i cannot withdraw btc from my trezor. whatever adress i use it says: Error!
Failed to send transaction: Requested unknown tx: Did you contact customer support? |
|
|
|
Trezor is still rudimentary, pretty sure future versions will be slicker looking.
It is safe and secure, unhackable, has a small screen, two buttons, fits in your pocket, plugs into any USB port, easily recoverable if lost, and works like a charm. What more do you need? Do you want to be able to select the color or something? |
|
|
|
We can make a device peculiarly make to keep bitcoin and nothing more, so super safe from external attacks.
But here is my second idea: this device would not have the bitcoin inside but would simply connect to the cloud I mentioned above to access that file when necessary, using a password or 2 steps password obviously. So if you lose the device there is no problem at all. You can buy another and access your own bitcoin account in the cloud and restore your wallet.
DONE !!! http://www.bitcointrezor.com/1) Private keys never leave the device. It is unhackable. 2) If lost you simply buy another one, reenter the seed (24 random words you do have to keep secret and safe) and you get all your Bitcoins and your entire transaction history back. 3) You can purchase this today (I have several). 4) Best and safest wallet on the market today. |
|
|
|
I don't know what you mean by "Bitcoin IOUs", but I believe that Bitcoin FRB is a certainty if Bitcoin becomes widely adopted. People will want loans, and banks will pay interest to depositors, and then loan out their money (assuming it is all legal).
Any time you do not personally control the private key you are accepting a "Bitcoin IOU" because you have deposited the BTC with someone else and they now owe you the BTC - and they control the private key. Examples: Coinbase, Localbitcoins, any Bitcoin bank in the future. By making a deposit you have accepted a Bitcoin IOU for your Bitcoins. Now they can lend them out, FRB is born. For FRB to really get going people need to accept paper bills or checks or wire transfers or deposit acounts as Bitcoins - which they are not. They are "Bitcoin IOUs" or transfers of "Bitcoin IOUs". I also agree with you that it is certain to happen because people in general are scared to carry and possibly lose their cash/Bitcoins so they will "leave that to professionals" - certain, just a matter of time and wider adoption. |
|
|
|
...
2) People in general do accept Bitcoin substitues as money. In otherwords, people do not really care if they have and hold real Bitcoins, they accept Bitcoin notes to be as good as or almost as good as the real thing and they accept Bitcoin IOUs as money.
You don't need "Bitcoin notes" or "Bitcoin IOUs" to have FRB. That seems to be a big misconception. You deposit your bitcoins at Coinbase and they loan them out. That's all it takes. I agree that is why I said: Fractional reserve banking is somewhat limited
It is limited by the population/market demanding the real thing. If there is not a large market for IOUs including deposits of Bitcoins or only a small market for that sort of thing then Coinbase, Mt.Gox  , etc. can only lend out so much of the real thing. They are physically limited by the general mistrust for Bitcoin IOUs. For the FRB to really take off and get out of control you need the general population to accept and use Bitcoin IOUs as money. My main point with respect to this thread is that unless/until that happens central control of Bitcoin banking is not needed. |
|
|
|
|
There are two possibilities when it comes to Bitcoin banking, fractional reserve and central banking:
1) People in general never accept Bitcoin substitues as money. In otherwords, people want to have and to hold real Bitcoins in their hot little hands and do not use and accept Bitcoin IOUs as money (notes representing a future claim on an amount of BTC held on an account somewhere).
In this scenario:
Bitcoin banking is relegated to "Bitcoin warehousing"
Fractional reserve banking is somewhat limited
Central banking (central control of the number of Bitcoin notes in circulation) is not really needed
2) People in general do accept Bitcoin substitues as money. In otherwords, people do not really care if they have and hold real Bitcoins, they accept Bitcoin notes to be as good as or almost as good as the real thing and they accept Bitcoin IOUs as money.
In this scenario:
Bitcoin banking can develop and grow
Fractional reserve banking can develop and grow
Central banking (central control of the number of Bitcoin notes in circulation) would probably be necessary to limit and control the fractional reserve Bitcoin banks - keep them from printing too many Bitcoin notes
Note that even in scenario #2 you personally can decide to not participate in the Bitcoin substitute market and demand and use only the real thing so even if a vast market in Bitcoin substitutes develops you personally do not have to participate in it.
|
|
|
|
Thank you all for your support! We are now the leading Bitcoin Anonymizing Service processing more than 50 Bitcoins a day. To mark our success, we have lowered the fee to 0.2% until October 1st! Be safe and clean your bitcoins: https://sharedsend.netEmail: admin@sharedsend.netI have a hard time with the part in bold. Perhaps " one of the leading" might be more accurate? Or, are you really claiming that you process more per day than bitmixer? How do you know how many BTC the other services process? How can we know how many you process? Is it really 50/day? How many does bitmixer do per day? How do you know that? I know that on some days they do over 500 BTC based on the amount I personally run through them. |
|
|
|
This is all true at the current Bitcoin price. However, power consumption is a function of price.
