It would be extremely difficult to generate an 11 character case specific address with vanitygen, though not impossible.
edit: I tried with a bitcoin address, but not sure if it is working correctly for 2 GPUs
oclvanitygen.exe -d 0:0 -d 0:1 1BurnAddress
Difficulty: 9883693997182075238
[28.63 Mkey/s][total 486539264][Prob 0.0%][50% in 7588.9y]
Yeah, though that are GPU only. It might be way easier with Asics. I believe there were services for that too, though i did not find one yet. At least one could check how costly it would be. The ico is worth now only 0.15 bitcoins, which means the cost for creating such a vanity address must be lower than that since otherwise it would make more sense to mine properly with the hardware. So in case this is not a correct burn address after Earlz rules then the burn address should only be safe when the cost creating it would be low. Of course i assume that the transaction and address exists. I can't check yet. |
|
|
|
So can someone tell me how easy it would be to create a vanity address with the long word BurnAddress in it? I'm not sure but i think it would be pretty hard to create such a bitcoin address and i'm not sure if it would be easier for this coin. Since no block explorer exists yet and i do not have the wallet installed, can someone, maybe stoner19, check the public key of the burn address with getrawtransaction in the wallet console? A proper burn address that is provably unspendable should have a lot of zeros in its public key i think. See http://earlz.net/view/2014/10/22/0340/provably-spendable-altcoin-burn-addresses. I hope this solves correctly. For now i will wait and not release the coins to the issuer until this is cleared. |
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the nice reviews and for backing me when attacked.  Thanks for being fair.  i would like to call you to escrow a website deal. i pm'ed you the deal. looking forward to hearing from you I sent you the details... |
|
|
|
|
It's the 10th today. I would release the coins to the issuer in some hours. So i think everyone invested knew where he invested in and i think there is no reason to hold the funds back. Let me know if i missed something. Otherwise i will release the coins to the issuer in around 10 hours.
|
|
|
|
OP asked me to provide escrow service for the trade when the website was sold. I can do that and buyer and seller would negotiate the details of the deal, for example when i should release the coins to the seller. Happy bidding! |
|
|
|
you are right, seems BTC is loosing decentralization
but that just means... nothing can be decentralised for real Only primitive organisms. Worms for example. Ants have primitive centralization. They can build an anthill. People can work in fully centralized community. They are launching rockets to Mars. BTC lost its decentralization when some smart guy decided to mine on his video card and another clever guy organized a pool. The development of bitcoin was never decentralised, looking at it from a wider angle, the blockchain itself is a centralised system(the blockchain) on which we entrust the bitcoin economy. The meaning of decentralisation is that there is not a single entity but the blockchain itself, until there is someone who can make and overtake a mining rig so powerfull it will mine all the remaining blocks and will not share the technology. This will however result in a non trustworthy blockchain and the whole thing crumbles before the one investing so hard to gain control will have the biggest loss. "Now you're king of the mountain, but it's all garbage!" I disagree with how he expressed his opinion (doing an attack) about the whole Bitcoin getting centralized but I do agree to some extent that he is right, maybe right now it's not the case but in future the bigger pools will completely take control of the mining operation and then they'll make their own rules and that will again result in a non trustworthy blockchain and maybe these stress test are done by them to increase the miner's fee. I don't think this is how Satoshi envisioned the mining to be, I think it was meant to be completely decentralized and people mining from different parts of the world and not just from few mining farms. You mean the big mining companies. The pools that exist are practically only big companies that allow some small miners to take part. But they control the majority of the hashrate anyway. And yes, they have all the might. Which sounds pretty bad. Some years ago we had a lot of private miners. That is not the case anymore. Surprisingly satoshi foresaw that. I wonder why he did not see a problem in that. Decentralization is something different of a miner corporation, which we will see for sure. |
|
|
|
Please explain (or reference an explanation) as to why malleability features would be quite useful.
