Just paying my respects to Satoshi. Great entity, great idea, sadly bitcoin is damaged and will probably die unless a hard fork happens.
Nonsense. I wish it was non-sense sadly it isn't... You are free to create your own forked version of bitcoin-qt client in five minutes and use it in the current network to broadcast/relay transactions, nobody can stop you, it's exactly what Bitcoin is all about. If some developers are able to change things in the way many people here imagined, nobody would have used Bitcoin in the first place. But miners can stop the transaction from being put into the block... and people can stop relaying the transaction. FUD!
You can still send a satoshi if ---
1. You mine your own block, or
2. At least one miner agrees to mine the tiny transaction for you.
Now this is non-sense let me get about $100,000 worth of ASIC and do that. Now it is getting crazy! |
|
|
|
Can't you use another client? I'm my understanding that only the newest Bitcoin-qt client cannot send the smaller digits. Electrum, Armory, and all the others still can. Right?
No cause it affects miners and miners control the network. |
|
|
|
Call it non-sense I call it censoring it is great that a good media outlet has reported this correctly Thank you Bitcoin magazine, lets SAVE BITCOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Lets get this list started, I want to know who I will be supporting.
|
|
|
|
Instead of being here, maybe actually try and figure out the blockchain size problem correctly, without censorship.
The word censorship loses meaning if you erroneously apply it to everything you don't like. People can create txoutputs which cost more in fees to spend than they provide in bitcoins. This results in an increase in the perpetual unprunable data and the working set size of full nodes, and people use these outputs to also force all bitcoin users to carry around non-bitcoin data. Making the default behavior to not mine the creation of new outputs that can't be economically spent directly addresses the issue of outputs which are uneconomical to spend. No censorship means I want to send 0.00000001 BTC to someone, if I am using the 0.8.2 Client then I can't. That is censorship. Or that by default your making it so miners are towards what you guys think is best. Instead of trying to figure out how to maybe make the blockchain smaller or use a different database, you just go "Easy fix is to block these transactions" Well that is just sad, that satoshi had faith in Gavin and he is letting all of us down. Now you claim he is making a market, but shouldn't the miners be doing that on there own, Gavin should have no hands on with that unless it is a bug fix. You all need to re-read the papers, cause your killing bitcoins AS WE KNOW IT. |
|
|
|
|
Gavin has an ego and it needs to be under control, he is doing interviews now instead of fixing the blockchain bloat the correct way, not thru censorship of transactions. WELCOME TO BITCOIN BANKING!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this we need to fork, bitcoin was once known for the small transactions, and they want to take that away. Gavin has an ego and it needs to be taken under control. This is ridiculous this is a fix because they don't want to spend time trying to fix the bloat of the blockchain thru censorship!
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I can license you some of my programs I use behind my scenes to make bitcoind a lot more secure on a stock bitcoind. PM me if interested.
|
|
|
|
Spam is the wrong word, it made people make transactions. And it took only one.
It is an unnecessary transaction thou? so I would classified that as spam. |
|
|
|
look for input please
I don't think you want input, my input would be don't use iframes, and work on CSS or something you just put a bunch of boxes and put a scripted timer and act like you made a great site. This is site horrible, worst bitcoin site I ever seen. |
|
|
|
Total time logged in: 96 days, 22 hours and 9 minutes.
Yes I beat you all Total time logged in: 97 days, 19 hours and 30 minutes. |
|
|
|
How would an alt coin just for shortening addresses be a good thing? Sounds like something no one would ever use, considering firstbits is built right in to Bitcoin - no need to have yet another blockchain taking up space and CPU cycles on your computer. I'll agree with you that it is sad that a shortener like payb.tc is popular though!
Cause just like first bits you would have multiple sites with the blockchain and for the paranoid they would have the blockchain. Not everyone would have the blockchain for this. Man there's no spamming. But trust is gone and no one will use this again.
It does encourages spamming, read on firstbits works and you will see why. There was no trust in the beginning cause it is based off a decentralized database, we don't need to trust it. |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Firstbits do not create spam any more than any other transaction creates spam. They solve real problems in a simple and better way than any other address shortener ever has. Well all it solves is a easily verifiable database, that makes other people to verify it for you technically. I mean there are other ways to solve it, that don't spam the blockchain. Like centralized, unverifiable databases? You could make an alt coin, you could do crypto-functions and use data, to store the data in a centralized location and still make it verifiable without the database being released. I mean there are other ways. Sadly popular shorteners like payb.tc aren't any of those and it is popular so yeah. |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Firstbits do not create spam any more than any other transaction creates spam. They solve real problems in a simple and better way than any other address shortener ever has. Well all it solves is a easily verifiable database, that makes other people to verify it for you technically. I mean there are other ways to solve it, that don't spam the blockchain. |
|
|
|
We need a bitcointip feature on this forum, much like the one seen on Reddit. It would help important, knowledgeable members to provide their support/expertise with Bitcoin, and award real postings.
You know for a month I was into this idea (cause Erik put up a bounty mostly), and even built a prototype, and as I was testing it on my own dev machine smf board, it look was so annoying. It is so much easier to put your address in your signature and have people just send it to there. I don't see it really having the same effect as reddit, the reddit bot is more of an ad for bitcoins and reddit doesn't have a signature place, then a practical useful tool on a forum of bitcoin people. |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. |
|
|
|
Asking approximately double what I paid is my reward for having bought it first...if you buy it
and make it awesome, the value will increase exponentially and the price you pay today will
be negligible.
See that is your problem, you don't get a reward for buying a domain no one really wants. I give you $10 in BTC. That is all it is worth, maybe even less I am being nice. |
|
|
|
The current site owner no longer has interest in maintaining the site. I am talking to him about taking it over and getting it back up and running!
That will be nice if you could get the site back up. Firstbits are encouraging spamming the blockchain... So I think it is good it is gone. How so? Well the way a first bit is calculated is by it's place in the blockchain, so if an address isn't in the blockchain no firstbits can be correctly calculated. So lets say for very example purposes I had 1gh356 and you had 1gh354 if you gets coins to your address before me, then you would have 1gh35, and I would get 1gh356, even if my address was created before yours. That is why it is a verifiable system. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FirstbitsI guess I don't see how this leads to any large amount of blockchain spam. It may not but it is extra spam we don't need... |
|
|
|
|
Bitaddress.org, and you can import than into bitcoin-qt with a simple script but I would keep them in cold storage.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
