Wallets, not other bitcoin apps. |
|
|
|
|
In a free Constitutional Republic with, in theory, enumerated powers we don't have people "running the country" - people are free to do as they want and run their own lives, even make mistakes. Alas we no longer have any limits on power and are reaping the "rewards" of that.
|
|
|
|
if transactions increase, the work that miners would have to do will increase too. Don't think will make much difference
Not materially. The "work" in proof of work is finding the nonce which solves the block. Adding transactions to a block are a rounding error compared to that. As an example creating a merkle tree with 5,000 transactions requires 10,000 SHA-256 hashes plus 5,000 ECDSA signature verifications and 5,000 input validations. The proof of work at current difficulty requires 28 quadrillion hashes. wow could they not mix transactions into the work difficulty required or am I talking nonsense there because I swear I read something like that was used on one coin If doge has got the maths wrong and becomes unsustainable in some way, could they fork it to POS instead cap of 7 transaction per second I thought it was much higher for some reason, all this exponential rise in asic work could or should allow for greater capacity then that The tps limit is due to the current block size limit (which can be changed). ASICs do not impact the block size, they do impact the security of the network. |
|
|
|
There are no practical solutions to the forthcoming miner crisis which happens as the network difficulty raises and the reward from block reduces dramatically..
There is no "forthcoming miner crisis" for bitcoin. Dogecoin on the other hand will have reached its steady-state inflation rate eight months from now. At the current market price of DOGE, they'll only have a couple hundred dollars per hour of hashpower securing the network. It will be very interesting to see how it unfolds... True, Doge will be the interresting thing to watch fairly soon. Payout wise they will the in a situation that BTC will be in in several decades. Basicly all options are plausible, from total failure and price dropping close to zero to becoming the dominant cryptocurrency. After all, at that stage Doge will truly have a fixed amount of coins (unlike BTC wich will still keep "printing" more coins until sometime in the next century). From that point mining will be based solely on utility (signing transactions). Question is, are the any big stealth investors just waiting for the mining rewards to drop to zero? Doge never has a fixed supply. It increases at 5 billion per year indefinitely. See e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1wuhyj/info_clearing_up_missinformation_about_our/And there is no crisis. |
|
|
|
|
Summer 2016 (northern hemisphere) is an estimate. (June-Sept). It depends on how quickly the network grows as to exactly when.
|
|
|
|
|
Tor is a good option. The other question is regarding "I am making a bitcoin related website in" - do you need bitcoind for a web site? It just depends on what the site does of course, but Tor is probably the best option and use the bootstrap.dat to sync faster vs doing it over Tor.
|
|
|
|
|
This guy is confused about what bitcoin is and Gox was - bitcoin is not Gox. Is ach unsafe because a bank was robbed or someone's identify stolen?
He also mixes up the meaning of "unstable" and comparing price with the protocol. If he is talking dollar value stagily he's sadly very mistaken there too.
There are many more issues with this 'expert' and in short Boston Univ should be embarrassed to have their expert so uninformed.
|
|
|
|
|
You may need to do -rescan too once you add an address.
|
|
|
|
2 bitcoins (~$900!) in two years?  Was he mining with a Timex Sinclair, TRS-80 Model 1 or and Apple ][+? Or was the reporter merely clueless? :-) |
|
|
|
The attack has been used on several alts, so I'm looking for the bug that allows it in the bitcoin code they have in common. You can claim it's an "altcoin question" if you want, but the bug that allows this is in the code they inherit, whether or not they aggravate it with difficulty adjustment algorithms that respond more quickly to changes in network hashing power.
I believe the common element is the so-called Kimoto Gravity Well which is not in bitcoin. If you look at the TW exploits on AUR coin, for example, you'll see that the KGW appears to have opened this hole. The point is that since KGW isn't in bitcoin, bitcoin shouldn't be impacted by this TW exploit. So this is really an alt-coin question although it is interesting to see the side-effects of the KGW changes. This is a positive to alt-coins in that they can be used for experiments like this. |
|
|
|
The Chinese government are only trying to protect their own currency (fair enough with the state of the $) but they're going to regret trying to completely stop any real BTC development there.
India is a booming economy and can easily spark the next bull run.
