Misleading title. They will most likely be tough as nails on it with regulations.
US regulators have said ( after the first meeting, months ago ) that they would like to give bitcoin as much space as they can in order to not drive away all the bitcoin biz and startups away from the US. US wants to be innovators and leaders like everyone else, sure they like to keep a tight grip on money lundering and such but ya, they dont HATE bitcoin. Yeah and then did the EXACT OPPOSITE. FinCEN declaring the exchange of Virtual Currency for Real Currency to be Money Transmission is the absolute worst possible poison pill. Did you know exchanging Euros for dollars is NOT money transmission? FinCEN threw about a decade of prior precedent away and categorized Virtual Currencies in a manner which was vague and capricious and caused untold damage and loss of US based business. They didn't have to, they CHOSE TO DO SO. Your first mistake was believing a regulator. Your second mistake was not punching yourself in the face for making the first mistake.  bitcoin exchanges need watch out for money laundering. this is acceptable... Strawman. FinCEN could have ruled differently and still subject exchanges to MSB requirements. Once again. If you run a business which accepts USD and payouts EUR YOU ARE NOT A MONEY TRANSMITTER. If you run a business which accepts USD and payouts BTC YOU ARE A MONEY TRANSMITTER. FinCEN "guidance" on virtual currencies directly contradicts prior guidance on "real currency" exchange. You are a fool if you think that was done on any rational basis or to give Bitcoin space. It was a poison pill. Money Transmission is the single most regulated activity in the united states except maybe banking. Some have even suggested that forming a credit union would be CHEAPER and EASIER than getting a Money Transmitter license in all the states in the US. It is a death blow to small startups and will smother innovation and hand the market over to a handful of massive corporations. Little side note guess how many companies have a MT license in all states (well the 48 which require them)? Got your guess. Did you think maybe a couple hundred? maybe a hundred? how about fifty? Nope. 12. That's right, a country of 300 million people and money transmission is so heavily regulated with such massive and asinine requirements that twelve whole companies have a license in all states. None of these companies have a market cap of less than a couple hundred million USD (banks and credit card companies are exempt). That is the camp that FinCEN with the stroke of a pen through Bitcoin startups into. Gold Dealer = subject to AML but NOT A MONEY TRANSMITTER Check Casher = subject to AML but NOT A MONEY TRANSMITTER Foreign Currency Dealer = subject to AML but NOT A MONEY TRANSMITTER Bitcoin exchange/dealer = MONEY TRANSMITTER. Bitcoin miner who exchanges BTC for real currency = MONEY TRANSMITTER |
|
|
|
Misleading title. They will most likely be tough as nails on it with regulations.
US regulators have said ( after the first meeting, months ago ) that they would like to give bitcoin as much space as they can in order to not drive away all the bitcoin biz and startups away from the US. US wants to be innovators and leaders like everyone else, sure they like to keep a tight grip on money lundering and such but ya, they dont HATE bitcoin. Yeah and then did the EXACT OPPOSITE. FinCEN declaring the exchange of Virtual Currency for Real Currency to be Money Transmission is the absolute worst possible poison pill. Did you know exchanging Euros for dollars is NOT money transmission? FinCEN threw about a decade of prior precedent away and categorized Virtual Currencies in a manner which was vague and capricious and caused untold damage and loss of US based business. They didn't have to, they CHOSE TO DO SO. Your first mistake was believing a regulator. Your second mistake was not punching yourself in the face for making the first mistake. |
|
|
|
Start with this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9zgZCMqXEIf you really want to understand Bitcoin at a technical level you MUST read the whitepaper. Also a minimum level of knowledge is required. You should know how digital signature work, what is a private key, what a public key is and how they are used together. You will also need to understand how hashing algorithms work and why the output is considered a random oracle. You should understand what SHA-256, RIPEMD-160, and ECDSA are (inputs, outputs, how they are used, what they are used for). Most people will never understand Bitcoin at a technical level but trying to "know it" without basic introductory knowledge is like trying to walk into an operating room say "show me surgery" when you lack basic anatomy. One thing you keep going making a mistake about is nodes don't have to ask other nodes if a tx (transaction) is valid. All nodes immediately can INDEPENDENTLY verify if a tx (or block) is valid or not. When a node relays a tx to its peers, those nodes verify the tx, not for the senders sake but because nodes in the Bitcoin network work on a no-trust basis. They NEVER use information from other nodes until they INDEPENDENTLY verify it first. The use of the blockchain (the UXTO is simply a subset of the blockchain which contains unspent outputs of txs), and the properties of ECDSA allows all nodes to verify if a new tx is valid without needing any input of another node. |
|
|
|
|
The title and body of the message seem to confuse wallet with address.
Address =/= Wallet.
One wallet can contain many addresses.
Still nobody targets large wallets. A thief will steal a bitcent as quickly as a top500 address. Malware generaly empties an entire wallet (all funded addresses) regardless of the balance. If you are concerned then keep the bulk of your wealth off line in encrypted (with multiple copies) paper wallets.
|
|
|
|
bitaddress.org and navigate to the vanity wallet
Thank you. And now how can I do it offline? Save the site, access it from an offline computer. All the logic is in the client side javascript. It works just as well offline. |
|
|
|
I think COINBASE <link deleted> would be good!
