maybe you can explain the justification for not encrypting the wallet by default?
Here's the thinking: Joe Random User finds out about bitcoin, and decides "what the heck, I'll check it out." They run it. First thing it does is ask him for a passphrase, with tons of "DO NOT FORGET YOUR PASSPHRASE" and/or "CHOOSE A LONG PASSPHRASE" warnings. What does he do? Many users will either: 1. Type "passphrase". or 2. Bang on the keyboard to create a long, random passphrase: "b;lkaj425[09234kjvfda,nvfd;nkj34toht4" He gets a little coin from the Faucet, writes me an email asking when they will arrive (because he hasn't yet downloaded the entire blockchain and didn't bother to read the information about that on the Faucet's "Sent!" page), and then shuts down the client. Time passes. Eventually the Faucet coins show up. He decides Bitcoin really doesn't suck as much as he first thought, so he decides to buy some Bitcoin on Mt. Gox. Time passes while Dwolla verifies his bank account and stuff. Then he buys Bitcoin, and manages to send them and see them show up in his running Bitcoin. Yay! Time passes. He decides he wants to spend the Bitcoin, and now he has to enter the passphrase that he set a week or three ago. But back then, wallet security wasn't at all important to him. He didn't have an Bitcoins to keep secure. So either he forgot that his passphrase is "passphrase" or he remembers that he typed a bunch or random letters just so he could get past that annoying "enter passphrase" dialog box so he could just try the damn thing. In short: wallet encryption is not the default because the right time to enter a passphrase to encrypt the wallet is when you KNOW that the wallet is valuable, and will take the steps necessary to protect it. Brainstorm: If the user have zero in his wallet, do not warn that it doesnt have password. If the user have X amount advice the user to chose a long password they will never forget. And some advice on how to chose such a password. If the user have Huge amount of Bitcoins give warnings to encrypt right away? Question is, what is considered huge and for one user 5 Btc can be much, for another 500 is much. |
|
|
|
|
What makes this better than Spotify, Soundcloud or Grooveshark?
|
|
|
|
|
Cant you sign up with Bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
This MUST be solved or Bitcoin could become useless and just creating a higher transaction fee is not good enough.
We do not know what the goal of this miner is.
It might not be to earn Bitcoins but to devalue Bitcoin.
This could be the work of someone who has or are about to create a alternate cryptocurrency.
The solution/s has to be designed to prevent or increase the cost for a worst case scenario.
We cannot design a solution for "the best case" which is, he cares about the value of Bitcoin.
If you do not realize this, your opinion is not of much use.
Another part of a solution could be to add a some real proof of stake for miners, but it would not be enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Sent one straight to their adress, not much, but there will be more and I think it looks better, if they get from several different instead of one single.
|
|
|
|
I suggest you do this. 1. Order one or more copies of the Bitcoin magazine with some of your bitcoins. http://bitcoinmagazine.net/2. If you have an Android phone, get Bitcoinspinner. 3. Educate yourself. Take a look at all the cool stuff thats happening. Think about this. 4. Eric Emerson Schmidt (born April 27, 1955) is an American software engineer, businessman and the current executive chairman of Google.[3] From 2001 to 2011, he served as the chief executive of Google. Additionally, Schmidt was a former member on the board of directors for Apple Inc. and sat on the boards of trustees for both Carnegie Mellon University and Princeton University.[4][5][6] Schmidt also revealed that Google wanted to create a rival to Internet peer to peer currency Bitcoin. The company planned to call it "Google Bucks." Though Schmidt said peer to peer currencies like Bitcoin are "a great idea"... Though they were adviced not create their own currency because of legal issues. More food for thought. If only 100.000 each holds 210 Bitcoins and do not sell them for less than $20 than you can get your money back if thats what you want by that time. (Ofcourse there needs to be buyers.) But right now there are only around 10 million coins. So each one of those only needs to hold 100 coins each. |
|
|
|
Anyway, I've made these kind of arguments many times over the past two years, quite literally on both sides of this issue. What it all comes down to is that PoS doesn't offer an advantage over PoW, but attempts to solve a presumed future problem that I (no longer) agree exists. I also do see potential problems in it's practical implementations, although those may not be insurmountable. However, the very biggest problem with PoS is that a major entity could literally come in and buy it out and become a new central bank, as the requirement for having more than the processing power of the whole of the honest network no longer applies to a PoS miner with a large enough of a stake. Your not going to solve a problem here.