By protecting their currency they are trying protect their power - the power of the rulers. You are right about both India and China. |
|
|
|
Posting a new thread wasn't necessary, Google can easily answer this for you. Since you were too lazy to do it yourself, here you go: https://dotbit.me/.bit domains are not accesible through the sourface web. I'm not quite sure that what OP is asking for. Well I think that he actually meant a domain registrar which accepts bitcoin, in this case you were right. I though that he wanted a .bit domain. I wonder if there will ever be a .bitcoin domain. Namecoin supports an essentially unlimited number of TLDs. So one could add .bitcoin quite easily to it. ;-) |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure certain events could change that though. You're all being narrow minded here. Take no offense, please. Theoretically this is perhaps hard(But far from impossible) to pull off atm, but: What if US government would get their hands on 20% of existing BTC? By stealing from exchanges / kidnapping holders and extorting their keys. They could then basically drop the price to 1$. They could very well call it a terrorist act to buy/sell/OWN bitcoins. Then they, BY LAW, can put you in a cage for the rest of your life. Not even 1% of americans own bitcoins so even putting you all in theese cages isn't even that hard. Why would they do this? To preserve the dollar / prevent monetary revolution Be real folks. If you can imagine what Bitcoin can do for humans(and how rich you'll get along the way, which is what most people seem to focus on) please at least put 10% of that time imagining of what government/FED/Rothschild could do to prevent it from happening. A huge well-cordinated crackdown is not a paranoid fantasy. It's a possibility. But ok, let's put our head in the sand and brush it off as crazy.. I mean, governments and the elite are good people right?  If you think it is needed, fork the client, and fork the blockchain. Then see how many people agree. It will be a perfect test of the theory. No one is stopping you, the code is on github, the blockchain is everywhere, and then you can see how the consensus of the network is. No one knows what the consensus will be until someone does it - then it may put an end to the repeated threads arguing for blacklisting. At worst, fork the code, test it, and release the blacklisting code - then it can be used at any point in the future for whatever purpose requires blacklisting. |
|
|
|
A distributed, centralized crypto-currency? Hmmmmm. Sounds like the crypto-part is added to take advantage of the press. :-) I think all these experiments are great, but having it centralized and thus seizable seems to turn an advantage into a disadvantage. Time will tell though! |
|
|
|
MtGox, for example. Or silkroad.
Or if/WHEN a government "cracks down" on several exchanges at the same time and takes a large % of the worlds bitcoins. Is there a plan for this? Has it been discussed? Shouldn't the techies and community try to "fix" it somehow?
I'm talking about finding the bitcoins and "blacklisting" them and thus deleting them ofcourse. What problems could this have? That it takes a ton of time that theese people have to do for free?
What if 1 country with many exchanges does this(Steal all the bitcoins inside the country they can get their hands on). Couldn't this lead to other countries doing the same? I mean, if bitcoin is going to blow up to 10,000/BTC or even 100,000 as some actually expect, this could very well become a reality.
Is this a danger and/or what is preventing this?
thanks for your time,
/Guru
1. Tell people that using an exchange or Silk Road type entity as a bank is stupid. People should learn from Gox and sr1. If you don't have the keys, you don't own the coins.. 2. As BurtW said - blacklisting is a bad idea and it has been discussed to death many times. 3. Dark Wallet, CoinJoin etc will hopefully help prevent blacklisting prior to it starting. 4. Make your alt-coin that allows blacklisting, but it won't be bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I thought a bear like TERA would be selling, not holding  If you only knew how much fiat I've already cashed out, you would understand. Anyway let's keep this in speculation. Something else that is off-topic here is the viability of brainwallets. I simply want to know if the process of creating a brainwallet requires that it be tested with transactions (separate question for both TO and FROM) It doesn't hurt to test sending TO. Plus multiple checks to ensure that the phrase is correct. Sending FROM though somewhat negates the purpose of cold storage. Also once you spend an output that has been sent to the address the only protection is ECDSA, so other unspent outputs become more vulnerable since your public key is known (prior to sending only the RIPMD hash of the SHA256 hash is known, iirc). The amount of the increase in vulnerability is probably low, but it does reduce security. This is one reason why it is recommended to avoid reusing addresses. ;-) |
|
|
|
Don't use a brainwallet. That's terrible. Use a real wallet, armory or electrum offline.
Can you tell me what is bad about a brainwallet or a paper wallet assuming I am using it offline on tails and creating the key in a much more complicated way than their SHA256(passphrase). using a brain wallet involves turning natural words into a code. before then encrypting it using standard bitcoin encryption protocols. this brain wallet convertion method may change, or you may mis-spell the words (EG Some instead of some). the best solution is to put a verified/clean bitcoin software onto a memory stick. then install onto a clean computer without the internet. and generate private keys from this. DO NOT rely on brain wallets or wallets that your a keyphrase/seed to generate private keys. as i said before the conversion from phrases into a private key may change in the future. ONLY store actual proper bitcoin private keys. The idea here is that I do NOT want to maintain any hardware or anything physical to hold my bitcoins. I want to know that if there is a nuclear explosion or everything of mine is stolen/hacked/deleted/seized/etc, hardware is lost/stolen/fried, or i go into a coma for the next 5 years, I will still have my bitcoins. I want to have no worries at all. That is why I am going for a brain-wallet-type solution. What is wrong with using sha256? If the hashing algorithm on brainwallet.org changes to something else, I can still use a sha256 script from somewhere else. It is a fairly common hashing algorithm and I dont have to rely on the tool on brainwallet.org. Some don't like brain wallets for several reasons: 1. People are generally bad at picking a sufficiently random group of characters (words or whatever). 2. People forget the characters. 3. People forget the salt. 4. Sometimes the code changes or there are bugs (Safari 6.05, had a Javascript BIP38 bug). (Save the current version somewhere as a backup, note the version so you can get it from github as a 2nd backup). The animus toward brain wallets occurs because they are usually poor, see this for some discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311000.msg3345309#msg3345309http://cryptocoinblog.com/brainwallets-and-why-you-shouldnt/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
