|
I've read a lot of comments about core supposedly agreeing to a 2Mb increase. I usually just kind of shrug and smirk. I'll believe it when I see it.
At the time of the HK consensus my reading of the statement was only that code would be developed by some of the individuals present. I remember thinking at the time that it fell short of actually saying such code would be accepted into core and widely deployed. Though I believe many in the community interpreted it that way, and that may have been the intent.
Am I wrong? Did core truly commit to deploying a 2Mb hardfork, apart from segwit? source?
So yeah, I don't believe a controversial (consensus breaking) hardfork will ever be widely deployed and accepted. It's like trying to hardfork ipv4 all at once. good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on the reason for the drop. If bitcoin is dropping because another coin is gaining popularity and that coin has superior privacy, fungibility, decentralization, scalability, immutability.... then I might sell and jump ship. But only because I value those particular properties.
If another coin is gaining popularity (such as ethereum) but is easily mutable (can hard-fork without full consensus) or does not offer significant privacy and scalability advantages then I will continue holding my bitcoin because I don't think anything can displace it that is not clearly superior in these areas.
If it's dropping because the security has been broken, then I would sell, if there are even any buyers.
For pretty much any other reason. HODL!
|
|
|
|
uh yeah, shutting down the app, renaming files, restart. cross fingers you didn't screw up. Just to switch wallets. A feature that even smartphone wallets have been offering for years. Use of multiple wallets is necessary to separate funds and maintain/enhance privacy. It's a shame and a privacy problem that bitcoin core software does not provide this feature. my biggest complaint with bitcoin core is that it does not support multiple wallets.
So here I have to download the entire blockchain just for the thing to work, and then if I want to use more than one wallet, I must download it for each one, plus waste additional resources on validation, bandwidth, etc. such a waste. Or you just move your wallet file to a different location, start Core, create a new wallet and move that one as well once you are done. |
|
|
|
|
my biggest complaint with bitcoin core is that it does not support multiple wallets.
So here I have to download the entire blockchain just for the thing to work, and then if I want to use more than one wallet, I must download it for each one, plus waste additional resources on validation, bandwidth, etc. such a waste.
|
|
|
|
|
just convince everyone to keep buying and not to sell. Price will surely rise.
lol
|
|
|
|
clearly your understanding of innocence is different than mine. Were escaped slaves innocent? They were breaking the law... Many would argue that an understanding of innocence based on fundamental human rights and morals is superior to one based on laws/statutes of a particular regime at a particular point in time. they even used the Bolivarian Intelligence Service for find these innocent guys  These guys aren't innocent... it's a shitty thing for the Venezuelan government to do, but they were breaking laws, and the miners knew this. Holding foreign currencies (including Bitcoin or USD) is illegal in Venezuela. They knew that what they were doing could be grounds for legal troubles. They should have been using a VPN and done their mining more covertly, like the other miners in the country. I'm not supporting Venezuela or damning Bitcoin users in Venezuela. I'm only pointing out that these two were not innocent. |
|
|
|
Gavin's faucet is 7th place if you look at my previous post that ranks them by USD value at time of donation. Further, the purpose of the faucet was to give out bitcoin, so probably most or all of that bitcoin is gone already. i can't believe that the first place bitcoins donation address is Gavin Andresen Faucet,now i wondering how much bitcoin in Gavin andersen wallet for now?he look really concern and expert,awesome.
|
|
|
|
I don't see why not. There is pretty much consensus on achieving more transaction capacity on chain (be it a 2 MB block size limit or Segwit). I'm certain that someday after Segwit an increase can happen, they just need to agree on an exact value.
Who is they? Everyone running a full node? good luck with that. |
|
|
|
my opinion: raise the blocksize a little bit and then build everything else on top of it.
ok, wake me up when you have consensus on that, since the limit is part of the consensus layer. (in other words, not gonna happen) |
|
|
|
This is exactly what I posted above. This will be a difficult thing to manage properly, because some donation addresses were still in operation when Bitcoin had very little value. If you want to do it properly, you would have to take the value at the time of the donation and add it all together to see what the real donations were in it's fiat value at the time. If someone donated for example 10 000 bitcoin back in the day when 1 Bitcoin was valued at $5, you cannot compare that to the value of those same bitcoins today. ^hmmmm^
Yes you are true, it must not have to depend on the amount of number of bitcoin but he have to calculate the value of each bitcoin received at a specific time keeping in mind the value of it at that time. |
|
|
|
Here is the btcd help for searchrawtransactions so you can see if it does what you need. Personally I have found it very useful and speedy. $ ./btcctl help searchrawtransactions
searchrawtransactions "address" (verbose=1 skip=0 count=100 vinextra=0 reverse=false ["filteraddr",...])
