Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has. |
|
|
|
Stupid bot sold all my bitcoins at a loss and now it seems it will buy again at a loss bitcoin-wise too  Why do you think we keep saying "Buy and hold". Do you think we're joking? Do you think this is some kind of game?Buy. and. hold!!! . |
|
|
|
|
Scammers are why we can't have nice things.
|
|
|
|
|
Funding the escrow from the online wallet is a good way for the buyer to know the seller is serious and actually has the coins.
There are plenty of sellers who list but don't actually have any intention of following through with contacts.
You can limit your risk by only keeping enough in the LB wallet to fund your largest ad.
|
|
|
|
And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.
Sometimes I think you're about the only MAN on this forum, Justus.  I know I'm not the only one thinking that, but since I've already long ago resigned myself to being on all the watchlists anyway, I don't mind saying it out loud. |
|
|
|
I believe morality overrides legality 100% of the time. I agree with this. On a related note, there's nothing wrong with feeling and expressing anger but escalating it to hypothetical acts of violence isn't cool. |
|
|
|
A pseudonymous identity with trust rating is what we need.
Actually, no. A pseudonymous reputation is one of those things that's possible in theory, but utterly fails in practise because humans are involved. We need to make trade between anonymous parties so safe that reputation (thus, identity) is not needed at all. |
|
|
|
If you think we dont need to meet the regulators half way you a fool. Google met the NSA halfway, and they responded by tapping Google's private fiber links. Bitinstant met the regulators halfway, and the banking system responded by dropping them like a hot potato as soon as they went and got all the licences everybody said they needed. You are a fool if you believe that meeting terrorist and gangsters halfway will ever result in a good outcome for anyone except them and their cronies. The solution is to invent and put into practise privacy-respecting protocols and software more rapidly than the regulators can adapt. |
|
|
|
LightRider's idea of capitalism makes me think of trying to defend the idea that all sex should be banned, because while some people may be having sex for lovemaking or procreation, sex also involves rape, and rape is apparently just as much a part of lovemaking as everything else is.
In this case, making love, the voluntary exchange, is capitalism, and rape, which may have the same result (procreation, or in other sense profit), is corporatism and plunder. I and other pro-capitalists here are doing the equivalent of trying to point out that sex, and making love, has many uses and is the best way to progress forward, while Lightrider is doing the equivalent of saying that rape and making love are all the same thing, and that sex should be completely abolished.
Madness!
Absolutely. I just wish there was some way to make this thread no longer appear in my "Show new replies to your posts" list. |
|
|
|
I support anyone's right to disagree. Anyone could form a group of like-minded peers and make an attempt to give bitcoin a special legal status that can disregard laws. A status that allows you to receive stolen goods or transfer money around the world with no need to obey international agreements. But I don't think it will work.
You're not fooling anyone with this doublespeak. Working with regulators is the opposite of supporting the right to disagree, because regulation is in fact suppressing disagreement with unilateral measures up to and including sending armed thugs to kidnap people who disagree and lock them in a cage. And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter. FinCEN and their ilk in the District of Criminals are the enforcement arm of the Manhattan Financial Crimes Mafia. They are gangsters and we should be using all available resources to protect society from them. |
|
|
|
I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it.
People still read his posts? |
|
|
|
Does anyone have any idea why that would be happening?
EDIT: The commenter just posted the Mt Gox error: "This address is not on the right network"
Armory and Mt Gox, and all bitcoinj-derived wallets, don't support P2SH addresses yet. Electrum does support P2SH, and so does Bitcoin-QT. P2SH was added about two years ago - about time wallets upgrade... Armory will get P2SH "soon", at least: https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/issues/127 |
|
|
|
The only setup I'm aware of that could do what you say is e-cash (blind signatures, part of Open Transactions). But this algorithm requires a server to perform the settlement. Perhaps the servers could evolve to multiple hidden servers where very few trust is needed. If you could easily move money from one e-cash server to another (can we?), and if you could be sure they can't steal from you (multi-signatures!), then we could practically have an e-cash decentralized network. Perhaps it's time to study Open Transactions...
There is a concept in Open Transactions known as "voting pools" where a network of independent but cooperating transaction servers share public keys accept bitcoin deposits to multisig address and then issue BTC-backed OT assets for users to transact with in the OT system. What this means is that several servers have to cooperate in order to process withdrawals therefore no single person can steal the bitcoins. Open Transaction's security model is not as strong as Bitcoin's, but transaction servers in a voting pool can be set up to allow realtime public auditing of both their blockchain holding and the OT assets they issue based on them (to check for fractional reserve, etc). I'm not a fan of off-chain transactions in general, but I think OT has enough additional features that it's worth building on right now, and in the long term we should get the necessary opcodes added to Bitcoin such that we would no longer need the OT transaction servers and could just process smart contracts directly on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
You guys seem to think regulation is some kind of option. It is not. There will be regulation no matter how you feel about it. If you feel that destroys bitcoin, then sell yours to a grown up.
Of course regulation is going to happen. That's why we should work to nullify it via code - design our systems to be immune to regulatory attack just like the filesharing space did successfully. |
|
|
|
Guys calm down!
He just called for a discussion and this is his job as chairmen of the law section.
Why should he get removed for starting a due discussion?
He should know better than to propose creating a blacklisting system that is such an obvious target for government overreach, the exact same government that goes and taps Google's private datacenter links. |
|
|
|
That is the attack vector you are worried about? Really? Couldn't miners just make the coinbase address a non-existent address and destroy coins just as easily or send them to a non-existent address?
As for why not change it? It is a hard fork. Hard forks are never trivial. In practical terms hard forks will probably never be implemented for anything other than critical (as in "oh my god Bitcoin is going to die") fixes.
Just queue it up into the list of changes to be made the next time the block version is incremented. |
|
|
|
It seems the problem is that the users have control over address generation. But I constantly see in various Bitcoin FAQs on the web that it's good practice to use a new address every time. This seems like a constant source for problems. Couldn't the protocol be amended so that each address is only good for 2 transactions? 1 incoming and 1 to spend it? This would render this whole issue moot. Or am I missing something? That's not very good either since it breaks Bitcoin in a different way. Satisfying the conditions of the appropriate script must always be both necessary and sufficient to spend an output. |
|
|
|
Among the benefits is that the math is simpler, allowing other ideas to be easily implemented (such as a cutoff value: everything under 0.000x BTC is lumped into one output. If a small, random transaction fee is also included, this avoids dust outputs but is still resistant to analysis.) If outputs are in the form of X n, then you can easily implement a cutoff by specifying a minimum value for n. Leftovers just get added to the transaction fee. I really don't care if there is a recommended standard of X=2, or X=5, or if an explicit negotiation step is added to the protocol to choose a value for X, just as long as there's some way to do it that actually gets implemented. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, to enact that vision original Bitcoin wallet software needed to use pay-to-ip-address to fetch a new address for every transaction. Pay to IP had issues and so it was largely replaced with addresses. Convenience and ignorance, distractions like vanity addresses caused people to begin constantly reusing addresses. Wallet software was release that made avoiding reuse hard or nearly impossible. The vision of privacy through pseudonymous addresses has been broken, Bitcoin has lost its privacy. The result is that white/green/black/red/etc listing addresses is not technologically impossible in our ecosystem today. When is Blockchain.info going to implement BIP32? They are the single worse offender when it comes to promoting address reuse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
