That video is painful to watch.
This guy is on video basically demonstrating his ignorance of Bitcoin.
He incorrectly names Satoshi an "anonymous hacker" when satoshi is simply a programmer-- not a hacker.
Secondly the guy says he wouldn't trust an anonymous hacker, but the source code is open source so there's nothing hidden about bitcoin to "trust".
This is just one of those people who don't get it and will simply be mowed over by this evolution in money. Some people will never get it, like Warren Buffet (and this guy). They're too old to get with the new.
Typical old dumbasses talking about Bitcoin when they just should stick to oil while it lasts. Jesus Christ, only when the generation of all those old idiots die we'll be free from their deprecated opinions and their equally deprecated assets. They have literally no idea on what's going on, somewhat amusing to see. I can't believe such illiterate morons got so wealthy. He is only a few years older than Satoshi probably is. And about 8 years younger than Hal Finney was...so don't lump all of that age group together. :-) (Admittedly he does look closer to Buffett's age (84) but he is "only" 51-ish ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Mallaby). He does look like an insufferable prick though.) |
|
|
|
that is a whole new level of stupidity..  an example of someone that closed a book after reading only the first and the last page and wrote a review about it like he knew it all I think perhaps the first word and last word, not even the first page. He is an apologist for the centralized Federal Reserve, on the payroll of the powerful. It isn't backed by an "anonymous hacker" it is backed by math and the protocol and all the people involved in the ecosystem. All voluntary instead of forced like the central banks. |
|
|
|
Isnt there a lighter version for this to create nodes?
Because the blockchain is over 30 gigs now.
Not to create a full node. There are plenty of other wallets that don't need to download the entire block chain, but don't create a full node. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your responses, how much does bootstrap.dat reduce the time?
With 0.10.0 you should not use the bootstrap. It will more than likely be slower to use the bootstrap than the vanilla 0.10.0 I tried it on 0.10.0 beta 2 (I think 2 back at the end of 2014/early 2015) and it was quite fast (in comparison to pre 0.10.0) on a server that was pretty well connected with an SSD. |
|
|
|
yes but in fact this where it can lead to, We are going to be the ruin of our own demise because we all wan to make a political statement. we are going the wrong way about it. Im sure in the end the kill switch will happen and they will find a way to attack P2P that are dangerous or a threat to whomever.
There is nothing wrong with control and there is nothing wrong with freedom, but too much of both of them are dangerous.
They didnt ban bitcoin cause they can make it illegal. How much p2p we really need?
Control of yourself is fine. Why should anyone trust someone else to control them more than they control themselves? That is the basis of all totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
|
Clamping down on freedom all over the world in the name of "security." And Bitcoin and crypto increase their importance daily.
|
|
|
|
so i'm totally fucked?
If you can't get them to send another payment perhaps you are. If you were selling them something, and haven't already sent it, don't send it. I am curious as to what wallet are you using? I am surprised your wallet didn't warn you that it was based on a long transaction chain that included unconfirmed/potential transactions that were conflicted. If you have a long chain of transactions that haven't confirmed, it is like "the check is in the mail." |
|
|
|
Can someone help me understand this situation a bit more? https://blockchain.info/tx-index/81601637I was supposed to receive 92.85$ in BTC from 14YUJhQ8oT3YEuqyHWP9XGG4cBLsgWynVj As you can see on the right. But that transaction has disappeared from both his, and my transaction history. I can follow the output history on the left, and see that he somehow was paid with double spent money and that's why my transaction got clogged. But the part I am very confused by is what happens next or how do I fix this? It appears my transaction has disappeared, but I don't think he got his money back? If he didn't get it back, and it never confirms(goes2me) then how does he get it back or the transaction go through? I am using BitCoin Core if that matters, and this was my receiving address. https://blockchain.info/address/14W25e9yWK3ReBWSHnjV6Jgorn5JC6UwxQshorena explained it nicely, but your transaction was dependent on other transactions. It seems someone was either trying to scam you or trying to scam the person who was supposed to be sending you the bitcoin. As far as "how does he get it back" - bitcoin is not really "in" an address, that is an abstraction and it isn't ever in limbo between one address and another. It is based on inputs and outputs, so he won't have to "get it back" since it doesn't go anywhere. It is either spent or unspent. So if the long chain of transactions was all in his control, he never lost the money. If the long chain was from someone sending to him, then he'd have to talk to the person who sent him those transactions. Right now it looks like only way to fix it is to have him send you bitcoin that isn't dependent on other transactions that are double-spend attempts since as shorena noted, one of the transactions in the sequence has many confirmations. |
|
|
|
The numbers wouldn't really surprise me as they are pretty much the easiest to purchase and sell bitcoins for Americans. Convenient as well.
Same here. Had one purchase that didn't go through instantaneously, by the time I had customer service one the phone, already had BTC in my account. Top notch company. Bitcoin was created to avoid centralisation and bring unity though equality of services. And now we have central services like coinbase getting bigger every minute. I am not entirely sure it is a good or bad, it sure is convenient but in the end, eventually focusing resources in one service like that can bite us in the ass. I think a key difference is that there is no forced centralization - such as with a central bank, a certificate authority, or a domain registrar (e.g. what Namecoin attempts to remedy). |
|
|
|
Are you using boostrap files for initial sync ?