For example, anyonecanpay sighash flag allows arbitrary parties to add funds to a transaction. It's what makes lighthouse possible, but every time someone updates the transaction the txid changes. Do you say that this attack pattern became possible because of changes that were implemented into bitcoin to make the lightning network possible? |
|
|
|
The problem is that a known bug in the bitcoin protocol has festered for years. If the "core" developers had been doing their job, this problem would have been fixed long ago.
There are a dozen different malleability vectors in the protocol as originally designed; some are quite useful and important intentional features-- others are not. Though the harm from malleability is very moderate-- and because of the intentional features and the potential for ordinary double spends, wallets must have basically sane handling for it--, unwanted third party malleability is a nuisance. In Bitcoin Core's wallet the nuisance can be greatly mitigated by setting spendzeroconfchange=0. Because of it being a nuisance all of vectors for malleability except for one were blocked as non-standard transactions in Bitcoin Core years ago. The remaining one could not be simply blocked because it requires transactions to confine their signatures to a particular form-- low-S-- and all software was violating before the issue was known. Because of this applying that final constraint would have blocked almost all transactions on the network-- something not justified for a nuisance level attack. Bitcoin Core changed constrain its own transactions to this form in 2013 but it has taken a long time for other software to update themselves. Fortunately, the final remaining type of malleability was ever so slightly trickier to exploit, so people haven't been doing so at scale. In the meantime a proposal was made, as part of BIP62, for a v3 transaction type where parties creating transactions could opt into the protective behavior if they were recent enough to support it. Unfortunately BIP62 is fairly complex and no one outside of a small group of contributors to Bitcoin Core have cared at all about advancing it. So we've been breaking up parts of them and applying them to the consensus incrementally (e.g. BIP66). Current git master Bitcoin Core enforces the requirement for all transactions it relays or mines, once this is in a release and widely deployed it will end this irritation; but it will also block most transactions from small portion of the network on software which is out of date or hasn't been updated to produces anti-malleability-friendly low-S signatures (on the order of 5% of all transactions now; due to ongoing efforts to harass parties to fix their wallet software). I've called for assistance several times in identifying the origin of a list of lowS violating transactions in order to help speed deployment of this, but it seems that the Bitcoin community is a lot more interested in whining and throwing blame then stepping up and doing a little bit of the non-development work needed to get this deployed.  Thanks for explaining your view on the things gmaxwell. I think this attack can only help bitcoin. Showing if the attack vector is really a problem, pushing the funding of code to go against. I think the influence on the network is rather small anyway. |
|
|
|
when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?
Eat him maybe?  There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia. Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case). If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain. For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy). Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases! Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore.  Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives". getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life). I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority. Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too. but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago: https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country."" decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways. another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.htmlas for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society. http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623You are right, hard drugs are discussed too. Though like you state, with the younger generation growing up, there is a problem with that getting to the edge of at least being possible to achieve. I mean many people will be convinced with marijuana but hard drugs are an argumentation that most not can follow. Maybe it would need a small scale test to convince people. But even that sounds impossible at the moment. And yes, it would be interesting to see the results. |
|
|
|
You would short for free... for one minute. No. I would borrow 2-3 times the amount I need, and have the program recycle the borrowings constantly. There would be a steady, interest-free balance for long-term shorting. The only advantage one could get with that might be clearing out the loans so that your own, higher priced, loan will be taken. Yes, and in general push the market rate up, as not everyone keeps the Auto-lending feature on. But you would not be able to use these interest free balances. I mean you only can use it for margin trading. Then you would need to buy and sell so often that the fees for this bot would be enourmous. Way worse than any profit from the short term loan. |
|
|
|
Hm, i wonder why someone tries this.
Isn't it that the fees needed to include these transactions are higher than the outputs? No. You can set any fee. Nodes/miners either accept your tx or ignore it. Today we see that many miners do not confirm low-fees transactions. (Some do confirm txs with a fee 1 satoshi-per-byte) And many nodes on network still have them in their mempools I did not think that many nodes override the minimum fees, that, for example, are explain in bitcoin wiki. Maybe these miners include such transactions if no other transactions are available? But i surely would not do it. The bigger the block the slower it propagates and the higher the chance of getting your block orphaned. It does not make sense to take that risk for some satoshies. Though each to their own. |
|
|
|
when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?
