Another more fun option imho is to encourage altruistic behavior by criminals to use stolen btc to send dust to all known active addresses and then all those wallets become dirty. Not sure anyone would actually do that but it would be fun.
You would need to turn off the dust rule and tx fee temporarily for that. Sort of like a jubilee. It wouldn't work the way you think it does. Sending someone a dust output in no way interferes with any future spending they might choose to do. That's like saying that if somebody throws a penny at you and it lands in your pocket all of a sudden you'll have problem spending your $100 bill. |
|
|
|
There are software tools coming, however, which will have the functionality you are looking for. It's called "multisig".
You can do this on the current version of bitcoin-qt and bitcoind and electrum. From a convenient and intuitive GUI, or via RPC commands? |
|
|
|
|
For one thing, there's no such thing as an "account" in Bitcoin.
There are software tools coming, however, which will have the functionality you are looking for. It's called "multisig".
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Days Destroyed not as high as previous ATH at $266. Less coins coming out of cold storage to sell into this rally?? Early adopter coins are a finite resource. Each attention-generating rally ($32, $266) consumes more of them, and then they reenter circulation. What happens when the supply is depleted? |
|
|
|
$50 spread between Stamp and Gox.
This can't last forever. This is a serious divergence. When we've seen this before it typically resolves itself in a correction. Talking about spreads in USD terms is pointless. What is it in percentage terms? |
|
|
|
Actually, you might be right justunravier, depending on how you want to calculate it. The latter stage of the 266 bubble was just as insane though. But it's no use to argue. This bubble is made of the same stuff as the 32 and the 266 bubble, not much difference here.
From the weekly charts: March-April 2013: 29%->9%->35%->35%->46%->crash October-now 2013: 7%->16%->23%->4%->42%->30%->  (so far, 28%) >40% on the weekly weighted chart, that's not immediately followed by a crash, hasn't happened since 2011: April-June 2011: 29%->39%->79%->45%->81%->15%->11%->49%->98%->crash Imagine if early 2011 repeated itself at these price levels. |
|
|
|
This is not mental. This is Bitcoin.
This has happened before, it is now happening again.
The last few weeks we're increasing at rates that have not happened since early 2011. |
|
|
|
|
This might add some complexity to the release process, but can you start bundling bitcoind with the OSX version of Armory, since they don't have any other way of getting a precompiled version?
|
|
|
|
I think so, Matthew Green mentioned that he was planning to implement Zerocoin into its own cryptocurrency. This seems like a reasonable idea me, it lets us test Zerocoin, and if it works well, we can merge it into Bitcoin (without the risk of damaging Bitcoin if something goes wrong).
That's a great idea from a purely technical perspective. Realize that when money is at stake other factors will come into play. Zerocoin is a highly desired feature. As soon as they release this coin, it's going to attract investment and it's exchange rate will rise quickly. People are going to put a considerable amount of money into Zerocoin. When Bitcoin implements these features, it will threaten the value of their investment. Do you think they are going let that happen calmly? They will do everything they can to obstruct the change. They'll come over here and spread FUD, start arguments, and in general make life difficult for any developer seeking to push the change. This happens already - If you go back to the beginning of this year and read through flamewars regarding scalability and the blocksize and pay attention to the people most fervently opposed to large transaction rates, with the most ridiculous and economically absurd arguments, and then check their posting history you'll find that in almost all cases they were heavily involved with altcoins. |
|
|
|
He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof.
I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind...
btcwallet, the wallet daemon for btcd, reads and stores its wallet data in the same format as Armory. there are likely some rpc calls that need to be added to accommodate it. the gui for btcd, btcgui, was just recently released and works fine on testnet. mainnet coming soon... I honestly don't care or even want about btcwallet or btcgui. Is it possible to compile btcd without them? Full nodes are network-facing applications which should have just the minimum necessary functionality to present a smaller attack surface and should focus on correctness and hardening. User-facing applications like wallets should be separate. |
|
|
|
I remember they had severe performance problems early, maybe they have been fixed. Not fixed yet, but it's fast enough to be usable (for certain values of "usable") It took over 10 hours to synchronize with the blockchain, downloading from a bitcoind node on 127.0.0.1 on a storage setup that was not IO bound. It looked like it was only utilizing 2 out of 8 cores during the process. Now that it's caught up it takes about a minute to verify a block. |
|
|
|
I think so, Matthew Green mentioned that he was planning to implement Zerocoin into its own cryptocurrency. This seems like a reasonable idea me, it lets us test Zerocoin, and if it works well, we can merge it into Bitcoin (without the risk of damaging Bitcoin if something goes wrong).
