There needs to be a way to isolate the offline system without putting a device into both systems. I've got nothing off the top of my head, but that's what ultimately needs to happen. Dead trees. The online system prints out the unsigned transaction via some kind of suitable encoding, then you install a scanner/webcam on the offline system to read it. Data transfer offline->online could either use print, or even burn the signed transaction to a mini-CD that gets discarded after a single use. |
|
|
|
But I am looking for online methods, Like Paypal or Online money transfer Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
My bank is PNC bank and also I can send money by Email(Popmoney) or I can transfer money directly to their account (via account number and routing number). In Localbitcoins, people are more interested in cash! (Or other banks)
Is anybody here who can trade me for this? (I can give all of my real informations) Most people on LocalBitcoins who use banks sell via cash deposit. You go to your bank and withdraw cash. Then you go to the seller's bank, and make a deposit using the information the seller provides. Then the seller releases the bitcoins. If you look here, you'll see many people who sell this way: https://localbitcoins.com/buy-bitcoins-online/us/united-states/cash-deposit/?ch=105 |
|
|
|
its really hard to say who will get the majority of volume...
Stamps, BTCchina or some other new foreign market!? BTCChina is not the largest bitcoin exchange in China by volume. Look at ChBTC: http://btckan.com/price |
|
|
|
Thank you beeblebrox! My answer was directed at justusranvier, I was just explaining that we do not hold our users' bitcoins in any way and we have no idea if/when transactions take place and what the value of those transactions is.
My comment was not specific to OtherCoin. In general though, I don't expect any services that provide weaker security guarantees than blockchain transactions to survive in the long term. As more value moves into the ecosystem the incentive to steal will grow, and the thieves will target the softest targets first. I could be wrong, but I think the blockchain is a case where we must put all our eggs in one basket. |
|
|
|
Ask yourself this question: "Have I ever used an exchange to buy or sell bitcoin?"-- cause if you have then it most likely involved an off-chain transaction. That depends on how how you define the boundary of a transaction. In my case, there is nearly a 1:1 relationship between off-chain transactions and blockchain transactions related to buying and selling Bitcoins. For example, when I purchase via Coinbase, they first allocate some of their bitcoins reserves to me via an internal database operation, which could be considered an off chain transaction, but as soon as those bitcoins are accessible I immediately withdraw them to my own wallet. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not performing any off chain transactions because I never consider the purchase complete until the bitcoins I have bought move on the blockchain to an address I control. I understand that several startups have a strong financial incentive to push a different paradigm, to convince users to let them hold their bitcoins on their behalf. When they inevitably steal/lose/confiscate their user's funds I won't be affected. |
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a good free VPN.
You can have good, or free, but not both at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
What about making your stack modular such that you could swap in and out alternative components.
For example, use portions of btcd instead of libbitcoin.
|
|
|
|
dear god
Try this next time:  |
|
|
|
I've been waiting for this.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147933 ... and so it begins. I'll make a prediction here-- the popularity of off-line transaction will mean that bitcoin fees never peak above 200 BTC/day averaged over a month. In fact they may have already peaked-- more people use bitcoin now than ever before and yet the fee's have never passed 100BTC/day at seven day rolling average and seem to be declining when averaged over longer time spans. ( http://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees ) Once electronic schemes like become popular for smaller amounts and large off-chain bank-like transfers for larger amounts there will be little reason for anyone to use on-chain for normal commercial transactions. Off chain transactions are only suitable for people who don't require certainty as to actually owning the bitcoins they think they own. |
|
|
|
The problem with QR codes is they aren't big enough. They're big enough for 95% of transactions, but the first time you have to move 1 MB across that channel, you'll be SoL. And you don't have control over it. If I know one of the addresses in your offline system, I can send you a couple 100 kB transactions, and effectively DoS your offline solution. There are people who are using Armory to store balances of sufficient value that they could easily justify buying a printer/scanner exclusively for the offline system to use. How much data can fit on a single piece of paper if it's full of QR codes? |
|
|
|
Huh? I don't see how Ripple will be more vulnerable to this than existing Bitcoin exchanges. And because of the possibility of rippling between trusted associates I think it is actually far superior to other exchanges. And don't forget that XRP has very similar properties to Bitcoin, your concern only applies to the fiat/crypto exchange layer, not to XRP. The only thing I (potentially) care about with regards to Ripple is everything about it that isn't XRP. What primitives do you think are required? A traditional, non-revolving credit line. You could call it a simple, or a one-time use trust line. It could be implemented as a trust line whose maximum decreases every time the balance decreases by the exact same amount. |
|
|
|
Do you trust him or not? You are trying to create some case where you both trust him and don't trust him. It has to be one or the other. And this is why Ripple will never be anything more than a PayPal clone with severe regulatory liability issues. In the real world, trust is not binary. That's also why there exists in the world more than one primitive for representing trust in financial terms (credit). |
|
|
|
|
At one time I was considering using Ripple as an accounting system needed to build a peer-to-peer currency exchange, but unfortunately it is wholly unsuitable for this task.
Their debt/trust model only has one type of primitive: an indefinite duration revolving credit line.
Because of this, there is no way to implement a reliable interface with meatspace.
Assume I want to recreate the classic origin-of-currency example of letting the goldsmith store my gold for me and trade with tokens, but in this case instead of paper money I want Ripple:Au.
As the client exist now everything appears to work find, but there's a fatal flaw in the system.
Assume I can find a person willing to store 1 physical ounce of gold, issue me Gold units in Ripple, and redeem those units for the physical ounce to whomever ends up with the Ripple units.
Here's the sequence of events.
I trust the goldsmith for 1 oz. (in Ripple)
I hand the goldsmith 1 ounce of gold (in meatspace)
The goldsmith transfers 1 oz. of Au to me (in Ripple)
I spend those Ripple units somewhere. (Online)
The merchant I bought from wants the physical gold.
He goes to visit the goldsmith (in meatspace)
Merchants transfers 1 oz to the goldsmith (in Ripple)
Goldsmith hands the merchant 1 oz gold (in meatspace).
So far so good, right?
Wrong.
I still trust the goldsmith for 1 oz, but he doesn't have any gold. Unless I am constantly checking my open trust lines I haven't noticed that the balance on that line has dropped to 0. The goldsmith can issue another oz. of Ripple gold units, but he has no way at all to redeem them.
In order to support exchange functionality between Ripple currencies and real-world currencies, Ripple needs the a non-revolving credit line, but it doesn't have one. Nobody is going to be able to implement a successful P2P currency exchange on Ripple, because of this infinite inflation feature.
|
|
|
|
i just don't want to have a dejavu in some months asking myself why i bought at the top again. No one has ever, in the history of Bitcoin, lost money by buying bitcoins and holding them for two years. So far the worst anyone has done by holding for 730 days was the people who bought exactly at the peak of the 2011 bubble. After two years they only tripled their money instead of achieving the average 6600% gain. |
|
|
|
|
Specie drastically limits one's options when it comes to exit. I can move far more value through an international airport via a brainwallet than I can carry in gold or silver.
|
|
|
|
|
Buy the cheapest used laptop you can find.
Install Ubuntu on it.
Follow the Armory cold storage tutorial.
Problem solved.
Extra credit: Open up the laptop and physicality remove the WiFi adapter.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
