|
Most likely it was one of the features that was consuming too much in the way of database resources so Theymos had to turn it off.
|
|
|
|
|
Making this thread sticky didn't achieve the intended result.
Making kiba a moderator (for a while) didn't achieve the intended result.
Maybe an SMF mod that rejects new threads whose title does not match the format?
|
|
|
|
Maybe he is from different time zone than you. Maybe try using a dictionary so that you make sure you understand the meaning of the words you're reading and writing? |
|
|
|
How come every article you post in this part of the forum has the wrong date format in the subject line? |
|
|
|
For the wallet to accept transactions with P2SH outputs, it'd have to know how to spend those outputs, and that would require it to know how to find the other keys and signatures which is highly app specific and usually relies on other protocols. Would it be that hard to check the P2SH version of every regular address it's already using? |
|
|
|
It would be almost trivial to implement— just bundle it, if nothing else. But I suspect the ship has already sailed for this. We now have miners with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment which run it off a raspberry pi. Who send their coins directly to coinbase to be sold. Who have never used a Bitcoin client of any kind (except for the coinbase webwallet), certainly not a full node, and they have no concept of why they'd want to. The name they trust most in mining is operator of their chosen pool— who could be robbing them blind, but maybe isn't— who has a financial interest to the tune of— say— >$700,000/month in keeping miners on their pool, and who tells them they don't need to worry about things, and who is believed because far too many people— including you— overly fixate on "51%" and ignore the fact that someone who controls 25% hashpower can reorg 6 confirms with 5% success or 2 with 31% success. Never mind that the question of parties with large hashpower using it to harm other Bitcoin users is not hypothetical, as its recently been done— achieved huge profits in the process— and seems to have resulted in no negative consequences for the involved pool, just a lot of victim blaming, and some months delayed promises that the responsible parties have been sacked. Perhaps many miners could be moved to running something p2pool like if doing so was easy, but just running a Bitcoin node is no longer so easy that it can be treated as costless, with now gigabytes of space wasted by pointless dust-scale messaging transactions. Transactions that the Bitcoin users didn't care about because they weren't running nodes and because many people had a monetary interest in being able to wastefully use the systems resources in that manner. In any case, I don't think the problems you're facing are technical. The problem is that participants in the system don't know or care. I think the problem is also that to some extent people who should know better are not paying attention to the mining ecosystem and don't realize what a mess things are, and some who do are tempering their statements because saying "Hey everyone, the Bitcoin security assumptions are basically invalid in the current environment" too loudly may be adverse to the value of their holdings. If you can figure how to educate people on the subject in a world where people have multimillion dollar a year income streams that depend on hashers not being educated and while other people own hundreds of millions of dollars of Bitcoin whos value might be eroded if the concerns become too wide spread— then I think progress could be made. Otherwise? ::shrugs:: [I don't even intend to suggest intentional misconduct due to the monetary interest, only: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."] The problem with mining is that it's still driven by the wrong economic incentives because the block reward still dwarfs the transaction fee revenue, because the transaction rate is still minuscule. The current situation is a self-fulfilling prophesy brought about by everyone who screamed to block progress on needed changes to allow the transaction rate to scale to a size where the perverse incentives reverse. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain the deposit part of the system, how and where to a user deposits money? Or the company running the server should handle this part?
