still can't see why...
Do you mean you can't see why decentralized microtransactions are needed? One big example is payment to route your packets and to people to send you packets would internalize all the bandwidth costs of each user's participation in the Internet. There's lots of positive implications to this, and other separate reasons, but if this isn't enough to convince you, then you probably won't be convinced. microtransactions: yes, just send 0.00001 btc to someone. or send 1 btc to some micro payment provider. scriptable outputs: no. hell no! what are you thinking! R U mad? the only reason for them is to create a big horrible ugly big weird un-verifiable mess. |
|
|
|
|
it must be the government who is trying to shutdown bitcoin, by taking out miners one by one.
be careful you miners, it might be you next.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this post. Tasty is too much of a troll. Lucky for him, I don't have ban powers.
mods can't bad? who can then? Only "Administrator"s can ban users.  me no like! |
|
|
|
|
...or just use common sense. never played eve online, and never got scammed.
btw. like you sig
|
|
|
|
Transaction checking would also be greatly complicated because you'd need to calculate the remaining balance of a transaction before you allow any of the other outputs to be spent. This would also cause new forms of transaction conflicts. There may be other problems, as well.
Could a very restrictive whitelist on the types of scripts for which this could be allowed help make these problems easier to solve? because there is no need for it!
Extreme microtransactions was one that was posted in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25786.0still can't see why... |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this post. Tasty is too much of a troll. Lucky for him, I don't have ban powers.
mods can't bad? who can then? |
|
|
|
It could maybe be safely allowable, but a huge amount of Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten, as it is assumed throughout the code that output values are fixed. Transaction checking would also be greatly complicated because you'd need to calculate the remaining balance of a transaction before you allow any of the other outputs to be spent. This would also cause new forms of transaction conflicts. There may be other problems, as well.
other problem: need a new structure. |
|
|
|
Patience! lol Thanks.
Thats what I thought.
I just got it back up and running a couple hours ago. So I have about 127K blocks and 39 connections.
you need at least 140k also doing a -rescan might help |
|
|
|
|
wait!
always wait!
you need to download the blocks
|
|
|
|
|
because there is no need for it!
|
|
|
|
|
you are spreading FUD!
bitcoin have not failed(yet...)
|
|
|
|
If the exchange rate changes wildly, it is a gamble If the exchange rate rises continously, it is a bubble If the exchange rate drops continously, it is a trouble Either way, not suitable for serious business  and...? |
|
|
|
But Bitcoin generates no revenue. It's a pure speculation, a pyramid scheme, really, In the end, it will go to 0.
then why are you still here? |
|
|
|
not true!
and the ECDSA algorithm can only be used as signing, it is not that insecure if you are encrypting with it. you just simply can't.
its like eating soup with a fork.
and *even if* you could encrypt something with it, it may mot be secure anyway, even if it is secure for signing.
There is an algorithm very similar to ECDSA that performs encryption, ECIES. The algorithm is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Encryption_SchemeI'm 95% sure ECIES can work with keys generated for ECDSA. (This is, by the way, a somewhat surprising thing. It is definitely not true that because the keys can be used for signing they can obviously be used for secure encryption. It is not like RSA where signing and encrypting are almost the same operation. It just so happens that someone found a clever way to make it work.) yes it will do! as long as both algorithms are using the same curve parameters, it should work fine. but then again: bitcoin does not use public keys as addresses, it use hashes of public keys. which means it will not work. of course you could grab it, if the address has been used before. |
|
|
|
You can get a tiny amount from here: freebitcoins.appspot.com
Unless your electricity is free or close to free, mining for bitcoins at current difficulty and price level is not worth it at all.
They best way to get bitcoins is earn them(sell something) or buy them.
+1 a little more polite the n me |
|
|
|
|
money is not free. get over it!
|
|
|
|
As for the encryption aspect... I don't see why the ECDSA signature keys can't be used as encryption keys. The BTC ECDSA is based on a NIST-blessed elliptic curve (secp256k1), and you have a public-key-point and private-key on that curve. If it's secure for signing, it will be at least very secure for encryption.
not true! and the ECDSA algorithm can only be used as signing, it is not that insecure if you are encrypting with it. you just simply can't. its like eating soup with a fork. and *even if* you could encrypt something with it, it may mot be secure anyway, even if it is secure for signing. |
|
|
|
Tasty: you're trolling around the forum with offtopic posts, and then you complain the that the moderators have to moderate more? Why not be helpful and stop posting that shit to save them the work in the first place?
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