Eat him maybe? There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia. Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case). If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain. For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy). Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases! Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives". getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life). I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority. Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too. |
|
|
|
Haha, I can guarantee Sebastian would not throw his account away for a measly .1 - .2BTC. While no one can easily prove if an account were sold or not I am pretty sure his was not. I can see why someone would be a little reluctant to hand over that sort of login info though. Mint: you need to prove this one way or another and giving him access does just that.
While I can understand the need for verification, I also understand the worries of handing over the account. Why don't you guys hold a TeamViewer session? If only the browser with the needed tab is open, no bitcoind running etc, this should be a way for both parties to be safe. Also, if screensharing is only used in TV, and Toes navigates through his account to the relevant places, there should be almost no risk involved for anybody. Just a thought. Yeah, it could be solved. And if not by letting another trusted forum member check it out. Though i would not want to use TeamViewer since i would fear of the risks being hacked, i believe the risk is not so low. Am i wrong? Anyway... better not to risk anything since i'm not only responsible for one person. Though if some other trusted person wants to check... |
|
|
|
so the question is can i have my money back
And the answer i gave you all the time is yes, if no problems arise, after some time. And i told you now the 15th october. If nothing bad happens till then you will get your coins then. question was wheres my moolah Well I don't think you have established that the money in question is in fact yours. However as of last night the money in question/disputed BTC/claimed BTC was in the escrow address and I assume that it is still there. I would also question how exactly that you received ICO coins if you have received a refund of your BTC (or are requesting a refund) Got my bitrush thanks @DEV hope this new start brings many riches Yes, of course the coins are still in escrow address. And it is a mystery to me where and how bitrush coins were distributed. I posted several questions in the second ICO thread but no answer yet. In the meanwhile price crashed on yobit. I think the scam came to an end now. It's a bit strange that MintJelly got bitrush coins. And he doesn't even complain that the price crashed. It looks a lot like he is in on the scam since he promoted it even in thread 2. Here my unanswered questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1199392.msg12633153#msg12633153Many claimed to received their bitrush but there are voices that didn't receive. So i wonder if there were bitrush distributed at all. |
|
|
|
when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?
Eat him maybe? There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia. Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case). If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain. For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy). Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases! Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives". |
|
|
|
when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?
Though i think it's not about the mercy to give someone a fast painless death. It's more about deaths that might end a life that in fact could be a rich life when death would not have been chosen. Well, i think, if a person went through a thouroughly psychological examination where several doctors agree that this person will not change his mind or so. If there really is no hope. Then it might make sense. But otherwise society would be at fault ending lives out of a whim. |
|
|
|
If there is a group of person which should have the right to end their life with doctor-assistance, it is the faggots . Less of this shot can just benefit ! Oh well... a nice dose of homophobia was what was needed in here ... somehow i know you will beat around when someone asks you if you are homosexual. All this fear... Maybe in some years you become sexually stable so that you don't feel the need to show that you are not homosexual, by attacking homosexuals that way. You're taking the problem by the wrong side... I do not hate them because I am too. I just know how things have to be. In sexuality, it's male and female, not male and male ! That's this way world has been created ! If I follow how you think, I hate niggers because I am ? Be sure not ! No, i did not say that you are homosexual. Some of the persons that go against homosexuals are faggots too, though they hate it. But i know that practically every heterosexual man fears being seen as homosexual. That's something you simply don't want to be. Though that goes away at some point. So you come from a religious side? Well, stories written by people in the past should not decide how reality is. Reality shows that homosexuality is there by animals as well as with humans. And i came to the conclusion that it is a perfectly fine type of love. It's not that they decided to be that way. So if they were born that way, then, as a religious person, you might need to think that god created them that way. No problem. I think you do not born gay. That's why, like every mental illness it's not God creation but an ill that