OT doesn't work that way. It doesn't handle money - just obligations. Another way to think of it is that OT handles liabilities, not assets. For example, if you are running a Bitcoin wallet on your own computer (Bitcoin-Qt, Multibit, Armory, etc) and you have a balance, there is no counterparty risk associated with them: that balance represents an asset you control. If you deposit your bitcoins on Mt Gox then you don't have bitcoins any more, you have a promise from Mt Gox to allow you to redeem a balance in their system for bitcoins - your balance on Mt Gox is their liability. So, if you've got a system that creates liabilities, then OT is superior way to track these liabilities compared to the alternatives. Returning to the previous example, Mt Gox doesn't use anything more complicated than a MySQL table to track its liabilities. They don't give you cryptographically secure receipts, and if they choose to alter your balance (via a simple database command) there's nothing you could do about it. You can't even really prove that they owe you any bitcoins at all, at least for reasonable definitions of "prove". Mt Gox isn't special in this way - all existing Bitcoin websites work pretty much the same way. Your original question is backwards then. OT should be used where third parties are already depositing funds in order to add better security and functionality to the situation. |
|
|
|
The imaginary economic growth thanks to controlled inflation is what brought us to the information age. Using a deflationary monetary unit worldwide will just bring humanity back to neo-feudalism with the bitcoin whales being even crueler than the current elite who are at least kept in check by politicians. I sincerely doubt that bitcoin or deflationary cryptocurrencies will replace fiat altogether, it will just remain a complementary niche market. Troll harder next time. |
|
|
|
When you think of it: Bitcoin is just as silly. The scarcity is artificial, just as with diamonds. What makes Bitcoin attractive is that nobody can create new units arbitrarily and spend them, diluting everybody else's purchasing power. Inflation is so destructive because of what it does to economic incentives - why work to create useful products and services to earn currency if someone else can just spend newly-printed units and bid up the price of everything you want to buy? This effect is present in Bitcoin too, but fortunately it's something that diminishes over time via a known schedule. |
|
|
|
|
The easiest way to build things on Linux is to run Gentoo.
|
|
|
|
EDIT: akamai is an organizational unit of twitter now?
These content delivery servers are all over the world. Maybe there's a reason for a large network of those to have certificates from different authorities and your ip range got switched to a different one or something. That's probably what it is. |
|
|
|
Tried even your plugin , seems ok for me. Certificate Patrol can't tell you if a cert is valid or not, but what it does do is remember which CA signed a certificate and warn you of something changes in a way that looks suspicious. |
|
|
|
the cert is just for *.twimg.com, though. It seems I'm getting yet another one for that domain: Cybertrust Public SureServer SV CA  The really strange thing is that Chrome sees the expected Verisign certificate, while Firefox is being given one signed by a different CA. |
|
|
|
Is this something I don't have a clue what it is? Yup.
Please enlighten a fellow bit coiner who hasn't yet recover from the new year party.
Something interesting is happening. When I visit Twitter with one web browser, I get an SSL connection with a certificate signed by VeriSign, the same one that I've always seen from Twitter. However, when I visit Twitter using Firefox, then the connection is inexplicably signed from a new CA. It's almost as if there's something in the middle of the connection trying to do something nefarious. |
|
|
|
Keep hodling folks. This is Bitpay's problem only. So I tried to follow that link and then this happened:  Is that what I think it is? |
|
|
|
Maybe about 60% red candles.
a.k.a barely distinguishable from random chance. |
|
|
|
Taxes are really payments to the government in exchange for services. That sentence is morally repugnant. Taxes are not payments for services any more than rape is a form of dating. Payments for services are negotiated and voluntary. Taxes are unilaterally imposed and violently enforced. Taxes are about a minority of society gaining control of the enforcement apparatus and imposing their preferences on everybody else, using violence if necessary. If you want to talk about non-coercive ways to fund hospitals, roads, etc, then that's great but don't call it taxation. |
|
|
|
You were generous to give him a 4. I've seen a lot worse before. |
|
|
|
Quantum computers are hyped about for decades, yet no substantial proof of their plausibility has been demonstrated. Are you suggesting a machine that's capable of factoring 21 into 3 and 7 at about 50% of the time isn't anything to get excited about yet? |
|
|
|
That concept "the rest of the world will save us" really doesn't seem to be working anymore. I think it's not working because most of the worlds governments/regulatory systems are as dysfunctional as the US system. You've got it wrong: the rest of the world will save themselves, and Bitcoin is going to help them do it. The dysfunction of other world governments is an advantage here. Outside the G7 governments aren't nearly as capable of maintaining the illusion of benevolence. People in Latin America, Asia, and Africa are very comfortable operating in the informal economy and there's no particular stigma toward doing it. In fact, most of the world's population operates in the informal economy as a matter of survival. Outside certain pampered population in Europe and North America, you won't find people declaring that Bitcoin has to shed its black market enabling properties in order to reach mainstream adoption - those will be its primary selling points for the other six billion people in the world. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