Just in case anyone missed it. D&T did a good job debunking this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68213.msg799136#msg799136It is also discussed in the proof of stake wiki as the "Monopoly problem" Main Point: A dominant investment gives you absolute control over either system. PoS requires a much larger investment to obtain control, PoW requires a smaller investment. If you have additional questions, I am happy to answer them. There is a huge difference. In a Pos only, once a miner gets more coins than any other miner it could get very difficult for other miners to compete if there is not enough coins to get or when one miner get hold of 51% of the coins, it will be impossible for other miners to even out the power. With the Pow other miners can add (from the outside) and regain a power balance. In a Pow, there is allways the possibility for a power battle creating a balance of power. I´m all for moving to a 50/50...I´m against a Pos only. But there are to many good points with a Pos system to be ignored. A Pos means that the value of coins increase since they now also are the tokens that hold the right to mine more coins. Thus the value of Bitcoins would increase with a Pos. |
|
|
|
A Pos would also be part of a sollution to another "problem" Bot mining? Actually when i think about it why only miners? There is a good reason to not have a Pos only system. There are many potential problems. One is that there is no way for others to take back control over the mining as soon as someone once owns most of the coins. Once that would happen there will be no competition among the miners. The competition makes sure transaction fees are kept low and that the hardware is upgraded. Processing transactions at an ever increasing speed. Thus I think a Pos only would fail. And some brainstorm. For an Altcoin there could be a Pos even for users  What if you could not transfer (sell) more than 50% or x% of your coins at once. That would mean that a panic would not cause people to be able sell all their coins at once. Also that if you are out to Pump and Dump. Your other coins will decrease in value, removing the incentive to panic. If you panic your own resources will decrease in value. This would mean that every user would have sort of a Proof of stake. This could be optional by giving users enough advantage so that they want to lock up their coins. Such as coins locked would get an interest rate or lower the transaction fee on the users other coins. Anyway this would ofcourse be impossible to design? But it would be interesting to see this tested in a Alt-coin. |
|
|
|
I'm also a little unclear about another aspect of cunicula's system. In effect, it removes BTC from circulation in order to add security the network, does it not? I can certainly see how this would cause upward pressure on BTC prices, but doesn't this upward pressure further limit the ability of miners (both rich and poor) to increase their stake through BTC purchases?
Yes, I believe so, this is whats appears so great about it. In order to gain a massive advantage, you would have to buy up lots of coins, while doing so you would drive the price up. Making it much more expensive than today to make an attack because it would take time and during that time you would have to support the network. However the downside might be that once you do have it, it would be very hard for anyone to regain control. Though that is somewhat true of a 80% attack. |
|
|
|
Maybe instead of adding some kind of escrow system to hold miner's coins it would suffice to increase the number of blocks it takes for mined coins to mature? We could even tie that to the block number, so over time it will take longer and longer for newly mined blocks to mature?
-MarkM-
I imagine the evil miners would just sell their locked coins immediately. They'd be like bitcoin futures. Perhaps but it would be harder to sell them, less buyers and its still an huge improvement. The miner would have to prove that he owned the coins. What if it could be made really hard to prove and the coins should first be sent back to the miner. Thus the there would be a issue of trust. |
|
|
|
I also feel that my proposal has a side benefit, however. Most mining investment would be reallocated to purchasing currency under my system. I feel like the current arrangement where bitcoin users spend a lot on GPUs, ASICs, FPGAs, and electricity instead of buying bitcoin is profoundly wasteful. The market capitalization of the currency would be higher under my system. Higher market cap should be associated with reduced price volatility. This seems like significant enough of an issue to merit consideration.