Don't you feel bad being a referal spam whore? The real address is https://coinbase.comOf course in this situation coinbase would be the WORST POSSIBLE choice but then again someone just looking to spam their affiliate link probably doesn't even read the topic. |
|
|
|
Another more fun option imho is to encourage altruistic behavior by criminals to use stolen btc to send dust to all known active addresses and then all those wallets become dirty. Not sure anyone would actually do that but it would be fun.
You would need to turn off the dust rule and tx fee temporarily for that. Sort of like a jubilee. It wouldn't work the way you think it does. Sending someone a dust output in no way interferes with any future spending they might choose to do. That's like saying that if somebody throws a penny at you and it lands in your pocket all of a sudden you'll have problem spending your $100 bill. Good analogy however if user is unaware they have received this "bad" input it is possible they will create a tx and combine it with a larger "good" input. Note: good & bad is simply in reflection of CoinValidator's asinine system IMHO coins are simply coins. |
|
|
|
Wouldnt doing this provide further economic justification for selfish mining, as the researchers call it, because people whose tx are deprioritized will have further economic incentive to alter the blockchain?
I think you guys should really think things through a few steps ahead, the 2nd and 3rd order effects. Even if it was the original intention to not reuse addys, it was never enforced, and changing the rules now, changes the dynamics of the system possibly in unpredictable ways.
The rules aren't being changed. The rules are encoded in the protocol. Changing them requires a hard fork. The rules have ALWAYS allowed miners to choose which tx to include in a block (including none) and under what criteria they will be ranked/sorted/selected. The patch simply gives miners an effective way to use the power they are already granted by the "rules" of the game. |
|
|
|
In particular they use the classic zero-sum argument that says that for whoever makes $1 from bitcoin, someone else has lost $1.
Anyone who says that isn't worth listening to. That dynamic is only true if Bitcoin goes to $0, fails completely and is never revived/rebooted. |
|
|
|
|
Why would block propogation be slowed? The patch modifies how tx are "ordered" for inclusion into a block. Once a block solution has been found the block is simply broadcast. Nodes just validate and relay like they would any other block.
Do you mean it may introduce a delay in the creation of the tx set (which is used to construct merkle tree, which is used for merkle root, which is part of block header) BEFORE workers attempt to find a solution for the block? I can't see it being more than a minimal additional processing and pools already use "tricks" to rapidly generate work for all workers after a block change.
|
|
|
|
|
Another possibility which is more common in "normal" PC setups is a loose pin. The pins can come slighly loose. When the connector is seated the male and female pins have a weak connection. Poor connection = higher resistance. Same amount of current with higher resistance = more heat.
A lot depends on the specific GPU. I ran heavily overclocked (watercooled) quad 5970 rigs with no powered risers and never had an issue. The 5970 actually pulls very little power (<20W) from the PCIe slot so the load on the motherboard is less.
|
|
|
|
You "insist"? OH NOES someone is insisting. How about you do your own research? Still if it will shut you up. Sorry, that was unnecessary, still when in doubt check the source. int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 48 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 2 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 218750);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
https://github.com/doublec/i0coin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L664The spoon fed version: The subsidy timeline is not the same. Coinchoose is wrong. It began @ 48 coins per block and was cut in half every 218,750 blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Step 3 takes a long time. There are lots of nuances. Almost two years I am learning new things and fixing misconceptions I had about the protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the OP scenario is at least probable but like the other responses I think a fall to $200 is highly unlikely. Below $350 wouldn't surprise me. Below $300? Not sure. I will keep some bids down there but not sure if they will hit. Below $266 (prior ATH) seems dubious and <$200 just isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Math was never my strength so would someone kindly let me know in US dollars what bitcoin would have to be selling at for one satoshi to be worth one US cent.
One million dollars <sirens> This is the Math Police! $0.01/1E8 = $100,000,000 USD One hundred million not one million dollars. No. Hundred million (10^8) satoshis per bitcoin, so $0.01 = 1 satoshi would imply that 1 BTC = 100,000,000 times $0.01, so $1M. DOH. Your right. I am going to bed. |
|
|
|
Please calm down and think about it more. A small part of miners may care about this patch does not change the fact that now everyone's fate are in the hands of a few operators of big pools. No everyone's fate is in the hands of miners. However it HAS ALWAYS BEEN in the hands of miners (since the genesis block). Don't like that concept? Then become a miner. |
|
|
|
|
Since when is Bitcoin considered cash. Unless reported by someone with authority I am calling BS.
|
|
|
|
I am saying the masses don't know and don't care. They are not as paranoid as we are. They just want to click a button and order their Pizza. They have no clue how it all works behind the scenes. The go to Dominos Pizza and click the button the website. They don't go searching for a Bitcoin client. Then they don't have Bitcoins and aren't making Bitcoin transactions. Problem solved. Unless dominoes is also running an exchange (includin expensive MT license) I really doubt most users first interaction with a Bitcoin wallet will be the dominoes website. |
|
|
|
1. If 6% is greater than their hashrate, it is still disporportionately siphoning revenue from the mining network. So over time it does build mass. Well no. Their gross revenue may increase 6% but then all of the costs in marketing their network killing centralized client, convincing the dumb masses to use it, promotional costs (like you said provide free txs), dealing with the whistle blowers and advocates convincing users to jump ship, etc, eat into that additional margin. You also assume that other miners can't continue to operate profitably even with a reduction in revenue and will be forced out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
