Yes. I have verified my mail id. But I don't know how to reset using it. Please , tell me how to reset the password , if its still possible.
I thought password can be reset but I think I was wrong. Sorry! Have you enabled email backup? Try to check your email account. Blockchain.info used to send email backups. There maybe a backup in your email too. I don't remember if the option is enabled by default or not. |
|
|
|
I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.
Let me summarize for you:
Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.
Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks. Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him. Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.
True story.
This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD. - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102? - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit. - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon. - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence? - XT just made this situation worse. -snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
-snip-
|
|
|
|
It is an altcoin. It forked without consensus. So it does not belong under "Bitcoin" discussion unless if that talks about Bitcoin and not XT solely. The forum is not deleting XT topics but moving it to Altcoin board. Code that creates a hard fork is by definition an altcoin? By that definition, the current Bitcoin itself is an altcoin, and Bitcoin Core discussion doesn't belong here either. None of us are using the Bitcoin system that existed two years ago - Bitcoin has hard-forked more than once, most recently with BIP 34. Should we move all Bitcoin discussion to an altcoin board? Did you read second sentence completely? It hardforked without consensus. -snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
-snip-
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin facts? How are #2 and #3 in the list of Bitcoin facts? How naïve...
|
|
|
|
wow Thank's for all reply it  i will create new custom address and claim it to Bitaddress.org Good! But don't use it online. Download it and use it locally. any way i send you a litle tip for help me
i send from xapo you will receive it soon
Thank you! |
|
|
|
Is there no way to display the private key on the bc.info mobile app?
No. We can't access private keys from both Blockchain.info mobile app and mobile UI. Another bad thing happened with me. Yesterday, I have restored my phone by taking a backup of every single stuffs and assume blockchain wallet will also stay as it is after I restored the backup.
Phone was hanging many times and processing was also too slow. That's why , I need to restore my Samsung Mobile Phone.
Now I loose access from both android and online wallet due to main password lost.
Your password is changed and your reasons are becoming sketchy. I don't think you can do anything now. The best thing now is to post a new address and continue posting in the forum. If post with new address is a few months old, then you could probably use it to prove ownership. Edit: Didn't you verify your email in that account? If so, you can reset your password. |
|
|
|
i remove key from blockchain after i print it
i think that good for me
That's not it! There many problems. Some of them are: • You are importing your private key to an *online* wallet. • There is no way you can assure that they *actually* delete private key from their wallet. • When you expose private key to internet, there are many plausible attacks. any way im not trust bitaddress.org
You can trust Bitaddress.org more than you can trust Blockchain.info. Besides, you are running Bitaddress.org completely offline which is secure than Blockchain.info which is completely online. Just think for yourself. Anyway, I am not compelling you to use Bitaddress.org. You can do what you like. Only thing I say is, what you are doing now is a bad idea. There is a high chance for theft. that like hardware wallet ?
Not really. Hardware wallets are less immune to computer viruses but these USB sticks are. look interesting but im use windows 8
any method for windows user ?
You are not installing anything on your computer. You are creating a live USB. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_USB and http://instructables.com/id/How-to-make-your-own-Ubuntu-LiveUSB/?ALLSTEPS. P.S. For creating live USB, I prefer UNetbootin over Universal USB Installer. [1] http://unetbootin.github.io |
|
|
|
- Create a proposal that has no significant opposition. A proposal has significant opposition if it is strongly opposed by any of: one Bitcoin Core committer, one large exchange or company (Coinbase, etc.), a few generally-recognized Bitcoin experts, several smaller but still economically-important companies, or a large group of ordinary users who have reasonable arguments and are willing and able to exert some real economic force. (The underlined groups are the ones with clearly-significant opposition as I currently see things.) This means that it's very difficult to do controversial hardforks. That's the point. You need to get consensus -- that is, make a hardfork non-controversial -- in order to do it.
Yes, absolutely, I agree completely. if we want a truly consensus and decentralized Bitcoin, we must give lone third parties the absolute power to veto any and all changes. Yes! This is the answer Bitcoin needs! /s By this logic, Blockstream could maintain a 1MB block limit and force Bitcoin users worldwide to use their service. Actually they can't. Blockstream doesn't even offer a service yet, so they aren't considered a large company or exchange. They would count as a smaller but still economically important company. If they were the only ones who opposed a block size increase, then they do not count as several companies (just one company) so they would be disregarded provided that everyone else in that list agrees with the change. I suppose that's true, but Theymos' propositions are still incredibly harsh on any change whatsoever. Blockstream alone wouldn't be able to stop any progress, but several companies with the same intentions as Blockstream could (and there are several companies with the same intentions). Theymos obviously has some sort of self interest in the whole debate, or he wouldn't be so god damn opposed to any change at all (I mean just look at his statements on the reddit). He has a rough history (wasn't he just uncovered to be laundering money through some donation?) and I really wish he didn't have so much power in the community. Not any change. He said he is opposed to XT not block size increase or whatsoever. Could you please "rought histories" of theymos here? |
|
|
|
|
Start working on. I am looking forward to your "printer cache clear" feature.
|
|
|
|
knightdk is right. When you use online decoding tools which are used for mainnet, they show the mainnet address. Using https://tbtc.blockr.io/tx/push or any other testnet transaction decoding tool will give you correct address. |
|
|
|
I'm a muslim, do i hate people or other region? of course no. In my family there are several Islamic, Catholic, Protestant. We respect each other despite our different religions.