Cunicula
Thats a very good point. I'm also concerned about sudden flight from the currency and the possibility that it would enable mining stakeholders to escape some of the consequences of potential misbehavior. Therefore in the past I have suggested escrowing the coins of actively mining stakeholders for a long period. In a case of wrong doing, they would be the last ones able to sell off their bitcoin. In this scheme, mining stakeholders would have to commit not to sell until months after they exited mining. They would be willing to do this in exchange for fees and currency generation.
Cunicula
Those are two great points. Miners leaving Bitcoin last, is like the captain being the last to leave a ship. Hence its really in their interest to keep the ship from not sinking until the end. I had been thinking along the same lines but did not come up with such a "easy" solution. One thing to consider is that in some countries, starting to mine could be the only or easiest way to get Bitcoins, if its not possible to send money to an exchange. A mix of Proof of work and Proof of stake, if possible would probably be the best. And a note. If a Pos only would had been the rule from the start, there would had been no coins thus no possibility to mine |
|
|
|
Got the phone yesterday and was in a hurry to demo sending coins  I took the backup picture and tried to paste it, what happened was that it pasted a code, so I assumed that the code was what the picture was supposed to contain. Than I uninstalled the app to not cause any problem with installing a new over an old. However, I was wrong stupid  Though I tried to repeat and it do seem like there is no way to save the image into memory. Or maybe there is some setting...Somewhere in the phone to allow access. This was on a Samsung Galaxy SII. |
|
|
|
First time I´m using it here. When I chose the scan QR code and scan a QRCode from my laptop screen, the barcode scanner finds a "plain text" but the adress field in the application is still empty. I have tried to send a small amount but I get an error message. Should the adress field be filled in with the adress from the QR code after the barcode scanner finds a bitcoin text?
Hmm. I just used the scanner to load an address into the address book, no problem. But to test your issue, I tried to scan an address for sending coins, and indeed, no text popped up in the field. In the past, this field got filled, so I'm guessing this is a new bug. Thanks for the bug report. This issue has been fixed in version 0.5.1b. Also in this release: Grammar and typo fixes for the Danish translation. Kudos to Fimp. That was quick! Really nice client! Though a password would be nice... Unfortunatly I was quick too at loosing my two coins in the wallet  (I was stupid...) What is the prefered way to upgrade the client? |
|
|
|
Its a competitor since you can send money for free. But will you be able to do escrow? Bitcoin if the Bip 16 ever gets implemented solves an old problem of trading, for free. Bitcoin is private. What made internet popular Porn... What can you now pay for anonymously with Bitcoins? Can you transfer a small coin or do micro transactions to your relative in Asia? Overnight transfers. Venmo offers the fastest bank transfers available anywhere. Request a transfer to your bank account, and the money will be there the next morning. Bitcoin is faster than Venmo... There is still a huuuuge market for Bitcoin |
|
|
|
Yes I agree, Keep it simple and to the point, let them do the digging. I love your service since I like your product/offers but I hope you will take Bitcoin here soon.(Some valuable feedback, why you like them. Short and to the point. Dont give them a escape reason such as, I understand that you dont have it because...Save it for your reply to their reply and than give them a reason for not waiting.) It simpler and I dont like to pay for creditcard fees. (Why you want it.) When will you add it? It should be easy.(As if it was natural that they should and they are incompetent if they dont ) Its cheaper for everyone.(Thats a great selling sentence.) Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
First time I´m using it here. When I chose the scan QR code and scan a QRCode from my laptop screen, the barcode scanner finds a "plain text" but the adress field in the application is still empty. I have tried to send a small amount but I get an error message. Should the adress field be filled in with the adress from the QR code after the barcode scanner finds a bitcoin text?
|
|
|
|
No offense, but this is a pretty silly hack to fix the problem. Make it more centralized and concentrate even more power to the bitrich? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64637.0Here I describe the early musings of a "heuristic" approach... Heuristics: All clients agree that competing blocks will have priority weight based on number of transactions, average age of coins in transactions, and other factors. Would it not be possible to make proof of stake one of those factors? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