Hopefully not if 0.10.0 is being used. r3wt, what version are you using? |
|
|
|
their service might impress customers. But they prefer only US peoples and never bothered about other country peoples for buy/sell BTC
They say they are available in 24 countries. See: https://www.coinbase.com/global:-) |
|
|
|
... and you will see that the "OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG" suffix is missing.
I do not believe this is the problem, unfortunately. The final 105 bytes would be the redeemScript. 00
[OP_FALSE]
47
[PUSH 71 BYTES]
3044022001f4524959d67cbb94ec3b467701855994a28105190a116402996f82fdbf210b02205579e4a9fb3a79619aab36e839140907924afa9aedc56f0d0a4ffa91e16ae71501
[71 BYTES, Signature]
48
[PUSH 72 BYTES]
304502210089d971e533932f4052c03c888525ba5d41f833a7e0ecef565e4106ef2dd4caff022060aa16868d08c85f7864b5be2b3f3d715b3aff15e36aeb47d48d7182684e2fae01
[72 BYTES, signature]
4c
[OP_PUSHDATA1]
69
[PUSH 105 BYTES]
5221029c17ce9a40a71d21cf53844704dd611c85a2dc0072e22c9f14a485e6bb4ad4f42102b732df6d447e7fc04466522ebefe48fd07d9b5810ca1f572985f4386e36d5d132103e5c93bd1fbf87b30b093c2613b5c6ad7727005fd39fbee95136368c6918f13c053ae
[105 BYTES, redeemScript] Edit: And here is the redeemScript decoded. 52
[OP_2]
21
[PUSH 33 BYTES]
029c17ce9a40a71d21cf53844704dd611c85a2dc0072e22c9f14a485e6bb4ad4f4
[33 BYTES, pubkey]
21
[PUSH 33 BYTES]
02b732df6d447e7fc04466522ebefe48fd07d9b5810ca1f572985f4386e36d5d13
[33 BYTES, pubkey]
21
[PUSH 33 BYTES]
03e5c93bd1fbf87b30b093c2613b5c6ad7727005fd39fbee95136368c6918f13c0
[33 BYTES, pubkey]
53
[OP_3]
ae
[OP_CHECKMULTISIG] This is right. Note the 53 ae is the op_3 op_chechmultisig. See another example here: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#decodescript |
|
|
|
I have a Casacius Bar that I mined directly to from Eligius. It's loaded with fresh new coins. (Eligius doesn't pay from a wallet)
From experience I have to admit it's harder to spend new coin haha!
What makes it harder to spend them? Do you have to wait for more confirmations than the six required for normal transactions? I didn't think there would be any difference between new and old coins when spending them. Yes, the coinbase transaction takes 100 blocks to mature. (And the 6 transactions are not "required", btw. ;-) ) See: Bitcoins that are distributed by the network for finding a block can only be used after 100 confirmations e.g. 100 discovered blocks. The classic bitcoin client won't display the coins earned for solving a block until there are 120 confirmations.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_networkThe UTXO of a coinbase transaction has the special condition that it cannot be spent (used as an input) for at least 100 blocks. This temporarily prevents a miner from spending the transaction fees and block reward from a block that may later be determined to be stale (and therefore the coinbase transaction destroyed) after a block chain fork. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide |
|
|
|
1. Yes, the math has been done and discussed.
Just in case it wasn't quite clear, I was hoping for somebody to post what those chances actually were, or a link to a relevant and verified discussion with actual information on the topic. So far all I've come across is speculation about it. I was looking them up, if you search for "bitcoin address collision" you'll see links - like the two above. :-) |
|
|
|
Has anybody been able to work out the fractional chances of a collision with an existing bitcoin address?
Has anybody got any verifiable proof that it's been done in the past?
What hardware would be capable of even getting close to being able to generate enough addresses to cause a collision, and how would somebody trying to cause a collision notice that they've succeeded?
1. Yes, the math has been done and discussed. Edit: see eg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104461.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62.02. No (assuming you have a working RNG and non-buggy software. 3. None. If the address had been used they would see it. |
|
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times.
1. What gives anyone the right to take coins that aren't their's merely because they haven't "moved? Who decides the time? If it is implemented, it will be easy to write software to move them every so often. So what is the point?
2. It is a hard fork, but If you want to try, fork Bitcoin (block chain and code) and convince miners and users to switch. You'll find most people want the freedom to save if they want and not have their savings stolen by people who want to control how they use their coins. But you are welcome to try. It would be a good demonstration to give people the choice.
:-)
|
|
|
|
Getting this message although I have recently received a payout. The window has said out of sync 29days forever. What do I need to do to get my payout? My version is kind of old I think v0.8.3-beta Any thoughts?
Andy
Also noticed there is no current connection to bitcoin network, (not sure why). Settings are proxy IP 127.0.0.1 Port 9050 SOCKS version 5 Could this be my anti-malware causing this?
There is a known DOS attacks for your version, while that is possibly not the issue at hand, Id suggest you update to 0.10.0 first. Its also way faster at catching up on the blockchain. -> https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0As shorena says, update to 0.10.0 and let us know if that helps. Did you try running it over Tor previously? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
