Maybe someone can ask my questions.

So the empty blocks, or 1 transaction blocks, happen because a so small block will be propagated very fast through the nodes. Means 1 MB blocks might have a hard time reaching >50% and might get orphaned often.

When we now get 20MB blocks at one point, shouldnt the problem worsen then? I mean i can imagine the incentive to mine 1 transaction blocks will be even higher because the p2p speed wont keep up with that i think.

* Wont this be a problem?

Maybe a solution is to spread headers first, so some data identifying a found block. These headers are spread through all nodes in light time. The blocks follow later and can be verified. A one transaction block verified faster gets still orphaned when a 20 MB block gets verified later. That would ensure that empty blocks are not worth it.

There would need to be a timeout. Spreading faked headers wouldnt help because they would need to match a found block.

* Will this be a solution?

Then... when the spam happened, why did miners chose the huge transactions over many small ones with smaller fees? Shouldnt they chose many small transactions and shouldnt they be able to put more transactions with more fees into the block that way? Or only use the blocks that have the highest fee per satoshi. It shouldnt go after the fee per transaction because big transactions use much space and propagation time. It doesnt make so much sense to chose huge transactions that slow down a block and prevent more transactions being implemented only because they have a higher fee than small transactions. Though maybe its already handled that way.

* How is it handled and if not so why?

And what someone mentioned today... when we really want adoption we might need to drop the idea of a max block size completely and implement something like fee per output, since in fact each is its own transaction and should be treated like that. Since no post office allows you to bring 100 letters in a big box and send them out to 100 locations for 5 times the price for one letter. No, you either can chose the price of 5 times a letter to ship all letters to one location or you pay the price for 100 letters. I dont see a reason why bitcoin shouldnt handle it the same way.

* Is there a good reason to prefer transactions with many outputs?

Why? What happens when amazon decides to accept bitcoins? We might get flooded with transactions and might have filled our max blocks pretty fast. We would fail at the end maybe because a fork cant be made fast enough. So i think in order to allow adoption the max block size idea has to be dropped.

* What do you think about this potential adoption hinderness?

Well, i admit im a bit astonished how aggressive you get only because i made a wrong assumption. Yes, the wallet can be retrieved. Ok now?

And "normally"? 2FA is only a kind of second password whose source is held independent from the wallets host computer. So under a normal implementation i would understand that, with the current setup, a transaction only can be sent when the 2FA code is correct and the password too. Though when i think about the implementation i see why it might not work that way. If the wallet checks for a correct 2FA then the code has to be in the wallet, which makes it attackable. Encryption would only work with a static password too. So even when encrypting the 2FA with the norma password, at that point an attacker on the computer might be able to get in.

Letting a server check brings you back to point TrustedCoin.

Guess 2FA only makes sense for a website since its unlikely that it gets hacked. So only protecting things outside of the website.

So a 2fa electrum wallet has no brainwallet. The normal one has and thats the source of the seed, right? I wonder why the multisig one doesnt have when the wiki states that the seed contains all three keys.


Its huge. Especially for a service you get everywhere for free. :| Though thats a decision of the creators.

I never thought about that. You surely are right. Having amazon including bitcoin might mean there will be a problem instantly. Guess a fixed blocksize cant be the solution when we go for big adaption.

We only would need a good reason for adoption and bitcoin would not show his best side when all the new users overload the miners.

Only because we doesnt understand something doesnt mean that it somehow will evolve to something greater out of its own. I wrote programs that are named neural networks, which is mimicing the way human neurons (in the brain) work. I was disappointed about what is possible. They can only learn in the border you set them. They will not somehow break out of it.

Dadice_Dev, you might check the bandwith usage of dadice. Even when switching to lite, so that nothing happens on the screen, i have a constant bandwith drain. I wanted to have it open to see when its near a half million bets and occassionally bet so i can see the numbers. But i had to close the tab because dadice is constantly drawing away my bandwith and i need to watch over it since i run it on my phones internet.

I think it mostly were bitcoiner, so traders, that believed in an effect of grexit. I mean we knew it worked with cyprus already and it worked with grexit again. I dont think greeks had a lot to do with that. More speculators in bitcoin area.

