I have to admit guys, I'm totally confused by this thread. How can a miner take an output which belongs to someone else and spend it? I thought that you'd need the private key to do that (in order to sign the transaction). If a miner decided to spend my bitcoins to an unspendable output, I'd be screwed. There must be some piece of this puzzle that I'm missing, which is why I was asking for a link above to some discussion of it.
Help!?
The outputs under discussion here have no owners. A typical UTXO will have a script of the form: "Tell me x and y where hash(x) = 1BXBbmKEua65aU7StBAZoMpDH4dcSs6bcJ and y is a valid signature for x". To spend the UTXO, one needs to provide x and y satisfying the script, a feat practically impossible without a corresponding private key. It is from the output script that the notions of address and owner originate. It is valid, for example, to create a UTXO with 5 BTC and a script which says: "Tell me x where x + 1 = 2". To spend this UTXO, we need only be clever enough to solve the equation. Here, there is no address, no private key, and no ownership. The 5 BTC will go to whomever claims them first. The UTXOs discussed in this thread have no script, basically: "Tell me x where x is true". Just as above, anyone can spend (redeem) them. Aside: The 367.75849319 BTC output of this transaction has no address. These "homeless" bitcoins are arguably even more lost than those at 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. teukon, That was the best explanation I've gotten yet about how this stuff works. I was aware of the notion of scripts and that it was possible to write unusual scripts which allowed unusual spend conditions, but that explantion was a very nice way to show how they work. Thanks. Another think I can note is that your explantion of what the OP was talking about differs from what knightdk said. He suggested that these were simply publically known private keys (brainwallet for "cat", for example), whereas you suggest that in these cases there simply are no private keys involved at all.
OP was talking about "empty output scripts" so no private keys are involved. I suppose both types of UTXO must exist, and it makes sense that miners want to claim these funds as much as anyone else does. However, I guess you'd need to write a pretty clever program to "interpret" scripts of UTXO and try to decide if they're easy to solve.
Such a program would have to be very clever indeed. This puts in mind a program to automatically track changes to a repository, find bugs, and report them. Fantasy. There do exist programs to tackle a special class of such scripts, namely the weak brainwallets that knightdk was talking about. These programs simply look up new output addresses in rainbow tables and quickly act to spend any matches. One last follow up, why is anyone sending bitconis to an output with a script which says "tell me X where X is true"? That seems like you're just giving your bitcoins away. What's the motivation for anyone to do this?
OP was talking about outputs "with zero satoshi". I know nothing of people intentionally leaving bitcoins on the table in this way. To clarify, I use "spend" for using up an output even when the corresponding amount is 0 BTC. My 5 BTC example was purely illustrative. |
|
|
|
I have to admit guys, I'm totally confused by this thread. How can a miner take an output which belongs to someone else and spend it? I thought that you'd need the private key to do that (in order to sign the transaction). If a miner decided to spend my bitcoins to an unspendable output, I'd be screwed. There must be some piece of this puzzle that I'm missing, which is why I was asking for a link above to some discussion of it.
Help!?
The outputs under discussion here have no owners. A typical UTXO will have a script of the form: "Tell me x and y where hash(x) = 1BXBbmKEua65aU7StBAZoMpDH4dcSs6bcJ and y is a valid signature for x". To spend the UTXO, one needs to provide x and y satisfying the script, a feat practically impossible without a corresponding private key. It is from the output script that the notions of address and owner originate. It is valid, for example, to create a UTXO with 5 BTC and a script which says: "Tell me x where x + 1 = 2". To spend this UTXO, we need only be clever enough to solve the equation. Here, there is no address, no private key, and no ownership. The 5 BTC will go to whomever claims them first. The UTXOs discussed in this thread have no script, basically: "Tell me x where x is true". Just as above, anyone can spend (redeem) them. Aside: The 367.75849319 BTC output of this transaction has no address. These "homeless" bitcoins are arguably even more lost than those at 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. |
|
|
|
|
0.0084 USD/BTC.
Bitcoin's total network hashrate was 150 MH/s.
|
|
|
|
It's a good thing Satoshi didn't go much higher, because 21 * 10^14 is breaching on what a signed 64 bit integer can hold.