you catch, like Alzheimer's or schizophrenia. I know that mindset and you can be sure that there were a lot of religious groups that tried to heal that "sickness". The simply result is that it is no sickness. It can't be healed. It is what it is. So if it can't be healed, this is an incurably ill like AIDS. The solution to such a problem is teaching at school that it is bad and unnatural. Unfortunately, most of the time they teach the inverse  ... Simply because you will not reach more than pushing some persons into feelings of feeling bad and wrong about their sexuality. You can't do anything if someone does not get attracted by the other sex. You won't change it. The only thing you can do is make him or her feel bad and wrong. For a thing that surely is not an illness. There is no bad harm to the body or anything that would meet the description of aan illness. It is love in another way. Nothing more or less. The only problem coming from it is the problem some religious people have with it. And religion was often enough very bad in deciding what is correct and what not. Since even though religious books were claimed coming from god all the time... at the end they are books written by people that believed doing what god wants. Surely that is no base to justify that homosexuality is bad or an illness. Though religions achieved to turn sex into something bad, sinfull and thing to avoid anyway. That alone shoul show that religions really can't be taken as a guideline of what is right or wrong. Religions simply were created by persons, these persons usually had a very antique view of the world. We would still throw rocks at people having free sex when we surely would believe that these books were written by god. Well, some believe so and join isis. But the sane part of the world knows that this can't be the way. You seem to be a non-religious guy and that's not a problem for me. I think that homosexuality is bad because it's against Nature (or God's law if you prefer), because it stops some people to have child and because they're simply not men anymore. It's not that i not believe in god. I think it's logical that the total amount of life existing has a conscious of itself, which could be named god. You know, even the citizens of a country work like neurons like in a brain and they form a kind of big will of the masses. So it's not hard to imagine god exists. Though i don't trust religions, books about religions and so on. They are all written by man and even those interpreting are man. There is no religion that directly has god speaking to you. That would be an interesting religion indeed. I don't think it is against nature. It's part of life and only humans allow themselfes to mark some things as bad and some as right. Mostly they mark those things bad that hurt others. Gay persons don't hurt anybody. They don't have a problem with that besides that that others might have a problem with it. Sexuality is made bad in many religions or restricted. Though it is a perfectly natural thing to do. And surely sexuality is not only for having childs. Even some monkeys have a very rich sexual live and it is not for having childs all the time. It's because they enjoy Sex. So besides gay man not getting children, it still would be fine. I mean otherwise you would need to mark everyone wrong and sick who decides that he doesn't want kids. So that is no reason to blame someone being sick. |
|
|
|
Hm, i wonder why someone tries this. Isn't it that the fees needed to include these transactions are higher than the outputs? If you try to do it with a lower fee than miners would accept then it will be useless. Or the one collecting the funds owns a mining farm and knows that these transactions will be included. But that makes no sense too since a miner of that size would not bother with pennies. And he would lose coins by including these transactions instead transactions that pay a fee. So the one doing is makes a thing that does not look smart to me. |
|
|
|
What does the success rate now means on their order page? Ir wasn't there before. Anyways, they seem to have removed any useful, step-by-step user guide on how to easily/best use their system, I don't know for whatever reason. Now I even don't dare to ask why they don't feature their fees structure on a prominent place. I have no clue. Success rate doesn't seem to be accurate in my limited usage cases, as all orders have gone through at 20% (when it said 75% success rate). It's probably all-inclusive, though. And afaik, people from the U.S. have the highest success rate. Those from more exotic countries will be dragging down the % of success. Makes sense . Random question, but do you guys think Purse could survive if Amazon started accepting Bitcoin? Yes, of course, since purse is all about the dicounts they give. There would be more painless ways to order. Even some sellers offering 10% discount directly. No waiting time for purse buyers. But purse still exists because of their high discounts. This. Now if Amazon offered competitive discounts, it might negate the effects of Purse, but that's a long shot. Amazon could never compete with discounts of 25% to 50% i believe. The margin they have is already built for mass sales. So it is impossible for them to give discounts in that area. Though i'm not sure how often sales with these high discounts are happening on purse. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone is simply testing how well the network can react on that. I think the nodes still need to keep all these transactions in RAM. Which might be a problem.
I wonder if it is related to the max blocksize limit debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