Returns raw data for transactions involving the passed address.
Returned transactions are pulled from both the database, and transactions currently in the mempool.
Transactions pulled from the mempool will have the 'confirmations' field set to 0.
Usage of this RPC requires the optional --addrindex flag to be activated, otherwise all responses will simply return with an error stating the address index has not yet been built.
Similarly, until the address index has caught up with the current best height, all requests will return an error response in order to avoid serving stale data.
Arguments:
1. address (string, required) The Bitcoin address to search for
2. verbose (numeric, optional, default=1) Specifies the transaction is returned as a JSON object instead of hex-encoded string
3. skip (numeric, optional, default=0) The number of leading transactions to leave out of the final response
4. count (numeric, optional, default=100) The maximum number of transactions to return
5. vinextra (numeric, optional, default=0) Specify that extra data from previous output will be returned in vin
6. reverse (boolean, optional, default=false) Specifies that the transactions should be returned in reverse chronological order
7. filteraddrs (array of string, optional) Address list. Only inputs or outputs with matching address will be returned
Result (verbose=0):
"value" (string) Hex-encoded serialized transaction
Result (verbose=1):
[{
"hex": "value", (string) Hex-encoded transaction
"txid": "value", (string) The hash of the transaction
"version": n, (numeric) The transaction version
"locktime": n, (numeric) The transaction lock time
"vin": [{ (array of object) The transaction inputs as JSON objects
"coinbase": "value", (string) The hex-encoded bytes of the signature script (coinbase txns only)
"txid": "value", (string) The hash of the origin transaction (non-coinbase txns only)
"vout": n, (numeric) The index of the output being redeemed from the origin transaction (non-coinbase txns only)
"scriptSig": { (object) The signature script used to redeem the origin transaction as a JSON object (non-coinbase txns only)
"asm": "value", (string) Disassembly of the script
"hex": "value", (string) Hex-encoded bytes of the script
},
"prevOut": { (object) Data from the origin transaction output with index vout.
"addresses": ["value",...], (array of string) previous output addresses
"value": n.nnn, (numeric) previous output value
},
"sequence": n, (numeric) The script sequence number
},...],
"vout": [{ (array of object) The transaction outputs as JSON objects
"value": n.nnn, (numeric) The amount in BTC
"n": n, (numeric) The index of this transaction output
"scriptPubKey": { (object) The public key script used to pay coins as a JSON object
"asm": "value", (string) Disassembly of the script
"hex": "value", (string) Hex-encoded bytes of the script
"reqSigs": n, (numeric) The number of required signatures
"type": "value", (string) The type of the script (e.g. 'pubkeyhash')
"addresses": ["value",...], (array of string) The bitcoin addresses associated with this script
},
},...],
"blockhash": "value", (string) Hash of the block the transaction is part of
"confirmations": n, (numeric) Number of confirmations of the block
"time": n, (numeric) Transaction time in seconds since 1 Jan 1970 GMT
"blocktime": n, (numeric) Block time in seconds since the 1 Jan 1970 GMT
},...]
|
|
|
|
For the record, here's the wrapper script that generated the above report. It requires bitprices and btcd. (Could be run without btcd using toshi or insight but would take a *really* long time.) #!/usr/bin/env php
<?php
$addrbuf = <<< END
Gavin Andresen Faucet (2x) 15ArtCgi3wmpQAAfYx4riaFmo4prJA4VsK,15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC
Bitcointalk Forum 17RTTUAiiPqUTKtEggJPec8RxLMi2n9EZ9
Bitcoin Foundation 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW
I2P (2x) 1BPdWwovytfGdBwUDVgqbMZ8omcPQzshpX,1HkJCceXf7of1sTNRVJbXiZHfDTLL71Siy
WikiLeaks (2x) 1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v,1MaXZE92yjuy4NYjTspmdWHMRT3jQUcTf4
bitcoingamer.com 1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt
donateathome.org 19b62wRL6hGEWa1bLbkdjaiWvZm1C56XuL
Bitcoin100.org 1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac
Torservers (4x) 1KLhvgi9exzvea7fr1CNdHroDC28SkkvEL,1GvVpDGM426bHp2eXwHzwDNqv8g2xyfznJ,1hX1PFASwcShnB7VyGpfbdBK8LbhGD7dt,1N5sJeuxCCtG8mXxhgHD3H7W5FWTHK3H21
bitcoin.gw.gd 1va4sqj5AFnMYicD7JzhDfxauk5w6Uuug
Free Software Foundation 1PC9aZC4hNX2rmmrt7uHTfYAS3hRbph4UN
Free Ross 1Ross5Np5doy4ajF9iGXzgKaC2Q3Pwwxv
The Freenet Project 1966U1pjj15tLxPXZ19U48c99EJDkdXeqb
Freedomain Radio 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Seans Outpost 1M72Sfpbz1BPpXFHz9m3CdqATR44Jvaydd
END;
$entries = explode("\n", $addrbuf);
$data = [];
foreach($entries as $e) {
list($org,$addrs) = explode("\t", $e);
$data[$org] = trim($addrs);
}
$results = [];
foreach( $data as $org => $addrs ) {
$totals = get_donation_addrs_history( $addrs );
$results[] = ['Org' => $org, 'Addrs' => $addrs, 'Total BTC' => $totals['BTC In'], 'Total USD' => $totals['USD In'], 'Total USD Now' => $totals['USD In Now'] ];
}
// Sort results by USD In, desc.
