Check out this bitcoin slight where once again - people get totally hung up on the 'mining' aspect of bitcoin. Why on earth people think they should participate in the securing of the network in order to use bitcoin is beyond me. These people supposedly have something to do with technology. pfft. http://www.nten.org/blog/2012/01/12/were-trying-everything-to-raise-2012-ntc-scholarship-funds-%E2%80%93-even-bitcoinNote their message about finding out how to help NTEN raise "actual currency" If these guys can't be hit with a clue stick - I hope they're the last to get on the bitcoin100 list  edit: according to the message from Brett on that page - they're potentially open to it, so I probably shouldn't be so disparaging of them here just because the humour comes across to me as a bit of a cheap shot. |
|
|
|
You can only pass off an evil chain as the real thing if you also isolate them from the network. If they connect to a valid node, they will use the longest chain available, which is always the valid chain.
Ok - that makes sense thanks. edit: not that I understand why some clock adjustment on the evil chain miner machines couldn't make the low-difficulty evil-tail chain longer |
|
|
|
P.S. An idea for you entrepreneurs: a service that mails the block chain on DVDs to would-be users with impatience or slow internet connections. And I do mean mail and not IP over Avian Carriers. It's -20 C right now.
If you trust some entrepreneur to mail you the block chain - why not just trust some wallet system which uses a remote blockchain? The electrum client sounds like it should be just the thing for you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53858The client can verify the block chain. I've heard that - but would love to see the definitive argument for why someone couldn't supply a fake blockchain with a relatively low difficulty and lead your client to think their easily mined blocks are the real thing. I know there are 'checkpoints' so presumably a nefarious miner would need quite a bit of hash power to reduce the difficulty in his evil-tailed chain in any reasonable length of time. I don't yet see why this evil chain wouldn't verify just fine with the client. I guess this is a question for the bitcoin stackexchange. edit: perhaps the thing is that this evil chain could still never be longer than the real one(?) - so the client would notice that Sorry for sidetracking! |
|
|
|
P.S. An idea for you entrepreneurs: a service that mails the block chain on DVDs to would-be users with impatience or slow internet connections. And I do mean mail and not IP over Avian Carriers. It's -20 C right now.
If you trust some entrepreneur to mail you the block chain - why not just trust some wallet system which uses a remote blockchain? The electrum client sounds like it should be just the thing for you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53858 |
|
|
|
Another article in newscientist - but full text not available to non subscribers Bitcoin software finds new jobs in online security Jacob Aron 2012-01-11 Magazine issue 2847 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328476.500-bitcoin-software-finds-new-jobs-in-online-security.htmlIT HAS been a rocky year for Bitcoin, the online peer-to-peer currency, with the exchange rate soaring from a few cents to over $30 per coin before crashing after a string of thefts, hacks and other setbacks. Coins have since regained a value of around $5. But it is becoming clear that the software could prove at least as useful as the currency itself, underpinning a number of important new technologies. First, it could be used as a form of "carbon dating" for digital information - something that would make electronic voting more secure. This is possible because of the way Bitcoin records transactions, says Jeremy Clark, a computer scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. An individual's bitcoins are registered to one or more addresses, which are alphanumeric sequences that serve as the user's identity on the P2P network. When a transaction takes ... discussion thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=59956.0 |
|
|
|
Support for SC gets your service automatic distrust in my book.. but hey, for some people, supporting any and every alt currency isn't seen as a bad thing.
I got that you don't like SC, but putting services that support SC into a blacklist is infantilism. You won't win your war against SC this way... But who cares? Don't be so paranoid. Nobody mentioned any blacklist. I gave you a perfectly polite heads-up. It's my opinion that some people happen to view SC support as a useful indicator of poor judgement. I know I'm not alone in this. No skin off my back if you don't care about that. |
|
|
|
|
Support for SC gets your service automatic distrust in my book.. but hey, for some people, supporting any and every alt currency isn't seen as a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
An interesting commentary on arstechnica's recent claim that bitcoin was just a 'metacurrency' This article argues the path from metacurrency to fully fledged currency. |
|
|
|
|
I look forward to the day when Alison (or any good looking woman) isn't a thread-derailer here.
Seems like I'll be waiting a while.
|
|
|
|
What I have learned from this thread: Your booth model is hawt  booth model? My understanding is that she's a stakeholder/principal in bit-pay. Smart people attracted to bitcoin come in all shapes,sizes, genders and sexualities it seems - what a relief, for a while there I thought it was only for socially inept geeks. No idea why I thought that  |
|
|
|
check out bitpay. It is a simple bitcoin payment processor. I have been integrating that into my sites and it seems to be working pretty good. Never mind. I just checked the link and they seem to be not working. I think the one you mean is: https://bit-pay.com/ |
|
|
|
I don't have any specific advice for your situation - but I recall seeing a post somewhere on the net from someone who was probably a bit skeptical of bitcoin. They were saying something like "let me know when I can buy ammo with them"  edit: found it: http://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=28661.30Let me know when you can trade these for ammo.
