used in Bitcoin wallets I hardly see how that would be relevant)

Correct - but AES256 is used for encrypting wallets (with Bitcoin Core).

I do agree that the article looks a bit suspicious though.

The big mistakes made with huge fees were when using "raw transactions" (which the OP is not doing).

That being said @OP do be careful to check you have set things correctly before attempting another tx.

This might be of help: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

(and newer versions of bitcoind support an "estimatefee" command)

Okay - I see your tx here: https://blockchain.info/tx/a5d4ed2342b6305f6d4c94f35445125342a67b5b39194f4d898e8a39ec9cee2a

Looks as though it should get confirmed soon enough so perhaps just be patient.

Hmm... hang on - "walletconflicts" doesn't look right (don't think I've noticed that in my own txs before).

Is your version of bitcoind also over 1 year old?

This might explain why the fee might be too small (an old version of bitcoind is likely to underestimate the required fee).

Note that if your tx has insufficient fee then you are either going to wait until it matures (that could be a long time) or you are going to have to stop bitcoind and remove the tx from your wallet (you'll need to take a look at the -zapwallettxes start up option).

It is very normal to have two outputs - one being the amount you are sending to another party and the other being "change" being sent back to your wallet (to normally a new address).

Perhaps you need to do some learning about Bitcoin basics?

(one of the main reasons that a Bitcoin "wallet" is called that is because of the nature of "change" much like when you are paying for 10 and pull out a 20 to then get a 10 back)

If not confirmed after 24 hours then I suspect you did not pay a large enough fee (or perhaps the coins "immature" as you mentioned that they were mined).

Was just taking a quick look and noticed these:


should be "an" not "a".

And the following:


would make more sense if it was instead changed to this:

Let me try and explain things a little better as perhaps some of my personal disappointments in these past few years tend to impact upon my posts (once you've been hounded like I have been you might also become a little bitter).

Typically software developers that work for commercial software companies (and I was such a developer for many years) are kept insulated from the financial side of said companies and even generally from the clients (I rarely ever took a support call in over 15 years of such professional work and didn't even have much email correspondence with any "end users").

As the average software developer is more of an introvert they tend to work best kept in small teams with others similar to themselves (and this is the environment they mostly prefer to be working in and the model that most successful software development companies use).

The open source movement has a bit of a different dynamic but it isn't even nearly as confused with funding dynamics as projects in this particular field have become (where investment/crowdfunding/ICO's and developers/salespeople/scammers have all become a bit of a blur).

Basically this has resulted in (genuine) developers being forced into an uncomfortable (for them) "spotlight" that includes direct contact with people who often don't even understand software development at all (but are always happy to criticise).

I used to think that the idea of having less layers was a good thing but when it comes to software development itself now I am not so sure at all (as the team of relatively unknown devs that are well looked after and insulated from the outside works better IMO).

So for a way "forward" I would suggest that devs should be managed by a development management team (maybe just one or two people can do that) whose job it is to keep the devs insulated from the outside (so they can do productive development work without the unwanted attention and pressure).

Unfortunately as even unpaid devs such as myself get "attacked" by those upset that they didn't "get rich quick" I wouldn't recommend a single one to ever work on this or any other such project (only perhaps Bitcoin/Litecoin and even then to be careful as other devs there might *use* your work and not pay you as I experienced myself which is what drove me to create AT in the first place).

To a fair extent I think this is why the original Qora dev disappeared (and the same thing in Burst).

I posted to help @vbcs to get the funding that he wanted in order to do the work (but what you have quoted confirms that the point of said Asset was "crowdfunding" in which case it has already served its purpose).

It was a long time ago (so I don't recall perfectly) but I think it was because @vbcs had a junior account on this forum that he wanted me to make that post (to confirm that he was the person working on AT and note that the third person mentioned actually never did any work on the Qora or Burst versions).

I didn't create that Asset (nor any other) and don't even have a clue how much was raised and who received what in terms of payments (but I am pretty certain that @vbcs created the Asset in question).

What I can say with certainty is that I received NOTHING financially (and in fact nothing much else other than stress and hassles).

(I've had enough of the Nxt "community" trying to accuse me of bullshit - I hope the same rubbish isn't about to happen here)

It is the "attack the devs" sort of mentality which is what drives them away (apart from those that are actually scammers who sucker people in and don't actually deliver shit).

Also - AT would have been live first on Qora except for the original dev left before we had got halfway through the development (so it went live first on Burst instead).

If you have a problem with @vbcs then I suggest you contact him about that (he no longer is in contact with me so I can't help you that).

I still have an XP version running (although am pretty sure it is using NTFS) - the maximum size that I seem to see for any of the block files is 134 MB.

They are named as such:

blk00000.dat
blk00001.dat
blk00002.dat
...

The "reverse" files are named as such:

rev00000.dat
rev00001.dat
rev00002.dat
...

(and are much smaller)

You haven't quite understood (but that is okay as I have not been that explicit as I'm trying to reach out to devs that might be able to "read between the lines").

The files that would be used would need to have been pre-announced (so that their hashes are actually known).

Exactly how that should work I haven't spent that much time considering so far (as it is mostly just an idea at this stage) but it would be fairly easy to limit the rate of expansion (making it more likely that smaller operators could expand to keep up with the total storage if they wanted to).

Over time the advantage would still be with those with more (and faster) storage but in order to get the files that the entire network might consider would first require the entire network to have accepted them (the "proof" is not the file content itself but the file content being modified from a starting nonce).

I had nothing to do with any Qora Asset (nor Burst one for that matter) so you'd have to contact others in regards to that (although my guess is that such Assets would have been most likely used for funding the development of AT prior to its release).

I would think that existing files would be able to be used (the benefit being that there is no need to "plot" as an activity) although that might depend upon whether or not the file content should be encrypted (the reason you might want to do that is to avoid any potential issues about illegal/immoral content).

A simple purpose would be a "shared backup" system - and of course if you shared encryption keys for specific files then it could be used more like a P2P file sharing system.

Recently I was thinking about how to improve the concept behind Burst and realised that work that I have already done with my own project could help (in particular the CIYAM blockchain protocol's "chk" command is relevant).

The concept would basically be a "proof of storage" but it could be tied to any file (rather than "plots" of effectively random data).

As a simple illustration imagine that we have some file (xyz.mp3 for example). The SHA256 hash of this file's content could be used to identify it - but now we do something a little more interesting.

We start with a nonce that then is used as a starting point to hash the file content with - you would publish the original hash and the nonce and the new hash (with the latter needing to be verified by those that have the original file).

Note that it would not be possible to compute the final hash without actually having the entire file stored (as the file's hash isn't relevant beyond identifying it).

This could be used to form a new sort of proof that would allow the file content to be not random "rubbish" but in fact perhaps useful shared files.

You do realise that "wallets" have absolutely nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol?

(this poster wasn't a supposed Legendary forum member and doesn't have an ad-sig so can be excused I guess but first poster is clearly a bought account - although I do wonder if the former wasn't perhaps bought by the latter?)

You do realise that Bitcoin doesn't use encryption?

There was a coin called Motocoin (from memory) that at least initially was supposed to be only mined by humans (in the form of a motorbike game).

Unfortunately I think that automated gaming algorithms eventually took over (but it is at least perhaps something worth taking a look at as maybe you can learn some things from it).

One big problem that I see is motivating people to actually want to put in the effort (i.e. solving a block would want to be more worthwhile to someone than posting nonsense on this forum with an ad-sig is).