real trouble in bond land: investment grade:  if this was bitcoin I would be shitting my pants now. |
|
|
|
Happened for a few hours today as well. Japan, then Europe. Again though, someone stepped in. This is really interesting. I think it goes back to a fundamental flaw in debt-based money, particularly when FRB means that 95% of a currency is not even government printed "fiat". The flaw is interest, specifically that debt-money which attracts interest is only sustainable long-term if real GDP grows faster than the real interest rate which debt-money requires to service it. Otherwise most money is drained from the productive economy and winds up at the banks where the only cleansing mechanism is bank insolvencies which returns money to the economy. Since bank insolvency is pretty much "banned" by CBs as banks are backstopped by printed money, then wealth transfers and economic distortions continue to build up relentlessly. Equity-based money and asset alternatives (Gold, silver, real-estate, Picasso paintings) do not have this flaw, however, until Bitcoin was invented, none of them were suitable for 21st (or even 20th) Century long-distance, fast moving commerce. Paradigm change. Your time is coming!yes from the article: You do realize gold and silver are THE only monies out there that are not “credit based” or derive their values via the credit markets
author doesn't know yet  |
|
|
|
I read part of if, up to this part: You who read this are innocent in varying degrees. You are here in crypto because you are playing the game, some for noble reasons, some for reasons of profit. Some of you think crypto is going to change the world. Some of you have been to bed with her and had the night of your lives. And want that night again. Most of you feel both of these things to some degree – but not one of us is innocent. When you type in your 2fa there is always that special plugging-in sensation, isn’t there?
quite well-written and entertaining so far. continuing... |
|
|
|
Whats new fellas?
We're waiting for you to make your move. Get some action going. No moves on my part right now. Holding what I have for the time being (no long or short) concentrating more on forex atm. This has been the lowest volume trading we have had since Christmas. Everyone seems to be waiting and watching to find out which way it will go. Can it carry on like this for weeks or possibly months? Can the volume get even lower than this? No, I don't think it can go on more than a couple of days. Why? Whales get bored, too. |
|
|
|
I'd need to know what kind of image file to provide (size, format,...)
Any image of size 128x64. Python Imaging Library will take care of conversion into black-white. wonderful, thanks!  the flying spaghettig monster looks impressed EDIT: or maybe it's shocked to find itself inside a trezor device |
|
|
|
This SQUEEZE is beautiful  Launch in 10.. What squeeze? (bb) Every timeframe, it's majestic a man can dream... now WAKE UP! |
|
|
|
 Something happen ?  Bored bored bored....lol. usually in such situations (boredom extreme), it doesn't take long... |
|
|
|
I'm not giving the private key to anyone. In the client on my computer, protected by my password, there is a place where you enter the private key you use to send the BTC during the crowdfunding to claim your PLS (token of the platform). It's basicaly like importing a private Bitcoin key from a wallet to another.
That's not such a good idea. You probably should've generated a single private key for paying to the crowdfund. But it is what it is now. Maybe the devs can switch things over to a new key you provide if you prove ownership of the key you used to send initially. I would explain to them that you don't want to export a private key that is part of a hd wallet because of the security implications. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid to buy-in because we seem to fall every time we touch ~245, but not by enough to risk going short... So I'm making NO money...  I hope the market makes a strong move in either direction by Wednesday. Really does seem that somebody or a few very controlling players don't want us to go above 250 doesn't it. We've been floating around 230-250 for ages now, getting boring. This is going to have to go one way or the other soon, it just has to. I bet there's a couple of whales buying a shit load of coins at 230's & dumping every time we get near 250. Easy money if you have massive capital. Like betting with 97.5% chance with massive capital? ;-) At least you won't lose everything if thing goes wrong by trading with massive capital Ok, then always just bet 50% and keep the last satoshi. That way you never loose everything, either. Just saying: having massive capital doesn't magically make trading a certain win. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid to buy-in because we seem to fall every time we touch ~245, but not by enough to risk going short... So I'm making NO money... I hope the market makes a strong move in either direction by Wednesday. Really does seem that somebody or a few very controlling players don't want us to go above 250 doesn't it. We've been floating around 230-250 for ages now, getting boring. This is going to have to go one way or the other soon, it just has to. I bet there's a couple of whales buying a shit load of coins at 230's & dumping every time we get near 250. Easy money if you have massive capital. Like betting with 97.5% chance with massive capital? ;-) |
|
|
|
Ouch on the weak signatures. That's a scary idea that will kill crypto, best not speak of that!
Weak rng is the culprit and there's rfc6979 to mitigate the problem without protocol change. Unless you use that, you should carefully check entropy of your rng (hard, I know) when reusing addresses... or just not reuse addresses and bite the bullet and make frequent-enough backups of your wallet.dat I try to follow you guys, but don't get what you talking about . Can one of you explain me in a noob langage what is ''rng'' and what it mean in regard to security ? Thanks ! (-------john snow RNG = random number generator. If you have a weak one (predictable to an extent) like has happened in some android phones, an attacker can, just by looking at your signatures on the blockchain (when you make a transaction) figure out the private key of the address you're sending from. If you send money to that address again, it'll be gone within seconds because the attacker has your key. I don't want to sound too alarmist, though. Most wallets seem to use good random sources these days. For me, address reuse is mainly a privacy concern. |
|
|
|
oh shit! (not a spoiler, is it?) |
|
|
|
Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero.