Most of the example I bring are not people from other religions... I understand if you haven't been through all the posts. It is a big thread. One example is post #2, or post #2336... ....post #2336 was about father not letting others to rescue his daughter. I suspect it was an Islamic thing too. Because father could have rescued her and in Islam, there is no rule preventing others from rescuing her. Al though, men can't see or touch women, there are certain situations where it is allowed and education & medical treatment are two of those.Well, Zakir, I do not think this is correct. I know you are TECHNICALLY correct, but for an average Muslim - let's say one that's not too smart, reads almost nothing, but who strictly tries to be righteous - I can see how he would make this error. Then you have to deal with the cultural reality - that nobody protested his insane actions - that nobody went out to save the girl regardless of the nutcase carrying on. There's about fourteen problems in that story, related to Islamic culture and Islam. You know what? If I'd been there, I would have gone out and saved the girl, beating the dad senseless if that was required, and being totally scared about what might have happened afterwards. Probably best outcome would have been time spent in some total shithole of a jail. Way different than being praised as a hero who saved someone's life, isn't it? How about that. That was a nice one and I do agree do with what you thought. Given that matter if it was not a Muslim country will the authorities would even allow her father or any other person have a say that she should not be rescued in first place?? Answer is NO. In any other part of the world which is not an Islamic country that girl would have been saved the rescue workers would not even have asked whether they can jump into water or not and if they did they would have been fired and punished for that. Don't you think so???
I agree except the Islamic country part. That is, even if people standing there are Muslims, they will certainly try to rescue that woman. I don't know "how" her father stopped "everyone". There are many problems in that story. Btw, does anybody when this happened? I mean day and time? |
|
|
|
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
-snip-
Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.
I guess Satoshi never signed using PGP key. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32829545/3. While the email is not signed, and there are a number of PGP keys listed
on key servers for him (to vary addresses), he didnt sign any emails with
any PGP keys.
|
|
|
|
these these work in india, like I go to ATM and withdraw cash from that card ?
I know that Bit-X and Xapo do. You will have to check with AdvCash and E-Coin but they should. Some cards do not ship to India. Both AdvCash and E-Coin do not ship to India but AdvCash works in India and I am not sure about E-Coin. However, I think E-Coin works too. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.
Nope. Maybe someone who has been in the space longer than me, could show us, if Satoshi ever spoke about another definition of consensus than POW.
Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person". I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Regarding, 32Mb limit. I'm not sure if it comes from the original network message limitation in Bitcoin or is a new addition related to BIP100. It was explained somewhere on this forum, that the block no longer has to fit in one network message (due to headers first implementation), so that original 32Mb limit may no longer apply. But better call the experts on this.
-snip-
It is not an BIP 100 addition. It was unlimited but p2p protocol limited maximum size to 32 MB. Edit: This would be a great solution. I also see that majority here likes BIP 100. Lest hope this will be pushed and that this never-ending debate will finally end.
According to some reddit sources, already 35% of all miners are in favour of this change. Lets hope!
 https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools |
|
|
|
Copy your xpub key and check your balance using https://www.blockonomics.co/. See if the balance is same as it is showing in myTREZOR. If not, it maybe a bug. P.S. Please move this to 'Alternative Clients' child-board. |
|
|
|
XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
XT is alt when it hardforks as it does not has consensus and XT topics are allowed in this forum but topics discussing only about XT are moved into Altcoin board. |
|
|
|
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs. Funny, that someone who spreads the blacklisting lie, which can be proven very easily, now demands valid proof for something that is not that easily proven. But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite? I did not spread a lie, at least, no knowingly. I and DooMad already ended a peaceful conversation yesterday. There was no lie! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12228109#msg12228109They don't just work for them, they are among the founders.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.
Agreed. Just to say again, sidechain needs bigger blocks for its existence. |
|
|
|
XT is digging itself a fake grave.
Are you trolling or are you an idiot? This fake nodes are from people, who are against XT, since they want to proof, that node count doesn't matter, although, I don't remember anybody well-known in the community ever claiming that node-count matters. It can happen in three ways. 1. Anti-XT manipulating it to prove node count does not matter. 2. Pro-XT manipulating it to make us think number of XT nodes are greater. 3. Anti-Bitcoinist manipulating it to make us think either of the above is happening. |
|
|
|
Trezor is an HD hardware wallet. The balance it reflects is the balance of your whole account, not just that address. You probably can see all your used addresses in 'Receive' tab. You may also verify by going to 'Send' tab and see if you can send that amount. Note: I don't have Trezor, so I haven't used myTREZOR web wallet. Edit: -snip-
The address 15A6kTYaoTBdT4acEqUKWsJDYGAdBocDP7 only holds .108 bitcoin verified both in your MyWallet account and the blockchain.
-snip-
15A6kTYaoTBdT4acEqUKWsJDYGAdBocDP7 has 0.428 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
