However... I don't think the standard software will let you spend it until it has at least 1 confirmation.
Sure, I'm not really that interested in client limitations though, since there will be plenty of clients with different features. I'm interested in the theory of bitcoin and the protocol, and this was just a random question that popped up in my head. |
|
|
|
|
Lets say my friend calls me and needs some money fast. I send him some money from my smart phone, he recieves it and says thanks. Then he wants to spend it on whatever he needed it for. Assume that he spends it before he gets any confirmations, is it possible for both of our transactions end up in the same block?
|
|
|
|
|
This is like trying to back silver with gold. It makes no sence, and furthermore, you will only create an arbitrage opportunity for savvy investors that will profit from you.
|
|
|
|
The metaphor you are using doesn't really work. You could sorta simulate the behavior that you are talking about by making a new key, sending half of your coins to it, then copying it to the flash drive and erasing from the main computer. But that doesn't do what you want either, because a stolen key remains useful to the thief for as long as there are coins in the chain that can be controlled by it. An attacker with your key can steal your coins at any time, even when you think you are safe because your flash drive is unplugged.
If the program created a new wallet file and keys, moves coins to that wallet, and quickly move them both (new wallet and new keys) to an external drive, and I quickly unplug that drive... That wouldn't leave much of a window of vulnerability, would it? If that is possible, I think it would be of enormous use to end-users who might have enough bitcoins to consider putting them in a safety deposit box or other kind of safe. I actually proposed something like this earlier. But even messing around with multiple wallet files is too messy and risky for the average user (lots of risk for confusion and over-writes). So rather than creating new wallet files, you would create bitcoin containers, which is basically a small wallet with just one key pair and a different file ending (maybe *.btc) to distinguish it from the regular wallet. So to create a btc container you could have a menu somewhere in the client saying "create bitcoin container", then you would choose the amount for the container, and then where to save it. The amount would be drawn from your regular wallet and sent to the randomly created adress of the new file. If you take this file offline directly, all the bitcoins in it would be safe as long as your computer were not already compromised. For maximum ease of use the client could even recognize *.btc files, and if you try to open them on a computer with the client installed it could ask you if you wanted to add them to your main wallet. This would make it really easy to backup and restore your bitcoins, without having to touch your wallet file, creating a new one or moving it around. This also serves some other purposes, like sending bitcoins over e-mail to someone who hasn't given you an adress and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Considering what happened this weekend I haven't really wanted to bother MagicalTux with this issue yet. But I still feel like I need to get some input on what to do right now, since I really don't want this to get lost in the mess.
Basically, I withdrew almost $800 to my European bank account from Mt Gox about 2 weeks ago (Thursday, I think) and I still haven't recieved them. I meant to e-mail Mt Gox yesterday, but considering what happened I decided that my mail would just get lost in the mess, and that I would be in the way of cleaning it up. But now the claim page is up and accounts are about to get recovered so I really need to think about this. What would you do? I'm thinking of mailing them as soon as I get my account back, since it feels kind of pointless before then. Do you think they will actually have time to look into this right now? I really just want to make sure that this issue doesn't fall between the chairs.
|
|
|
|
|
This is just anonymous bragging imo. An early adopter that wants to be on the top100 bitcoinaires list and decided to gather all his funds at the same adress.
|
|
|
|
It does so because it's recommended to use a new adress for every transaction. Your old adresses are still valid though.
Yes, but why? Main reason is privacy. If you only use one adress and that adress is somehow linked to your person, then every single transaction you ever made would be public. If an adress is compromised now, only a fraction of your activity will be known. |
|
|
|
Question 2: Why does the client create a new address every time I receive coins?
It does so because it's recommended to use a new adress for every transaction. Your old adresses are still valid though. |
|
|
|
if gavin reminds the cia to tell congress to take back the power to coin currency, i support his trip. fuck the federal reserve being a private company. i want that shit run by congress members. Yeah. Fuck the FED's moneyprinting out of thin air. If only we could let those trustworthy politicians do it instead.  |
|
|
|
Regarding mental value of bitcoins, I donīt agree that much. Software is not tangible, the same as bitcoins, but that does not mean that software is just a mental concept. Software is something real that renders a service. BitCoins are real and also render a monetary service, and thatīs enough to qualify as money (no need of regression theorem). There is still need for a regression theorem to explain how bitcoin became (or potentially will become if you don't think it is) money. Without the regression theorem, you have no explanation of the current $30 prices on Mt gox. The regression theorem explains to us that "exchange value" of any commodity or money, need to have a historical reference of past prices. No one would buy a $30 bitcoin if they hadn't seen what others were prepared to pay for them.
