|
I believe there's a javascript address generator which you could include inthe ordering process. The webpage would send you only the data necessary to construct the coin, and give the user the full address info.
Obviates the trust issue completely, but inevitably some users would fail to save this data and lose the coins.
|
|
|
|
- A while back, BitcoinExpress threatened NameCoin with some kind of attack. I would like to know the details of the attack. A pointer to a thread describing them would probably do, at least as a start.
- JohnDoe implied that there are plans to use NameCoin to make human-useable names for tor services. Has there been any progress towards this?
|
|
|
|
|
I've read your original post a couple of times now, with great care. It does not make sense to me. I would like to understand it, though. Here are a couple of questions:
1) What will the incentive to run this computation be, at a personal level?
2) How does the bloom filter, the Goedel framework, and the SHA256 hashing relate to arbitrary computation?
Your exposition would be a lot clearer if you presented a simple concrete example of a MerkleWeb in operation, showing step by step how it would perform some useful computation. At this stage I simply have no idea how it would work or what merit it would have.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanations, everyone. That was very helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
I get the impression that bitcoin's current implementation has since moved on, but I am curious about the original intent behind the OP_CODESEPARATOR opcode.
More generally,is there a forum or document where early design decisions like this are discussed? (I realize it's unlikely, but it's just possible I've missed it and it would be so useful to have.)
|
|
|
|
|
Really curious about the role you plan for this currency in your business.
|
|
|
|
|
They imply at the start that you have a business relationship with FTL. That may undermine the credibility of the interview, if it really gets legs.
|
|
|
|
Well, at this stage he's rather being helpful. I mean, it would have been much worse if Litecoin had kept this weakness and he or someone else then started exploited it when LTC is more established and/or when the LTC developers are less reactive. Now it's fixed for good, with not really much harm done.
On that note, I would like to survey all the attacks to date on bitcoin-related cryptocurrencies (litecoin, tenebrix, soildcoin and of course bitcoin itself.) Is there a list of attacks so far somewhere? I am aware of the " weaknesses" page on the wiki. |
|
|
|
For those concerned about the illegal aspects of Bitcoin, I they will surely come up durring the interview.
The main host openly admits that he refuses to pay federal income taxes because he doesn't support the things the federal government does.
I understand that most people do not agree with the above, but because most listeners of this show do, I think they will be interested in my original points. These are fascinating aspects of bitcoin's potential effects, and definitely worth talking about. It's worth keeping in mind that you won't necessarily be talking only to the show and it's listeners, because it will be recorded. If another journalist decides to do a critical piece on bitcoin and finds an interview with a bitcoin proponent pushing evasion of government requirements as bitcoin's key selling point, they will present that in a negative light. I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about it, just that diplomatic language would be smart. Also, it is probably worthwhile to scan the "Bitcoin notable press hits" thread for an hour, reading the negative articles and preparing yourself with ready responses to the criticisms they raise. Even if the radio interviewer is totally in favor of bitcoin, he would be a poor journalist if he didn't push back at you on at least some of the problems with it. (Wallet security, scams and high-profile hacks, price fluctuation, not backed by any tangible feature, concentration of wealth, are a few which come to mind off the top of my head.) These are not things you would want to bring up uninvited, but you should be ready to talk about them persuasively if they come up. Congratulations and good luck! |
|
|
|
One thing I don't specialize in is being over seventeen years old. This would be bad for things like exchanges. Who wants a teenager dealing with their money? (I probably wouldn't want to develop an exchange anyways, as there are many already available.) Probably a prudent attitude, but you may be interested to know that the founder of bitcoinica, Zhoutong, was approximately 17 years old when founded it three months or so ago. Never say never.  |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for writing this. There are aspects of the bitcoin protocol which I have been struggling to understand, and this is making it so much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
What are the coolest exploits you've seen against bitcoin or related crypto-currencies? Cool vulnerabilities which were plugged before they were exploited are interesting too.
|
|
|
|
Minor nit: The OP_CHECKSIG wiki page mentions libbitcoin and make ec-key && ./bin/tests/ec-key I had to use the development-makefile to get this to start compiling. Also, it's failing as follows: lap% make -f development-makefile ec-key
g++ -std=c++0x -Wall -pedantic -pthread -Wextra -fstack-protector-all -ggdb -fPIC -Iinclude/ -Iusr/include/ -c -o obj/ec-key.o tests/ec-key.cpp
tests/ec-key.cpp: In function ‘bool op_checksig_test()’:
tests/ec-key.cpp:23:221: warning: missing braces around initializer for ‘std::array<unsigned char, 32ul>::value_type [32] {aka unsigned char [32]}’ [-Wmissing-braces]
tests/ec-key.cpp: In function ‘void privkey_tests()’:
tests/ec-key.cpp:114:44: warning: missing braces around initializer for ‘std::array<unsigned char, 32ul>::value_type [32] {aka unsigned char [32]}’ [-Wmissing-braces]
Assembler messages:
Fatal error: can't create obj/ec-key.o: No such file or directory
make: *** [obj/ec-key.o] Error 1 "mkdir obj" corrects this. (This is with the apt-get source libbitcoin source.) |
|
|
|
|
I am trying to understand the structure of transactions at the moment, and it would be useful for me to see a hexdump of transactions for comparison to block explorer. Is there an easy way to generate that?
|
|
|
|
With current mining profitability outlook of GPUs People are flooding the 'Goods' sub-forum with graphic cards, rigs and the like.
+1. Separate forum for mining gear would def. Improve forum's readability. |
|
|
|
|
I hope not. Most entertaining thing I read all day.
|
|
|
|
I was reading On Bitcoin and Red Balloons (discussed briefly in this forum's Notable press hits thread). I have only skimmed it so far, but found their game-theoretic reasoning a little confusing. Suppose Alice sends me a transaction she's had with Bob. I propagate it to others, and we create a chain of signatures as we pass it between each other. Everyone in the chain gets a part of the fee when it's included in a block. That's all fine. But the claim that it's sybil-proof is unclear to me. What is to stop me, an early member of the chain, from making a chain of bogus addresses in addition to the ones from legitimate propagation, and solving a block with the final address in the bogus chain? Then every bogus address I made gets a part of the reward. What is the duplication-free strategy which dominates this, from my perspective? As others discussed in the "notable press hits" thread, it's also unclear to me that incentives are actually needed to induce widespread propagation of transactions. As long as it's baked into most clients, it's not going to be worth cheating on this issue, is it? Bandwidth is cheap, after all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