A signed 64-bit integer will go up to about 9.2 * 10 18, much larger than the 2.1 * 10 15 bound. |
|
|
|
Yeah, the issue requiring an extra bit for rounding accuracy happens when you multiply or divide by by an imprecisely represented decimal fraction, or add or subtract an imprecisely represented decimal fraction, and want to be sure that the answer comes out to the closest value.
Yes, this is a subtle point I'd not considered before. Good to know. And it's 52 bits of mantissa, not 53. The last one is a sign bit, and while there's no such thing as negative bitcoins you can't use it for positive amounts because of partial results and subtractions having negative values you must represent.
Yes, the mantissa is 52 bits. However, the leading '1' of the binary representation of a non-zero integer is not stored in the mantissa. The least positive integer that cannot be precisely expressed in this format is 2 53 + 1. |
|
|
|
the blockchain and bitcoin would be improved if the desired number--21 million-- was somehow guaranteed and in a decentralized manner Right, I agree. It'd be great if there were guaranteed to be 21 million coins in circulation at all times, or whatever the current number would be since we haven't reached 21 million created yet. That way, the system could somehow account for those kinds of non-existent dead weight coins and recreate them so there's fidelity to the original vision of having 21 million coins out there(or currently correct number). Now that 21 million is the desired final number, then it's got to be that, even if that figure was picked arbitrarily. The "original vision" was for there to be no more than 21 million bitcoins, i.e. for 21 million bitcoins to be a bound. Where you see "non-existent dead weight" coins, satoshi saw " donations to everyone". In order to have a guarantee of 21 million coins in circulation at all times you would at least have to define "in circulation". How long much an output remain unspent before it is deemed not in circulation? 10 seconds? 5 days? 20 years? |
|
|
|
- double SHA-256 proof-of-work isn't computationally useful for anything (GridCoin is still affected by this criticism to a certain extent);
Even this is arguably a feature. A "computationally useful" proof-of-work algorithm wouldn't be any more efficient, it would simply result in a higher difficulty. GridCoin appears to depend on at least one third party, Berkeley (the University of California). The purpose of a blockchain is to enable consensus without a special trusted entity. |
|
|
|
A double precision floating point has 52 significant bits so is capable of describing every number between 0 - 4503599627370496 exactly.
Or converting that number of satoshi's in Bitcoins this gives
45,035,996. 27370496
So whilst he could have use 45 million my guess is that the maths of starting with 50BTC and halving came to ~21 million which is high enough to use the full range while giving some room for error such as someone doing
( coins in circulation + satoshi's stash ) / 2 and not worrying about overflow errors.
Actually yes, Satoshi was very much aware of numeric representation issues. And the fact is that you can't actually get 100% accurate rounding on basic-4 operations (addition/subtraction/multiplication/division) if you use more than *HALF* of the number of distinct values available. So the actual limit on the number of divisions for accounting without "gotcha" rounding errors is 2^51, not 2^52. Am I missing something here? It appears to me that binary64 (IEEE 754) can precisely represent any integer from -2 53 to 2 53. Even after allowing one bit to avoid rounding oddities we have a second bit unaccounted for. |
|
|
|
How did Satoshi Nakamura come up with 21 million, for his (their?) limit to bitcoin?
Satoshi Naka moto settled on a target time of 10 minutes per block with an initial subsidy of 50 BTC set to halve once every 4 years. 4 years / 10 minutes ≈ 210 000
50 + 25 + 12.5 + 6.25 + ... = 100
210 000 * 100 = 21 million
|
|
|
|
|
Will this entity engage in "sound banking". Will it attempt to balance both the amounts and the maturities of its assets with those of its liabilities? Will they offer true 100% reserve deposit banking (an account which does not earn interest but charges a fee) and/or true loan banking (you can earn interest but you must tie your money up). In short, will this be a real bank or just another fractional reserve scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't read the source language but the machine translation doesn't seem that negative to me. Johan Javeus believes that Bitcoin cannot survive and achieve adequate stability without the blessing and input of governments.