Mike Hearns blogs post finally convinced me this was not such good idea. Crash landing
What not to doOne the one hand, yes: his blog post has instilled a sense of urgency and importance in me and I'm still for the 20 MB block size increase. On the other hand a part in me (a destructive part of my personality, I guess) wants to see what would actually happen and how bad things would crash and burn... the user/media reaction and all. It'd be exciting to watch, I'm sure and we could probably scoop up many more cheap coins. |
|
|
|
An attack I thought of years ago would be to formulate UTXO's systematically to chain blocks together in such a way that 1) their count would stress the working database (currently implemented in RAM most often) and 2) verifying them would touch as many blocks as possible making rendering of much of the actual blockchain itself require for many transactions. I'm sure there is a name for such an attack. If not, call it the 'tvbcof attack' I suppose.
Mining a block with such a tx is disincentivized by its long block propagation time (and hence higher orphan risk). Miners could evaluate tx verification time before inclusion and compare to fee. If they treat all disruptive transactions as attackers (assuming miners really give enough of a shit to try due to orphan problems or otherwise) they are likely to piss off a fair number of people it seems to me. He doesn't. He just requires a higher fee for inclusion to make up for the risk of a slower propagation. In the end it's up to the wallet to assign a higher fee. This is not up to us to decide anyways. Miners can and probably will or are already doing this or something similar. Sounds good to me. I would like to see the fee be around the equivalent of $10 per transaction. That is about what I set my client to pay and it's worth every penny to me. In a busy year I may do 10 native transactions or so. In a dry one (like 2015 so far) the number of transactions I perform drops to zero. We obviously have differing usage patterns. I made 62 transactions so far this year (in the main trezor wallet alone, not counting paying for pizza with mycelium) |
|
|
|
An attack I thought of years ago would be to formulate UTXO's systematically to chain blocks together in such a way that 1) their count would stress the working database (currently implemented in RAM most often) and 2) verifying them would touch as many blocks as possible making rendering of much of the actual blockchain itself require for many transactions. I'm sure there is a name for such an attack. If not, call it the 'tvbcof attack' I suppose.
Mining a block with such a tx is disincentivized by its long block propagation time (and hence higher orphan risk). Miners could evaluate tx verification time before inclusion and compare to fee. If they treat all disruptive transactions as attackers (assuming miners really give enough of a shit to try due to orphan problems or otherwise) they are likely to piss off a fair number of people it seems to me. He doesn't. He just requires a higher fee for inclusion to make up for the risk of a slower propagation. In the end it's up to the wallet to assign a higher fee. This is not up to us to decide anyways. Miners can and probably will or are already doing this or something similar. |
|
|
|
Sometimes I think the best thing would be for Satoshi to just dump all his coins right now, take us back to double, maybe single digits and really test the limits of this market. I hope you were just exaggerating... because if Satoshi were to fully dump his/her/its holdings, I have little hope that bitcoin would rise back up... simply because most people here are not believers, but rather, just in it for the money. It would be quite a redistribution of coins. But I think bitcoin would rise again afterward. Probably rather quickly, too. |
|
|
|
An attack I thought of years ago would be to formulate UTXO's systematically to chain blocks together in such a way that 1) their count would stress the working database (currently implemented in RAM most often) and 2) verifying them would touch as many blocks as possible making rendering of much of the actual blockchain itself require for many transactions. I'm sure there is a name for such an attack. If not, call it the 'tvbcof attack' I suppose.
Mining a block with such a tx is disincentivized by its long block propagation time (and hence higher orphan risk). Miners could evaluate tx verification time before inclusion and compare to fee. |
|
|
|
Got myself AntMiner S5 a month ago. I was surprised how bad cooling solution it has. Loud fan, bad heatsink design and a lot of air not even going through the heatsinks. After a month of playing with it and some 3D printing this is what my small rig currently looks like (just ordered the second S5):  Awesome mining bot!! Put some arms to complete it |
|
|
|
Ouch on the weak signatures. That's a scary idea that will kill crypto, best not speak of that!
Weak rng is the culprit and there's rfc6979 to mitigate the problem without protocol change. Unless you use that, you should carefully check entropy of your rng (hard, I know) when reusing addresses... or just not reuse addresses and bite the bullet and make frequent-enough backups of your wallet.dat |
|
|
|
@ Danslip and y2cafuse
may i ask you guys to post your addresses when claiming how many coins you have because you lack credibility when you just shoot off numbers like you're the richest people in auroracoin world.
who uses single addresses? I do, why wouldmt you? privacy? protection against weak rng in ecdsa signatures? If you just do it to break up different uses that's one thing but not trusting it in one address. You do know that your wallet doesn't hold coins right? Export the private key and you can always retrieve or send coins at will, even if your wallet is dead.
No, I'm not using multiple addresses for bookkeeping purposes. For bookkeeping purposes I use books. But yes, I agree: AUR would benefit from HD wallets for backup simplicity. (and also from a coincontrol patch) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