I don't think owning it for fun is a weak argument in this case. There seem to be plenty of people here which are interested enough in the crypto and p2p technologies to participate in the project as a hobby to satisfy there technological interest.
Regression Theorem requires a previous economic use. Owning or using something just for fun or hobby (no intention at all to pay for it or to sell it) is not within economics. In austrian theory it is. If it's a part of human action, it's economics. |
|
|
|
|
In short, the problem seem to be that my client believes it has broadcasted a transaction to the network while the network doesn't seem to have recieved it. So how do I "re-broadcast" this to the network?
It's a 33 BTC transaction to 13L7sQqXELU8xuwBjMqb8uDUqNojtpiHY btw if anybody wants to look it up.
Edit: I should really search first. Anyway, I found another thread that says the client will try to resend the transaction every couple of days though. This is kind of bad though since the transaction is going to Mt Gox and the adress is only usable for 24h.
I'll try to obsessively restart my client as mentioned in the other thread and hope it works, but if it doesn't I think this really needs to be solved before the Mt Gox adress expires.
Edit2: Yes, it does seem like obsessive restarts solves the problem :-)
|
|
|
|
@rahl & @mother of another
It is very weak because with arguments like that everything would comply with the regression theorem. Mises developed the regression theorem b1ecause of his rejection to fiat and credit currencies oposed to what he believed to be "sound money". But in the real world we use credit as currency like it or not, and we use it because of its monetary utility, not becuase of the law, taxes or any value set by decree.
In fact most credit or fiat currencies are very weak as store of value, and appart from that, the market will set the value of the currency, regardless of what value the issuer tries to set at the begining or during the life of the currency.
In order for something to become money in a free market it also needs the properties of good money. Fiat could never become money because it lacks the neccessary properties. It easily counterfitable (look at the government), and it's not durable for two things. In theory though, if it did had the right properties it probably would evolve into money without government support. Fiat even has some physical commodity value (the use of the paper), unlike bitcoin which only have some mental commodity value. |
|
|
|
Thank you for paying my vacation this year.  |
|
|
|
|
When did this happen? I actually made the exact same mistake when transfering a pretty reasonable sum of money to them. Fortunately for me, I could edit the transaction on my internet bank since it hadn't been sent yet. See if you can do the same, and if you can't, call your bank and hope it hasn't gone through yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Jerfelix, your solution is actually quite interesting to me. Is there any protection against spam transactions in the backend? I mean, it doesn't really matter if an attacker can only spend 10 BTC at a time if he can do it a hundred times per second.
I'll give this thread another bump too, to see if anyone else may have something to say.
|
|
|
|
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/06/06/bitcoins-four-objections/The bias is obvious with statements like: "The unbridgeable gap here is the transition from being used by a small group of hobbyists in barter to being used by financial institutions and the man on the street as a proper money." I think he means currently existing "financial institutions" and MY "proper money" Maybe we can help him as a gold/BTC trader. I left him this response: I really think this is a misunderstanding of the regression theorem. As I understand it, the regression theorem can only be used to explain the exchange value of a good that is being used in indirect exchange. It can not be used to disqualify any good from becoming money once it has actually established an exchange value. Even Rothbard said that once a good has exchange value, it does no longer need a use value, quote "On the other hand, while money had to originate as a directly useful commodity, for example, gold, there is no reason, in the light of the regression theorem, why such direct uses must continue afterward for the commodity to be used as money" (http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMA12.html).
Bitcons have an exchange value today and is being used in indirect exchange to some degree. I don't think there is anyway to deny that. So the only thing we can do with the regression theorem here, is to apply it to bitcoin and trace back it's (still somewhat limited) current exchange value in time to see where it originates from.
So bitcoin has an exchange value today since it had an exchange value yesterday. It had one yesterday since it had one the day before that and so on. If we go far enough back in time we will come to the first bitcoin exchange that ever took place (a 10.000 BTC pizza as I understand it). Why someone would actually exchange a pizza for bitcoins with no exchange value we can only guess, but reasonably the ownership of bitcoins gave him some sort of utility. According to the regression theorem (as I understand it), this very first transaction is where all of todays bitcoin value originates from. Bitcoins had some use value to someone, and this was enough to also give it an exchange value.
I think austrians should be very excited with bitcoin. It does not derive it's value from any other good (I've heard some people call it a dollar proxy). Bitcoin is the regression theorem in action, from the beginning.It doesn't seem to be at the web site though. Does he read through the comments before accepting them? |
|
|
|
|
That is expected behavior. It is recommended to use a new recieving adress for every transaction for better privacy. The standard client does this automatically for you. I don't know it there is a way to turn it off though.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
