will you be buying or panic-selling?
We will be watching... |
|
|
|
|
We shall set up a rota so that an exchange is hacked (voluntarily, as a public service) every week. Great for publicity.
|
|
|
|
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank You, mushi.  |
|
|
|
S3052, LOL how much ad spot on CNBC would cost me? I really would want some ads running there for my mining contracts today  |
|
|
|
the transaction doesnt even reach the miner if the client doesnt relay it. look up the current rules against SPAM and DDos.
second, why would the miner be against that? we are talking about a fee the miner collects.
The client currently relays nearly ANY transaction - as soon as there are fees, it will even more likely relay it than less likely. Miners would charge higher fees than currently, not lower and the client bans "too cheap" transactions, not too expensive ones. Hope this is clear now. Once more than 50% (of the hashrate) of the miners are willing enough to risk their reputation because they are making losses or whatever, they can force the whole bitcoin community to pay arbitrarily large fees according to any model they want. If someone includes a transaction that they don't like, they would have to 51%-attack this block and fork the blockchain off invalidating these unwanted transactions. They can include their own payout transactions for free anyways if they want to, so that's not an issue. Internet will treat censorship as damage and will route around it, surprise, surprise. If a miner wants to process free or low cost transactions he can. He could for example set up a bunch of client nodes which would route transactions to him. people would simply connect to these nodes specifically for free or low cost transactions. Thinking that clients have any control over miners in matters which transactions to include and which to not include, is rather naive. Give up, it is so simple, miners are free to include or not include any transactions, clients are free to woo miners with fees to get their transactions processed quicker or at all. That's it really. Proponents of crazy fee schemes are free to bribe miners to play by their rules. Wow, mining seems to become quite a glamours occupation, all of the sudden. |
|
|
|
Nice! Thanks Mt. Gox, your security lapses keep providing Bitcoin loads of publicity. All the day traders (and others) around the world do know about bitcoin now. They will see the forest behind the trees, unlike all the nervous noobs on this forum. Expect huge money flowing into bitcoin in coming weeks. P.S. Thanks Gavin for doing great PR job. P.P.S. weusecoins video finally got it's mainstream TV spot (even if just outtakes), congratulations. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know whether Barclays is a member of the faster payment service? My request (3936) got through on the 16th (requested on 14th) but is still not showing up there.
they surely are |
|
|
|
|
The transaction fees are subject to supply and demand and free market forces. Moreover they are currently heavily subsidised by 50 BTC block reward.
It is as reasonable to insist on some particular 'fee schedule' as it is to demand that all bitcoins shall be sold at a particular price, like 17.5$, for example.
The only viable way to dictate any particular 'fee schedule' is to successfully execute 50% attack and split the network by not including into your winning chain any blocks generated by miners not conforming to dictated fee schedule. Good luck with that.
One can suggest miners to adopt some particular fee schedule, and if it is reasonable miner probably would use it. However, given 50 BTC subsidy, and anti-spam fees as implemented in the current official client there is not much reason for miners to use any other 'fee schedule'.
I suppose that if someone agrees to pay, let's say, 10 BTC to those who solved a block while using some particular 'fee schedule' than it might work. Hopefully, this someone has lots of money to pay such subsidy. In such a case I would be the first one to implement paid for 'fee schedule', unless it somehow threatens the network.
|
|
|
|
|
aral, we've just seen, wave after wave after wave of noobs coming in and screaming 'unfair! I cannot get 1% of all bitcoins in existence! Let's change the rules right now or I'l throw a tantrum!'
the best answer we can come up with is 'go get your own block chain going'.
|
|
|
|
Very few people are capable of understanding how BitCoins can be manufactured, much less evaluate reassurances that manufacturing is difficult. Improved computing power, for example, could make BitCoin manufacturing much faster and easier. Do advocates of BitCoins realize they are betting against improvements in the speed of computers?
Do h8terz realize how incompetent they make themselves look by publishing such hit pieces? Do shills realize that there is no such thing as bad publicity? |
|
|
|
|
@Sukrim. Fixed typo, and have reading comprehension issues here myself now, failing to see what is it you trying to argue with me. All I said is basically that the idea is non starter in current blockchain. Could be done in a new block chain. I did not say that such new block chain would be viable.
|
|
|
|
|
@Sukrim And how this contradicts anything I said? Or are you picking on 50% I mentioned and not 51%?
|
|
|
|
I'll quote myself (and block other 50% of miners who do not conform) |
|
|
|
Great idea. Go make your own block chain now.
Why should he? He's suggesting miner's fees... He should rather build his own pool and enforce these rules there - additionally document this so well, that other pool operators that agree with him also can easily enforce this ruleset. It is much easier to get 50% miners to conform with this idea (and block other 50% of miners who do not conform) on a new block chain where you control 100% of mining than on a 10 Thps block chain where you control 0%. Edit: made bold a part of my post for those with reading comprehension issues. |
|
|
|
|
Great idea. Go make your own block chain now.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoins aren’t secure, as both the recent theft and this password problem show.
Is this dude really that stupid or just a shill? Bitcoin exchange is hacked therefore bitcoin is not secure, published it in Forbes no less. If anything, persistent attempts, whether successful or not, to steal bitcoin demonstrates exactly the opposite i.e. that bitcoins are very valuable. Criminals do not steal worthless stuff. |
|
|
|
2. If you can remember your password, it is probably weak.
This actually isn't true, though one might think so. See new reasearch by Steve Gibson: https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm"research"? That is more like a very weak and naive claim. Old man seems to be getting way behind the curve. With all due respect, to Steve Gibson and his cute idea of easy to remember passwords, I am going to have to disagree with him on this. He claims that 'D0g.....................' is stronger password than 'PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9'. He should know better. It might be the case when stupid brute force is employed, but these days attackers use much much more effective ways to reduce the key space than simply iterating over all permutations, as Steve seems to believe. These include permutations of dictionary words with common replacements of letters by numbers with various uppercase/lowercase scenarios in combination with sets of same symbols repeating as well as other methods of reducing keyspace by emulating various patterns people use to create passwords they can remember. These techniques often reduce keyspace by many orders of magnitude. |
|
|
|
|
h8ters are having field day on twitter and elsewhere.
This seems as a good time to buy bitcoins for anyone with more than 1 week perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, this thread was not intended as educational resource for PHP programmers. It is and the password handling rules are for regular users. How this could not be obvious?
Please continue your "how to develop secure web apps" discussion elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