There seems to be very little relationship between Bitcoin mining difficulty and price. In the last six months, difficulty has increased by a factor of 7, while price has declined a little. The cost of mining does not drive price. Price drives the level of mining activity. Kind of. Total network power consumption is a function of price. Mining difficulty and hash rate are a function of mining efficiency. |
|
|
|
This is all true at the current Bitcoin price. However, power consumption is a function of price. As the price of Bitcoins goes up then network can "afford" to spend more on power. Note that power consumption is a function of price not mining efficiency. Mining efficiency only affects hash rate and difficultly - not power consumption. For example, we cannot/do not want to get to $500,000 per BTC any time soon. Here is the math behind it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.0If BTC were to go to $500,000 in this era it would cause a catastrophic mining bubble: $500,000 x 25 = $12,500,000 per block = $75,000,000 per hour $75 million per hour would drive the mining to attempt to use 675 GW. This is about 30% of all the power generated on the planet. So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so. Using my previously derived formula for the power consumption: P = (6(50/2 e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW] where: x = exchange rate [USD/BTC] e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1) f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour] c = cost of energy [USD/kWh] g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio] we can look at the power consumption in each era assuming a price of $500,000 per BTC. In order to make it simple I will make the following assumptions: x = $500,000 per BTC f = fees per hour will keep the coinbase above 6 BTC/hour (1 BTC/block) in all eras c = $0.10 per kWh g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin Original target Subsidy Est Fees Power % of total world
Era starting year BTC/block BTC/hour GW power production
--- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----- ----------------
0 2009 50.00000000 0.00000000 1,350 58.41%
1 2013 25.00000000 0.00000000 675 29.20%
2 2017 12.50000000 0.00000000 337 14.60%
3 2021 6.25000000 0.00000000 169 7.30%
4 2025 3.12500000 0.00000000 84 3.65%
5 2029 1.56250000 0.00000000 42 1.83%
6 2033 0.78125000 1.31250000 27 1.17%
7 2037 0.39062500 3.65625000 27 1.17%
8 2041 0.19531250 4.82812500 27 1.17%
9 2045 0.09765625 5.41406250 27 1.17%
|
|
|
|
Your technical explanations and implications for the future of Bitcoin are all true and valid, but it is effectively the miners' decision which rules are enacted. If 75% of the full nodes decide to adhere to a different protocol (some other rules that aren't allowed now, whatever) the Blockchain that's being mined will still adhere to the old rules. Nothing has changed.
Now if miners decide to adhere to that protocol, they effectively create a fork - which fork survives or if both continue to exist is another story.
Evidently you did not grasp the concept that if only the miners change the rules but none of the nodes change with them then the incompatible blocks produced by the rouge miners will all be dropped by all the nodes in the system. All of those dropped blocks will go nowhere - making the rouge miners no money, while at the same time the unchanged miners get the benefit of the lowered hash rate due to the rogue miners flushing all their hashes down the toilet. So, the miners will not do that. They will only change if at least some, preferably most, of the nodes change with them. If you are really interested in learning more about the technical details of a hard fork read this entire thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=352734.0 |
|
|
|
|
I believe that the ECC/NSA thread you referenced did eventually nail down every parameter used to create secp256k1 and answers most if not all concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
Title mistyped. Should be "full of" rather than "a".
|
|
|
|
|
I see exactly the opposite when selling BTC. People complaining about how "expensive" they are and how they cannot afford them: You mean to tell me they are 500 bucks a piece? I cannot afford that!
But when they see 1 mBTC is only 50 cents then they think: I can easily afford a few of those!
It is stupid, I know, but I have seen it in action.
Also if you have something that costs $1 then is is much easier to read the number 2.00 mBTC than the number 0.002 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you using Win7? If so do you have access to another computer that is not Win7 (friend, family, neighbor, school, work, etc.)? Try that if possible until they get it fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
Great post Danny, good summary of how it really works.
|
|
|
|
Is there any possibility of having LTC support added to the Mytrezor web wallet?
Answered up thread. Basically you need to talk to the LTC developers. |
|
|
|
|
I do not think so but you can always go to bip32.org and do it.
|
|
|
|
there shall be 21 000 000 bitcoins it total but will be less due to lost passwords etc. and last bitcoin will be mined around 2140
around 1% is lost 4ever :ooooo Lost coins can be seen as profit for all other bitcoiners because the bitcoins in circulation will be more scarce. True, but where did the 1% number come from? Out of PublicKey's ass? |
|
|
|
|
Over the years I have seen many dipshits like the OP come and go.
They leave behind them a steaming pile of worthless posts that no one will ever care to read again.
Bitcoin remains, unchanged, not caring about their idiotic opinions in the least bit as it marches onward and upward wining one heart and mind at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad no one here will be around to see it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
