The recipient still has to have some bound on the key lookahead, Why? As keys are used, just keep moving the lookahead window forward until you find the last transaction. |
|
|
|
ok justus,
2 days. did i count that right?
Two days have closed above $165.21413, but five days (besides today) have seen trades at or above that level. I like to keep it apples-to-apples, so if we're talking about today's daily high we should compare it to historical daily highs, not closing prices. Either way, we're back at levels where Bitcoin has spend very little time in the past. |
|
|
|
Of course all this stuff is really assuming that blockchain space remains cheap enough that most transactions happen on the blockchain, in which case you have to wonder why anyone would care much about fees. On the other hand if blockchain space is expensive, Alice's transaction patterns are going to be mainly receiving large chunks of Bitcoins, and moving them to off-chain tx services periodically. That's easy to do with single-txin, single-txout transactions, has no privacy issues at all, and will naturally be supported by wallet software to save on fees.
You mean, no privacy issues other than that users are forced to hold their funds with a third party service who can monitor their transactions or lose or steal their bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Our fears may be unfounded.
We didn't just imagine small banks and credit unions eliminating international wires entirely. |
|
|
|
Is that the BitcointalkPlus thingy showing post count near activity?
No, there's checkbox in the profile settings somewhere that you can turn on to show both. Looks under "Forum Profile Information" near the bottom. |
|
|
|
If there's new regulation, it's got to be somewhere.
Apparently it's a provision of Dodd-Frank. |
|
|
|
pfffff AHAHHAHAHA wow.
honestly though, i agree with the OP bitcoin is a littlebit ironic
The ignore was for starting a new thread instead of using the search feature so that we wouldn't need to rehash the exact same points yet again. |
|
|
|
Sure, I understand that, but then you're back to wondering - how many keys should I use, and what values should I assign to them? That's for the sender to figure out, based on whatever balance of privacy vs speed of transaction vs fees matches their own preferences. The recipient doesn't need to know or care about that at all. If they are expecting a certain amount of funds to arrive they just keep watching their sequence of addresses for it to show up until it does. It shouldn't matter to them whether it arrives in a single transaction or 100 transactions. One of the problems with the payment protocol with single addresses (instead of extended pubkeys) is that the recipient can effectively dictate the amount of potential privacy the sender can enjoy. (Refuse to provide more than a single deposit address and the sender might be forced to combine outputs from different addresses to make the payment, thus linking them on the blockchain). If that somehow become a default setting somewhere then we get privacy turned off by default in a large chunk of the ecosystem. On the other hand, if the recipient provides an extended pubkey they can't restrict the number of payment addresses the sender uses and appropriately-coded clients get privacy on by default. |
|
|
|
|
The inventors of that malware are quite business savvy, in a thoroughly evil way.
$300 is a price that most people will pay to get their data back.
|
|
|
|
would appreciate a logical and unemotional response Done.  |
|
|
|
I think this is a good thing for bitcoin  Yes it is, because it makes room for better, more difficult to shutdown services to replace it. |
|
|
|
|
See the last link in my signature.
Also, you should move the thread to "currency exchange".
|
|
|
|
holy fuck BUY!!!!!!!!! Foreign Wire Transfers: Due to recent regulatory changes, effective 10/1/13, FNBT/FCB will no longer offer foreign wire transfer services through Internet Banking or in banking centers. If you need to send funds to a recipient in a foreign country, you can go to www.westernunion.com to send a transfer using your Debit MasterCard® or visit your local banking center to send a Western Union in person. puahaha whaaaaaat? They're sending them to western union? Really? That's ridiculous! Anyone want to start calling random banks and asking them about their international wire policies to see if this is a trend or not? |
|
|
|
I have a friend that works at the US/CAD boarder he got a memo about bitcoin it said "let the bitcoiners cross with wtv amount of bitcoin they like, their is no need to declare bitcoin holdings" ( or somthing to that effect ) thats right bitches, bitcoiners are getting special treatment   |
|
|
|
Interesting. The feather fork works both ways, though it'd probably still be very, very expensive to try competing. I mean - once you establish 90%+ of total hashrate and are paying, say, 150% PPS and still making a profit, I'm not sure there's any way to compete other than by trying to appeal to users' sense of morality (in which case, they'd just use p2pool - though by force-orphaning their blocks, I don't think there'd be many willing to send that much BTC into a black hole). If Satosh mining falls below a certain threshold (maybe 80% of total hashrate), the whole thing starts falling apart, unless Satosh makes PPS payments to pools to maintain their support and has reserve funds to boost incentive. Satoshi can only pay 150% PPS if he's earning enough via extortions, or if he draws down on his investors's funds. Assume the federal reserve isn't printing new dollars at will specifically for Satoshi to provide him with an infinite BTC spigot. This means his scheme must remain profitable via extorting more income from businesses than he needs to pay out the pools, or else he'll eventually run out of investor money to make his payouts. His payouts to pools have to be high enough that they compensate for the lost revenue the pools will be experience by processing fewer transactions. This scheme would drastically reduce the number of transactions that are allowed to happen, so Satoshi better have really deep pockets. All it takes is one competitor willing to operate at lower margins (i.e, pay out 151% PPS while charging merchants slightly less) to break Satoshi. Likewise, the same thing can happen to new-Satoshi. On the other hand, if an attacker with an infinite amount of money is willing to fund an attack on Bitcoin, could we really do anything about it anyway regardless of what method they use? |
|
|
|
|
The attack only works if the attacker has access to an infinite supply of bitcoins (or perhaps an infinite supply of dollars to buy bitcoins).
If the attacker has finite funding, they won't be able to stop investors from funding competing cartels which undercut their prices.
|
|
|
|
Eh, let's not jump to conclusions. As was pointed out by others, that's a letter by *one* bank, for *one* type of account, saying nothing about whether you can switch to another type of account that still allows intl wire transfer. In short: no. International transfers won't quietly stop working in the US. They won't make it *that* easy for us  That's two banks, with this one applying to all accounts. If more are doing the same thing, then it does indeed look like international transfers will quietly stop working in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