usort( $results, function( $a, $b ) {
$a = $a['Total USD'];
$b = $b['Total USD'];
if( $a == $b) {
return 0;
}
return $a > $b ? -1 : 1;
});
$json = json_encode( $results, JSON_PRETTY_PRINT );
file_put_contents( '/tmp/donations/results.json', $json );
echo "\n\n -- Results --\n\n$json\n\n";
function get_donation_addrs_history( $addrs ) {
$mask = './bitprices.php --api=btcd --btcd-rpc-user=<user> --btcd-rpc-pass=<pass> --addr-tx-limit=100000 --cols=btcin,fiatin,fiatinnow,price --addresses=%1$s --format=all --outfile=/tmp/donations/%1$s -g';
$cmd = sprintf( $mask, $addrs );
echo "Querying for $addrs\n";
exec( $cmd, $output, $rc );
if( $rc != 0 ) {
throw new Exception( "sub-command failed with error code $rc");
}
$data = json_decode( file_get_contents( "/tmp/donations/$addrs.json" ), true );
// we're going to re-calc totals ourselves, and use oldest historical price for older dates.
//remove totals row
$totals = array_pop( $data );
// change to latest to oldest.
$data = array_reverse( $data );
$usd_total = 0;
$usd_price_first = 0.05; // from 2010-07-17 (source: bitcoinaverage.com)
foreach( $data as $d ) {
$usd_amount = $d['USD In'];
$btc_amount = $d['BTC In'];
if( ! ($usd_amount > 0) ) {
$usd_amount = $btc_amount * $usd_price_first;
}
$usd_total += $usd_amount;
}
$totals['USD In'] = $usd_total;
return $totals;
}
|
|
|
|
EDIT: I remembered that bitprices limits to 1000 tx by default. That hopefully explains the discrepancies with OPs numbers. Re-running now with limit set to 100,000. EDIT2: I updated the results below after re-running. Ok, below is a ranking of the top 15 from OP by USD value of the received donations at the time of donation. The ranking was generated with the use of the bitprices tool to do the heavy lifting, plus a wrapper script I just wrote. -- Results --
[
{
"Org": "Bitcointalk Forum",
"Addrs": "17RTTUAiiPqUTKtEggJPec8RxLMi2n9EZ9",
"Total BTC": "7633.49149164",
"Total USD": 986723.92000177,
"Total USD Now": "3204921.55"
},
{
"Org": "Free Ross",
"Addrs": "1Ross5Np5doy4ajF9iGXzgKaC2Q3Pwwxv",
"Total BTC": "820.30984510",
"Total USD": 323957.73000227,
"Total USD Now": "344808.79"
},
{
"Org": "Seans Outpost",
"Addrs": "1M72Sfpbz1BPpXFHz9m3CdqATR44Jvaydd",
"Total BTC": "491.06490427",
"Total USD": 300852.96026939,
"Total USD Now": "206413.33"
},
{
"Org": "Bitcoin Foundation",
"Addrs": "1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW",
"Total BTC": "5883.50241439",
"Total USD": 131938.19102752,
"Total USD Now": "2470188.69"
},
{
"Org": "WikiLeaks (2x)",
"Addrs": "1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v,1MaXZE92yjuy4NYjTspmdWHMRT3jQUcTf4",
"Total BTC": "3924.47902174",
"Total USD": 115705.78236354,
"Total USD Now": "1648053.16"
},
{
"Org": "Freedomain Radio",
"Addrs": "1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs",
"Total BTC": "634.03573359",
"Total USD": 109314.86550234,
"Total USD Now": "266510.39"
},
{
"Org": "Gavin Andresen Faucet (2x)",
"Addrs": "15ArtCgi3wmpQAAfYx4riaFmo4prJA4VsK,15VjRaDX9zpbA8LVnbrCAFzrVzN7ixHNsC",
"Total BTC": "19923.38032271",
"Total USD": 44850.015225973,
"Total USD Now": "8364829.91"
},
{
"Org": "Free Software Foundation",
"Addrs": "1PC9aZC4hNX2rmmrt7uHTfYAS3hRbph4UN",
"Total BTC": "951.32629793",
"Total USD": 39238.910798012,
"Total USD Now": "399880.05"
},
{
"Org": "Bitcoin100.org",
"Addrs": "1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac",
"Total BTC": "1651.48669176",
"Total USD": 37791.190012717,
"Total USD Now": "694185.65"
},
{
"Org": "I2P (2x)",
"Addrs": "1BPdWwovytfGdBwUDVgqbMZ8omcPQzshpX,1HkJCceXf7of1sTNRVJbXiZHfDTLL71Siy",
"Total BTC": "5467.58001615",
"Total USD": 35160.49171029,
"Total USD Now": "2295563.56"
},
{
"Org": "Torservers (4x)",
"Addrs": "1KLhvgi9exzvea7fr1CNdHroDC28SkkvEL,1GvVpDGM426bHp2eXwHzwDNqv8g2xyfznJ,1hX1PFASwcShnB7VyGpfbdBK8LbhGD7dt,1N5sJeuxCCtG8mXxhgHD3H7W5FWTHK3H21",
