How do the miners get the coins onto Gox in the first place if they can't be spent??
They are part of the coinbase transaction. |
|
|
|
Raw tx? What's so hard about saving file to USB > go to/reboot to offline Ubuntu > open file > click > save > go back to online PC > click. Done.
moderate is being disingenuous. Electrum has a feature they call raw transactions (which is similar to Armory's offline transactions), but it's not the same as Bitcoin-Qt's support for raw transactions via RPC. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never add strong anonymity. Disagree? If it's something that an economic majority of users want, it will be added. If the current core devs won't add it, then someone else will make a version that does include it and the user base will upgrade to their branch. |
|
|
|
|
There has not yet been a conference announced in Austin, Texas on March 6th, 2014, but there will be.
|
|
|
|
I already explained how this can be solved. If there is a liquid exchange between the altcoin and Bitcoin, then the altcoin is just as liquid and usable as Bitcoin in terms of transactions.
But the problem is if everyone wants to sell the altcoin, i.e. no reason to hold it, then there is no such liquid exchange. Friction always imposes costs. No how matter how good you make your exchange, it will always be more expensive than not needing to make an exchange. A line is the shortest distance between two points. It is possible that an altcoin could have strong anonymity that is very important to smaller percentage of the market, and that would be a reason to hold it.
There might be some other features that are important enough that some percentage of the market must hold the coin and can't hold Bitcoin.
Strong anonymity is something that if you need it, you need it, and not having it isn't acceptable.
Can you deny this logically?
Any other such features?
Any feature that is so heavily demanded will be added to Bitcoin, because that is the most economically valuable solution. |
|
|
|
This realization seems to indicate there can only be one coin that survives, unless there is some reason to hold the coin other than its relative rate of appreciation. Back in the early 90s, there were probably tens of thousands of individual bulletin board services. Most towns had several, and there were about half a dozen national ones in the US alone. Each one was its own walled garden, with little to no communication between them. In the late 90s as flat-rate ISPs began to enter the market, all the walled gardens got steamrollered by the Internet's network effect. A tiny, statistically-insignificant minority of geeks prefer the walled gardens, while the rest of the population like having a single email address that works everywere. It will be the same with cryptocurrencies. There will be one winner that achieves mainstream adoption, and a few toys currencies and that are kept alive by the few people who enjoy running them as a hobby and using them as testnets for new features. |
|
|
|
Do you realize you just called half of the people on this thread fools and morons?  This is the internet. That's a) Often done and b) usually true.  |
|
|
|
It seems they don't feel threaten by bitcoin at all since they believe they can create their own bitcoin at will  I wonder if building a national cryptocurrency is more or less complicated that creating a health insurance portal web site? |
|
|
|
Why can those failed withdrawals get mined again? If the coins have been created once, how can they be created again? This is about transactions, not newly mined coins. One a transaction has been signed, it's valid as long as no conflicting transactions get added to the blockchain first. Once it's been broadcast to the network it could potentially be added to the blockchain at any time. If a signed transaction is broadcast but not immediately added to the blockchain by miners, the only way to make sure that it doesn't go through later on is to send those same inputs back to yourself and make sure the second transaction does. |
|
|
|
The fact is that most people can't keep malware off their machines today. This has nothing to do with bitcoin. If you can't securely administer a machine, how could you possibly securely manage a local wallet? Further, you need to backup your keys, but most people can't administer proper backups either. Is it really a requirement that you need to be both a security and IT expert before you can use bitcoin? It's a hard problem because even experts can't guarantee security, and as their services become more popular the incentives for thieves to spend a lot of resources breaking their systems only increases. |
|
|
|
such as random key generation which invalidates your backups after every 100 transactions,
please explain. Bitcoin-Qt generates 100 addresses at a time and stores them in wallet.dat. After you've performed 100 interactions (spend or receipts of coins), it generates a new batch. When this happens, your old wallet.dat backup is no longer sufficient because it does not contain the new keys. Deterministic wallets, such as Armory, do not have this problem. This is not a issue at all as people should be making backups much more often than that.
Please tell me you don't have anything to do with software development. Your ideas on end-user usability are a danger to yourself and others. |
|
|
|
Guess the bears have ran out of ammo again. I don't know why they keep trying.
Levered traders who need to pay back their loans? |
|
|
|
The Seitz is fairly close in valuation to the Calore, so it wouldn't make a addition to the list. |
|
|
|
Those are not units and neither is bitcoin. That is the fundamental flaw. Units are objectively definable and a constant.
Look at every unit.
One side of the equation is made up and the other side is real.
I knew I should have made this thread self-moderated. You've already got like six pages of trolling on this subject in that other thread. Isn't that enough? |
|
|
|
I'm very sure there is support for cold storage wen using bitcoin-qt, and you don't need the -qt at all. I take that you know about raw transactions, signing, and so on ?
Raw transactions are the last thing anyone should be recommending to non-experts. As far as regular users are concerned, Bitcoin-Qt doesn't support offline transactions. |
|
|
|
Read up about Armory cold storage, safest method!
Yes. The consensus seems to be Bitcoin-QT wallet No. Bitcoin-Qt has numerous problems, such as random key generation which invalidates your backups after every 100 transactions, and no support for cold storage. Every time you spend your bitcoins with Bitcoin-Qt you potentially expose your private keys to malware on your PC. |
|
|
|
I believe it can be done using derivatives. Then you don't understand the problem. Fiat liquidity in a P2P exchange means that I can take my digital representation of dollars and reliably and consistently turn those into a physical $100 bill in my hands to put gas in my car and buy groceries. Solving this problem means coordinating actions in meatspace; a complete solution requires very little coding and a lot of HR. |
|
|
|
I am quoting this person from Wall observer thread who resumes the technical issue quite well: Mine has nothing to do with newly minted coins, I don't even mine, been waiting since last night.
It doesn't matter what you do with your bitcoins. All the bitcoins that get deposited into Mt Gox get dumped into a single pile. Some of the coins are dumped in there by miners, whose coins can not be spent until 100 blocks after they were mined. Some of the coins are only spendable if a Mt Gox employee grabs the private key out of safe or something. The software Mt Gox uses to choose which coins to spend when customers want to withdraw bitcoins is apparently suboptimal. If their software tries to spend a coin which has not matured (>100 blocks since being mined), the entire transaction ends up in limbo. Another possible problem is that some transactions end up with too many inputs with an insufficient fee the transaction also ends up in limbo. If a withdrawal transaction fails, Mt Gox has to double spend those inputs before trying the withdrawal again because otherwise there's a possibility the original transaction will suddenly get mined and they will irrevocably pay out twice. so calm down folks, we will eventually get our coins soon, and its all beneficial while btc is still on rally mode. Just so you know, I have no inside information about Mt Gox's current problems. I don't know for certain what the real problems are, but the circumstantial evidence points to those factors. |
|
|
|
i meet very few people who want large amounts of cash just laying around insecure places. I agree with this. That's why deposit banks have no future. Just ask the people of Cyprus about the dangers of leaving their cash in insecure places. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