That's a great idea from a purely technical perspective. Realize that when money is at stake other factors will come into play. Zerocoin is a highly desired feature. As soon as they release this coin, it's going to attract investment and it's exchange rate will rise quickly. People are going to put a considerable amount of money into Zerocoin. When Bitcoin implements these features, it will threaten the value of their investment. Do you think they are going let that happen calmly? They will do everything they can to obstruct the change. They'll come over here and spread FUD, start arguments, and in general make life difficult for any developer seeking to push the change. This happens already - If you go back to the beginning of this year and read through flamewars regarding scalability and the blocksize and pay attention to the people most fervently opposed to large transaction rates, with the most ridiculous and economically absurd arguments, and then check their posting history you'll find that in almost all cases they were heavily involved with altcoins. |
|
|
|
When btcd presented, it sounded like they aren't quite complete yet. Maybe they have finished it in the last month. It sounds promising, I liked their architecture quite a bit. I'm not as familiar with Go, so I didn't dig into the source, but the Conformal guys definitely get it and I wish their project could get more traction. They don't have a wallet or GUI code finished yet, but what they do have will download the blockchain and relay transactions and blocks, which as far as I'm concerned is all that a full node should do anyway. I'm running an instance of btcd right now and it's doing a fine job of achieving consensus with the rest of the network. |
|
|
|
I'm a little concerned that their plan is to make their piece of the pie the only 'valid' piece.
Hopefully not.
How would they get the Chinese to go along with that? |
|
|
|
Ever since Satoshi is gone, no actual privacy improvement have been made in bitcoin. The people in charge who he left the project to have obviously sold it to corporations and are now busy not developing bitcoin, but a surveillance system around it. Am I the only person who actually sees it? I seem to remember there's some organization whose favourite pastime is going around compromising open source projects and standards committees to make sure they implement security incorrectly in subtle ways. Don't remember their name off the top of my head, but I think it rhymed with NASA maybe? |
|
|
|
Yes, keeping a close eye on that. You mentioned Bits of Proof earlier, I support that effort as well. Seems to have a strong(er) code base, although don't take my word for it. Modular nodes ftw.
Bits of Proof was first, I think, but I'm not as familiar with it. Also the Conformal guys live in the same city as I and show up at the local Bitcoin Meetups sometimes, so that's probably biasing me in their favour since I never met Grau in person. One thing that I think would be extremely useful is if one of the teams that has done a reimplementation would start pushing code upstream to the Satoshi client, adding unit tests and documenting all the quirks they had to replicate to reduce the possible scope of an undocumented incompatibility that could cause a fork. Maybe we could even pay for their time via a crowdfunding campaign. |
|
|
|
Very intrigued by the revelations about libbitcoin, always was concerned about that just didn't know why. They have the chance to turn the tides but it seems they are getting on the wrong train. That's a shame. My guess is that Conformal Systems does have what it takes to create a proper reimplementation. They just lack the PR that Dark Wallet is getting. That project needs a lot more attention. |
|
|
|
I think the math works out that there's more Bitcoin addresses than there are atoms in the universe. Basically, it's been talked about many times, and it's nothing to worry about.
True, BUT there is still the possibility of a collision! |
|
|
|
With bitcoin and smart money we work hard to eliminate scamming. Isn't it beautiful that we already have provably fair gambling? This is certainly not the last sector where bitcoin has the potential to eliminate fraud.
If you can stay entirely in the cryptocurrency realm, then you can do a lot more to prevent scamming. When you need to interface with the legacy world is where the problems are harder to solve. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
