Patch updated for latest SVN. Given recent upstream changes to support binding to any address (0.0.0.0 or '*'), this patch is reduced to adding an option to bind or connect to a non-standard, not 8332 port: URL: http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-bindaddr |
|
|
|
What license would be preferred for an open source CUDA implementation?
The same license as the rest of bitcoin. Introducing new licenses into the mix just brings additional headaches. |
|
|
|
I've now removed jgarzik's patch from my client in favor of using Satoshi's -rpcallowip setting (since it's in the vanilla svn).
But that doesn't allow separate ports to run multiple clients on the same machine, does it? I'll update my patch on top of -rpcallowip soonish... The JSON-RPC port is still hardcoded as 8332 in vanilla svn  |
|
|
|
* jgarzik calls puddinpop's bluff  I've offered the whole 10k to puddinpop, in the name of The Bitcoin Store, to open source the client he's distributing here on the forums. He's interested, and we're working out the details now. |
|
|
|
Is anyone willing to start and establish a "History of Bitcoin" wiki page? It would be interesting to document notable events as they happened. The content at http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=incidents could be integrated into a fully documented history of Bitcoin-related events. If there is to be a history, I hope people fill in some of the "standard history stuff" as well as a droll listing of security events. When did satoshi generate the first bitcoin? What events (ie. slashdotting) triggered large influxes of new users? When did the first bitcoin-denominated businesses appear? etc. |
|
|
|
Those two patches attempt similar things, and so should be considered mutually incompatible. |
|
|
|
Why does he want bitcoins donated if his code can generate them?
Presumably he's not going to get 10,000 BTC very rapidly, by shaving off 5 BTC from each gen. |
|
|
|
|
I sent a full offer to puddinpop, waiting for his response...
|
|
|
|
So, we can tx to IPs... can we tx to DNS names? I don't have a static IP, but I do have DynDNS...
tx to IP is not recommended. Less secure than normal tx. |
|
|
|
* jgarzik calls puddinpop's bluff |
|
|
|
There should be a UTF8 text field "memo" attached to each transaction. - encrypt by default, with payee's public key
- limit to 256 chars or so
- optionally disable encryption (similar to Pecunix feature which makes a single transaction publicly visible)
|
|
|
|
I believe that the way forwards with this may still be to have a central authority responsible for holding the money - as a bank would do.
Yes, that is the central thesis behind this forum thread, http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=739.0 |
|
|
|
|
A few people have earlier expressed interest in bitcoins futures trading. Would help stabilize bitcoin exchange rates a bit.
|
|
|
|
Bootstrapping problem: gotta certify the teachers  |
|
|
|
There are at least three other implementations around: -artforz' but I'm guessing he's keeping his edge -sgtstein hinted he was working on one too, and would release -mine at http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009.msg12334#msg12334 which I have a major update for being tested, currently giving me 6200khs on my laptop GPU alone. I would also count solar, who released MacOS binaries and a partial open source implementation, the SHA256 implementation in OpenCL: http://heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
|
A QR-code of a wallet isn't going to be very useful to a lot of people.
More useful is to make a QR-code represent a database entry at PrintedBitcoins.com. Then anyone may redeem the QR-code for bitcoins, even if they do not have a bitcoin client.
|
|
|
|
|
The digital-cert-for-education idea is fantastic.
Application of bitcoins is secondary to that primary idea, IMO.
|
|
|
|
1) Would you personally accept closed source software dealing with your bitcoin transactions running on your station? (in that case I'm going to send you that credit card utility I told you about)
It depends on the source. 2) Would you recommend to anybody else to use closed source implementation of the bitcoin protocol? (not yours with your backdoor to make a buck I mean third-party software) It depends on the source. 3) If you would not use closed source yourself and did not recommend to others to use such a software, what good is an option to fork existing implementation and make one?
Question invalid due to previous answers. See? Real easy .. I do not see any reason why would you want to fight a battle against GPL, why would you be against GPL? It makes no sense.
Anyone who says "why would you be against GPL? it makes no sense" is a zealot. Each licensing option has its own time and place. |
|
|
|
Binaries compiled from open source code can potentially be confirmed by the community that the binaries are indeed related to a particular svn snapshot of source code. I am not sure how, but I am sure this is possible to confirm.
Theoretically yes. Practically? No. Given all the variables -- compiler, compiler platform, compiler version, compiler options, linked library versions of all our dependent libraries -- this is quite difficult. |
|
|
|
That's one obvious consequence of MIT licensing, and has been going on for decades. I doubt it is a surprise to satoshi, or anyone else.
yeah, it's not surprising at all ... that's why MIT should not be considered in a first place, exactly because it allows this kind of abuse. The question is not whether it is surprising but whether it is desirable, wouldn't you say? If any kind of proprietary software stemming from this would get popular, it's not going to be surprising at all when a hell of a lot of people will get robbed of all their bitcoins ... that doesn't mean we should allow it, does it? I said people are just confused ... talking about whether it is "surprising" the the license allows for obvious abuse rather than talking about eliminating that abuse. Do you support that kind of "obvious consequence" then? It seem to me that you're arguing in its favor. Binaries may contain suspect code regardless of the license. Yet 999 out of 1000 users prefer binaries, because they are not programmers and would have no clue what to do with source code in their hands. The source (ie. download origin, and PGP signer) of the software is always far more paramount, if you are worrying about bitcoin theft and other abuse. X11 or BSD are not small client programs that handle your freaking financial transactions, I bet you would be all happy to accept this program I made, it makes credit card transactions a lot easier, you just type in your credit card information into it ... it's real convenient, shall I send it to you? I'm sure you wouldn't have any problem with that, would ya?
BSD OS's handle tons of financial transactions. Wall Street loves Linux, but it's got plenty of BSD in there too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