Ok, thats something important to know. So when the service dies, but you still have your brainwallet, you will be able to recover your funds? I mean without the service could you create the multisig addresses again at all? I would not know what to do just in the case.

Is it your service? If not, why didnt you implement 2FA normally? Not being able to log into the account or send transactions without 2FA should have been sufficient i guess. Why not going that route? The service costs money for each transaction on top. Because of that i doubt many will use it.

I had not so much problems today but when i clicked on reply the forum loaded veeerrryy slow...

Anyway... i started to go through the forum now with 2 tabs. While i leave the one tab i let the next side load and read the thread on the other, then repeating. It saves time i otherwise will lose.

So far 503 happens even without having accessed faster than 1 second.

Edit: Nice post id. When the last 2 would have spread into two ones then it would be perfect.

So there is a slightly higher chance of winning when betting the whole 1 clam in one run instead spreading bets over more runs with lower chance? I didnt await that either.

Thanks for your explaination.

Thank you for your kind words. Let me know once you need my support again.

Ah ok.

I already tried to get in contact with kumala some months ago because of some important info about the scammer who scammed with labcoin. He could have helped the case but he did not react, regardless of all the ways i contacted him. I asked on the forum if someone know him and if i can get in contact. Nothing too. It seems to be impossible to get in contact months before already.

The only thing i learned was that others had problems with him too. For example issuers that wanted to take over the project and run it, because they would be able to provide a better service to their shareholders. The offer was good too. But kumala didnt react or was too d... ehm... unsmart to even get knowledge of the offer. Thats clearly not how a business has to be done.

And i would not have divs paid out there anymore since when something would have happened then no help would be there. And you never would know if the divs wouldnt have been paid out shortly before the website vanishes.

So luck in bad luck i guess.

Im not sure why you get personal. I already explained that i didnt trust him and secured the shares i had. My issuer knows the amount of shares i owned so i cant lose them since im in contact with him anyway. The $25 i still had on there to get some shares in case someone drops theirs are gone probably but thats nothing i would go doing a lawsuit.

I dont know what his first scam was but when he got many coins and no one came behind him then it looks like he isnt known in real life. Is that correct?

Still, might be some bot traders having coins there or other people that waited for fill their order for shares. When the site remains down and kumala isnt paying out the coins then he most probably will get prosecuted. Bitcoiners arent so forgiving anymore nowadays.

Thats correct. Though i took the risk because a certain security was only traded there. And since kumala claimed the issuer would have always a list showing how many shares someone has, i decided that i can buy shares, put them into vault and be safe. My issuer would know how many shares i own even when the exchange vanishes. For me that is true but for those that didnt enable that option its not true.

Well... i guess there would still be some user coins lying around on cryptostocks. I wonder what will happen with them. I mean is kumala known in real life?

And i dont want to start with their stupid 2FA. If the email of an account is hacked then 2FA is sat back. And you can circumvent 2FA with some codes, lowering security very much. The only safe thing to do is putting shares into vault, then an attacker could not take it.

Though kumala abandoned his site since ages already, no support anymore, even for important things.

Issuer now will have problems.

Anyone knows whats the thing with cryptostocks.com? I only get "We're sorry, but something went wrong." when i access the site.

Kumala, the owner did not care about the site since ages but now it stopped working completely?

Vielleicht ist einfach deine Firewall zu und blockiert die Aktivität des Clients? Mach sie mal testweise aus und schau ob es geht. Nicht vergessen sie wieder zu aktivieren. Falls es daran lagt musst du halt dafür sorgen dass das Wallet durch die Firewall kommt.

*lol* Das ist was ich auch gedacht habe. Es ist schwer vorstellbar dass ein Student, der es bis zum Bachelor geschafft hat, den Post geschrieben hat.

Thats not possible since the buyers name is mentioned in the message at least.


Why didnt you use the escrow address i sent you? You took a risk and i dont see why you sent him directly when you already had a escrow deal set up. Did he say you shouldnt use escrow?

Anyway... if you control the account and you can show that you bought it, then you should be fine.

Normally you should not post bought accounts publicly. If your account would have green trust then you would have the risk of being rated negative because you did not earn that trust.