"Total BTC": "1644.45857872",
"Total USD": 31965.960056102,
"Total USD Now": "691231.53"
},
{
"Org": "bitcoin.gw.gd",
"Addrs": "1va4sqj5AFnMYicD7JzhDfxauk5w6Uuug",
"Total BTC": "1061.27817961",
"Total USD": 23150.0300005,
"Total USD Now": "446097.68"
},
{
"Org": "donateathome.org",
"Addrs": "19b62wRL6hGEWa1bLbkdjaiWvZm1C56XuL",
"Total BTC": "3205.45252467",
"Total USD": 21020.5800005,
"Total USD Now": "1347379.90"
},
{
"Org": "The Freenet Project",
"Addrs": "1966U1pjj15tLxPXZ19U48c99EJDkdXeqb",
"Total BTC": "652.63995575",
"Total USD": 2507.81008505,
"Total USD Now": "274330.57"
},
{
"Org": "bitcoingamer.com",
"Addrs": "1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt",
"Total BTC": "3515.48071160",
"Total USD": 1721.395477,
"Total USD Now": "1477696.92"
}
]
Notes: 1) The source for price data is bitcoinaverage.com. For transactions that precede the oldest exchange date of 2010-07-17, the exchange value of 2010-07-17 is used ( $.05 ) 2) I notice some minor discrepancies for the total BTC received between the bitprices tool and the table linked to in the OP. It might be interesting to sort out where the diffs are coming from, as it indicates either a bug in bitprices or a problem in OP's methodology. 3) Detailed reports for address(es) can be generated easily at mybitprices.info |
|
|
|
|
I did not participate in the poll because the question presents a false dichotomy.
Bitcoin is what it is.
I want the consensus rules to remain the same. If they change for anything that is not near 100% unanimous then that means that a majority can dictate to the minority and steal their funds away from them. That undermines trust in all cryptocurrency, not only bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
It is not strictly a matter of mathematically optimal outcomes. There is also the fact that we have an existing protocol that thousands (at least) of people are using and have entrusted significant value into. That protocol is essentially frozen, much like ipv4. It was and is an agreement, a promise. I think it is very unlikely that the community at large will ever choose to change that agreement for anything that is not clearly and undeniably an existential threat. This means that no controversial changes will be made going forward at the consensus level. This immutability is a good thing. It means that cryptocurrency can be trusted.I for one will lose a great deal of trust in cryptocurrency if a controversial change ever does in fact happen because it will mean that a majority can dictate terms and potentially steal from a minority. This does not mean that technical advances cannot happen. They simply should happen outside Bitcoin. Either in higher layers or in alt-coins. Ethereum and now ZCash are talking about their governance models and how they can flexibly incorporate changes over time. To me, this mutability is a drawback in a currency. If humans can simply change it out from beneath me, then why should I trust it? No, it is better to have many competing currencies, each with their own properties. I believe that in the end, those that get the fundamentals of privacy, fungibility, immutability and scalability right will be winners, though of course this could take decades or even centuries and many things will happen along the way. I am truly unsettled; I have switched from Core 0.11 to Classic 0.11 to Core 0.12 to Classic 0.12 and it is totally possible/likely I will switch again. Perhaps I will try using more advanced mathematics, above and beyond high school maths.  |
|
|
|
If you just want to timestamp a document easily, see https://www.proofofexistence.com. If you want to do it 100% yourself, look into OP_RETURN. Maybe there is an open source tool for this by now? anyone got a link to such a thing? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