I don't see any serious problems with his logic (allowing for losses in translation) but I do reject this key assumption. There are things which not only survive but thrive worldwide despite strong government opposition (the drug trade he referred to is a good example). I believe that financial privacy is one of these things, something with real value that cannot be nullified by the will of governers. As the war against cash continues (a war in which SEB plays no small part), I expect we'll see precious metals and crypto-currencies become more prominent where privacy is most valued.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
―Princess Leia
|
|
|
|
I think most people have now idea why such a list may be usefull.
What do you want for a service?
type in a number of value and see on which position this is?
Or what is your intention?
in which format do you need the list?
look this torrent:
btc-address-balance-2015-06-02.txt.torrent
My guess is curiosity about ranking. In which case http://ondn.net:800/search would probably do the job. I wonder what other uses such a complete list would have. |
|
|
|
That's not the same. The money wasn't created to explicitly buy illegal things but this market was. And just because he didn't personally kill anyone doesn't mean anything. Hiring someone to do the job is just as bad as the intention is the same. Had he not done that I'd have a totally different opinion of his but I think he certainly acted like a drug kingpin as the power of being one obviously went to his head.
Yeah what tipped my opinion of him was the fact that there was suspicions that he ordered hits on people. It was never actually part of the charges against him - but I'm not exactly surprised that there were suspicions. I don't necessarily condone what he did with SR - but those hits really make me feel that he does deserve the life sentence he got in the end. I could hardly condemn a man to life in prison based on "suspicions" of his hiring hit-men. As you say, he was not found guilty of this. Ultimately, he was not even charged with this. You've fallen prey to a well-executed smear campaign. You're not alone though. Ross was both denied bail and denied advanced knowledge of those testifying against him based on these rumours. |
|
|
|
I hope and pray that the Judge has something worse than a rough bowel moment. I hope she gets meningitis.
For doing her job? Wishing ill will on someone you know nothing about other than her name is so mature. She has a job and she did it. It isn't an easy one and I am sure some of the decisions she has to make sticks with her in a negative way for years. Is a hired assassin absolved of any wrongdoing because they profit from their task? Were the Gestapo behaving reasonably because they took home a wage for their brutality? |
|
|
|
|
Assuming that his Silk Road days were behind him: Would you share a flat with Ross Ulbricht? Would you trust him not to put a hit on you for drinking the last of the milk or spending too long in the shower? Could you be his friend?
Assuming he'd left office: Would you share a flat with Barack Obama? Could you be his friend?
|
|
|
|
From the judge (Katherine Forrest) on handing out the sentence: The stated purpose [of Silk Road] was to be beyond the law. In the world you created over time, democracy didn’t exist. Silk Road’s birth and presence asserted that its…creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous. The war on drugs is widely recognised as greatly destructive. Almost every human is individually "better" than this war. There is clearly significant demand out there for a market which is "beyond [US] law". This as a sign that the US government is too powerful and interfering. That a judge cannot see any value in true liberty is deeply troubling. That voluntary association should be considered necessarily inferior to democracy is terribly misguided. That US law should be considered the ultimate source of right and wrong is very dangerous. |
|
|
|
Unlike last time this happened (2011 I think?)
August, 2010. The only times Bitcoin had actual problems was when it was a couple of months old, nowadays whenever you hear about a hack it is a hack to a specific service.
Bitcoin was 4 years old (March, 2013) when a hard-fork panicked the core devs. The fork grew to a length of 31 blocks before being abandoned. |
|
|
|
I am a noob in this area.
How many addresses can be generated from a seed using BIP32?
I don't see any practical limit. Each node in the tree can have at most 2 32 children but it seems you can just keep adding more and more levels as needed. |
|
|
|
Good news!
Just got the new album, track list:
1. Who Wants To Mine Forever
2. Dont Trade Right Now
3. Satoshi To Love
4. We Will Hack You
5. Another One Sends The Dust
6. Bohemian Transaction Fee
7. Byzantine Race 8. I Want to Hash Free 9. The Satoshi Man 10. Pump 'n Dump Ga Ga "We Will Hack You"
Buddy you're a script kiddy code clipped
Muckin' with games gonna be a leet hacker some day
You got crud on yo' face
You big disgrace
Runnin' stock tools all over the place
Singin'
We will we will hack you
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