I hope you do get yourself set up to accept bitcoin. Be sure to let the guy on that forum know! |
|
|
|
Indeed you do, my friend. This will just be a basic Bitcoin client. BUT, I like the ideas you brought up so a QR code generator for receiving coins might be in the first version with a few other other of your requests in future ones.
Yeah, many of those ideas were 'hopes' more than immediate expectations It's excellent to see more developers getting into the mobile wallet space. Near instant display of an incoming transaction without waiting for confirms is a must-have though. I won't even demo bitcoin to a friend without that, and if the QR part is too fiddly and there's also mucking about copy-pasting etc it's also something of a demo-wrecker.. at least for a non-geek audience. |
|
|
|
all you've managed to do is swap the 'proof of work' system, which prevents gaming of the system, with a system that gives control to whoever can muster the largest resources in terms of IP addresses and virtual nodes.
Having scrapped the whole 'block' system - this 'arms race' would happen at a rapid rate, and even if there were a few competing botnets, control of the network would oscillate between them.
In short - your proposal sounds like a disaster, and suggests you've missed the point of the block system and proof-of-work.
Isn't that how it works anyway though? If an attacker manages to get 50% of the processing power of the network then he could potentially validate an invalid transaction (like creating bitcoins out of thin air). If anything I would think that my system would be more secure, since an attacker would have to have 2/3 majority, not in terms of processing power but in terms of nodes. This security is inherit in the philosophy of bitcoins, and it depends on the philosophy that there will always be more genuine validators than attacker validators. Well it's not *quite* how it works anyway. Yes it's a competition to throw resources at the problem - but the 10minute block system is an elegant way to determine who has contributed resources. The maths does it. Your method wastes just as many resources - but also wastes bandwidth in determining how many nodes there are at any instant, and what proportion have validated what transactions. so a) you haven't solved the wastefulness regarding electricity and hardware-stacking anyway b) you've introduced more wastefulness in terms of bandwidth. c) you've thrown away the history and auditing system the whole thing relies on... so once someone has 2/3 majority under your system, they can rewrite not only events from that point onwards, but also the entire history. d) you now have no mechanism for the currency distribution. Your reward seems only to be transaction fees - so how did you propose to complete the distribution phase of the currency, which still has many years to run? |
|
|
|
It includes all of the features you'd expect from a mobile wallet
Great! I expect: QR code scanner app launchable from within the wallet for sending coins QR code display for receiving coins. Both QR generator and scanner to be able to make proper use of this URI scheme: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_SchemeBuilt in configurable bitcoin address shortener e.g btc.to so I can easily read out an address to give someone by voice Ability to label bitcoin addresses, and also to hide/archive them. Notification of incoming payment even with zero confirmations. Do I expect too much too soon? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to go into it on a point by point basis - but all you've managed to do is swap the 'proof of work' system, which prevents gaming of the system, with a system that gives control to whoever can muster the largest resources in terms of IP addresses and virtual nodes.
Having scrapped the whole 'block' system - this 'arms race' would happen at a rapid rate, and even if there were a few competing botnets, control of the network would oscillate between them.
In short - your proposal sounds like a disaster, and suggests you've missed the point of the block system and proof-of-work.
|
|
|
|
The operator had BTC that a bunch of people gave him thinking that he would give them back. Poor judgement and/or laziness and/or lack of understanding of Bitcoin/money/human nature.
'jav' has got some coins I gave him using his instawallet.org service. If he walks off with them, sad day for me, but I'm certainly not going to go crying to the police or bitcointalk or anyone else. Nor am I going to hunt him down
Then let it be the poor judgement of the mybitcoin operators if they think all people are as lacking in balls and sense of fair play as you are. Even if your vapid 'tough luck' sentiment was a reasonable one, it is astonishing that you'd advocate resigning yourself to being the victim before all avenues have been investigated. It is not 'crying' to the police - it is using the tools at your disposal to protect and pursue your interests. |
|
|
|
There was a podcast on agoristradio a while back where one of them discussed knowing some of the mybitcoin developers. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40417.msg506485#msg506485Now that there is more solid evidence that the official version is a lie (as opposed to everyone just 'knowing' it) .. it seems worthwhile pressing this guy for what he knows. Someone with a direct stake in the issue first - but potentially police should be asking him for information I think. |
|
|
|
This one strikes me as a rehash of ramblings which have been proceeding on various forums for ages. A missed opportunity to mention an innovative development which is tangential to 'porn' - the release of 'pimpcoin', which appears to be bitcoin deposit cards with a sexy slant. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0CzSRRKfI) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
