for create new paper wallet i choose vanitygen  i create new custom wallet address like 1shanexxxxxx (using command prompt) after it i use blockchain to import my custom bitcoin address, and i export it to paper wallet  need more step but i like my way i trust blockchain That's certainly not a good idea! You are importing private keys into an online wallet to create a paper wallet? This is not secure. If you are using online wallet to get qr code, then use BitAddress.org. Download BitAddress.org and after creating vanity address, open BitAddress.org HTML page and go to 'Wallet details' and enter your private key. Then click 'Print'. Or you can use a simple qr code generator and print it. Don't use an online wallet to create paper wallet. |
|
|
|
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... I commented on both posts. Post #2 was more like a revenge. Then, they made it as an Islamic thing which of course is not. And, 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. |
|
|
|
I could do the same by searching. Easier is to just go to their website and look at team members. This only prove they are working in Blockstream and not the FUD, "Blockstream is controlling them." |
|
|
|
How about this one:
I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.
I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.
This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes. Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time. |
|
|
|
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.
Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so? |
|
|
|
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily. Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers. Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944 |
|
|
|
How about this one:
I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.
I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.
This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. |
|
|
|
Right now, miners cannot produce blocks larger than 1Mb (thanks to full nodes' consensus not to accept them), even if it is economically viable for miners to increase the limit, they can't. I suggest we jump from 1Mb to 8Mb hard limit and re-evaluate in about 4 years based on the data we collect.
Okay - yes I get what you mean now. I think that there might have been a BIP to do just that also. But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes). Miners determine the longest chain, full nodes determine the valid chain. The longest valid blockchain is called Bitcoin, so both miners and full nodes have a say in what Bitcoin is. Statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all recognize and value. Hope that stays. Miners also determine the valid chain because they also run full nodes. CIYAM stated it. -snip-
But understand that as less and less people run full nodes the miners will actually end up more in control (eventually I think all consensus will be decided by the miners only as there is no economic incentive for non-miners to run full nodes).
|
|
|
|
Nope, but I would love to go to one.
But I doubt that in my country, the meet ups happen or not. BTW I'm from India.
Don't think that meet ups happen here because in my friend circle, only one person knows about Bitcoin, so it's a long way to go.
http://www.meetup.com/IndiaBitcoin/ |
|
|
|
I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"
No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.
Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.
Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that. XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right? Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that. Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers. A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance. |
|
|
|
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily. Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0 |
|
|
|
Solved it. Got another system. Imported the encrypted private key in multibit installed in the system. Decrypted the private key and exported it without password. Imported the decrypted private key in blockchain.info Good to go Glad to know! But I highly depreciate using Blockchain.info as your main wallet. For storing small amounts is okay but it is not all a good wallet, in fact, its a buggy wallet. I recommend you to use an local wallets such as Electrum for PC and Bither or Mycelium or Andreas Schildbach's Bitcoin Wallet or BreadWallet for smartphone. * Edited. |
|
|
|
BIP 101 is really not exponential. It stops at 8GB.
Much more like an S pattern if anything.
The real exponential BIP i know is the 17.7%/year...
Honestly, are you just saying this BS to show you support BIP 101? Did you at least did a calculation before saying so? |
|
|
|
|
What problem? Do you mean not to download very old blocks in order to save storage space? Isn't pruned node enough? Pruning blockchain saves a lot of storage space and tbh, nowadays, storage space is not an issue at all.
|
|
|
|
People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.
Yes we do. -snip- I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit. The network only has problems: - during some peak times
- during a spam attack/stress test
 The average block size is not even 0.5 MB. Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress? I just posted the current front page of Blockchain. How's that misinformation? If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already, since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks. In addition, it takes a long time to roll out the block increase. Thankfully its already started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly. Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality. You seem to have been spreading "size is not increasing because of BlockStream." Why? What about Gavin's & Mike's XT development and implementing BIP 101 way before it got consensus? This is very biased or is misinformed or is disinformation/FUD. By comparing your previous posts and behavior, this seems lot like your are misinformed or you are spreading misinformation. No offence. |
|
|
|
|
I am sorry for your loss too! I have been in contact with gkv9 for a long time and I can confirm he is in one of his worst situation and has a financial crisis. If someone could help him, I will be very happy! You could also give him a loan instead of a donation.
|
|
|
|
Hello, i sent BTC with Receive Payments API to Bitcoin address blockchain,
but API not send BTC to main address and not work callback response after 30h. That a problem and how to fix it? Help members please.
There is no Blockchain.info support in this forum. Please contact Blockchain.info support. [1][1] https://blockchain.zendesk.com/home |
|
|
|
Loan Amount : 0.2
Reason : Payday advance(Payday is 25/8/15) Need to travel long distance unplanned business trip
BTC Address : 1LKhtaZN5WnQnHzhNppma54gjXTFoVX4ZK
Term Length : 1 Day
Collateral : Web domains (multiple but prominent ones are hellosatoshi.com/cryptogrow.me/bitsprout.co)
: This account also as collateral
Denied. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
