And <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC> (no gap, as it should be):
This is not a valid DOCTYPE. PUBLIC must be followed by both a public and system identifier (eg, <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" " http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">). Without a valid DOCTYPE, your browser may take it upon itself to "correct" any irregularities in your markup (even if your markup is syntactically valid). For example, in Firefox, your body's 0 px margin is not always inherited by other elements. Whereas, if you had used a valid DOCTYPE, your body's margin will be inherited, resulting in all elements which don't specify their own margin to have a 0 px margin instead of the default margin, which is what's screwing up your spacing (in reality, it's not screwed up at all: it's exactly what you asked for, even though it's not what you meant). At least, that's what's happening in Firefox. Other browsers may correct your markup in different ways, resulting in your page appearing different in different in different browsers. TL;DR: If you use <!DOCTYPE HTML> (or any other valid DOCTYPE), your browser will display exactly what your markup specifies. If this differs from what you wanted or expected, there is a bug in your markup. If you use <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC> (or any other invalid DOCTYPE), your browser will attempt to fix such bugs, resulting in your page looking correct even if it is not. However, this is not valid and your page is likely to look different (and may even look worse than if the bug was not fixed at all) in different browsers.
|
|
|
All other sessions are destroyed when you log in. There can only be one active session at a time.
Uh, nope. I'm logged in simultaneously on my phone, desktop and laptop. Confirmed. Neither logging in nor logging out has any effect on other sessions.
|
|
|
The transaction ID is a hash of the transaction. It is random, but it is possible to generate many variations of the same transaction (without actually sending them) until you get a transaction with a transaction ID that matches some criteria, and then only send that one. You should not use a transaction ID alone as a source of random data.
The correct way to do what you're trying to do is to generate a secret, then publish a hash of that secret. Add the secret to the transaction ID, then hash that, and use that hash to select the winner. When you announce the winner, reveal the secret at the same time. To verify that the winner was fairly chosen, anyone can hash the secret, verify that the hash matches the hash you published earlier (to prevent you from cheating by changing the secret), and then hash the secret+transaction ID to verify that you selected the winner correctly.
|
|
|
Tor has nothing to do with it. You have to "do something" (make a post, read a thread, even just refresh the page) every 15 minutes for your "time logged in" to increase.
|
|
|
WARNING: POSSIBLE TROJAN!
File does not match official binary from bitcoin.org.
Official bitcoin-0.8.2-win32-setup.exe size: 11681792 bytes SHA1: b7aabe49bebd916df5262c250765c905b6a97b30 Suspect bitcoin-0.8.2-win32-setup.exe size: 16412672 bytes SHA1: 537544f6bc82cfa85befd979f4cfec6674ae6c3f
DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS FILE! Download Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.2 only from bitcoin.org/en/download!
|
|
|
I hope a limerick is ok, it's a bit wordy but this is my best shot:
There was once a man whose life couldn't be finer, Until one day he decides to build the worlds biggest miner, He ordered 100 units from butterfly labs, After seeing all those pre-order ads, Now he is eating scraps from the dumpster outside the diner.
jimmijames was quite a funny man. But his limerick just wouldn't scan. He put up a good fight, But try as he might, It just wouldn't work. But it can: A man whose life couldn't be finer, Decided to build the world's biggest miner. He called Butterfly Labs, After seeing the ads, And now he's a poor dumpster diner. 1D2TJttBqgpaRphbxC5swpdRymSpJyHAa1(Please only judge the first verse, as the second is (obviously) not my original work.)
|
|
|
A grocer once sold lots of oranges. Alas, his slippery floor injures. When the customer sued, The grocer was screwed. He lost everything, even the door hinges. 1ASqBLeyKtU2vjvZEvtT9zoCcYAz4upRcJ
|
|
|
This falls under the category of "post scarcity utopia"
No it doesn't. It's not post-scarcity at all. Even if goods and energy are free, real estate and professional services are still scarce and money will still be needed to trade them. </thread>
|
|
|
foxpup@localhost:~$ ls -ct --full-time /|tail -1|awk '{print $6,$7}' 2012-05-11 23:28:21.000000000 foxpup@localhost:~$ Same day I bought the computer. What else would it be?
|
|
|
There's nothing odd about that transaction. It has a single input, from this address: 1MbojQQSdNA2kVJT9rkkhBt2hqL8An9DgG in this transaction: b6bfd604bd4bb0227106d8e8d1b8e81f9ba3509470dee028512eae8dcf33594b. What's odd is that blockchain.info doesn't have that transaction, even though it was confirmed in block 238008, which blockchain.info does have, and it does show that transaction there. What's going on here? EDIT: It looks like the first transaction was unconfirmed at the time the second transaction was made. That's the only thing in the least bit unusual that I can see. Though that sort of thing is far from uncommon and certainly doesn't explain why blockchain.info doesn't seem to know about the first transaction.
|
|
|
Are the people we depend on willing to let that happen?
Who are you talking about? We don't depend on Gavin Andreson, as he himself noted in the article you quoted. Satoshi Nakomoto already stopped doing what he was doing, and guess what happened to Bitcoin as a result? That's right, absolutely nothing. If the U.S. government thinks it can shut down an international, open-source project by telling U.S. citizens to stop working on it, they'll find out the hard way just how wrong they are.
|
|
|
Why not hardcore?
Because hardcore porn typically features men as well as women, and is therefore non-discriminatory. However, these men almost always have above-average sized penises, which I'm sure JohnRambo will claim is the result of a feminist conspiracy to make men with average sized penises feel inadequate. Or something.
|
|
|
No? If you want to mine with other computers, you have to actually run a miner application on each computer. Why would you even think that's not the case?
|
|
|
Of course it makes sense to create altcoins:
Step 1: Create altcoin. Step 2: Convince suckers to buy it by telling them it is GPU- and ASIC-"proof" even though a) it totally isn't; and b) that's not even a desirable property to have in a cryptocurrency anyway (*cough* botnets *cough*). Step 3: Profit!
Oh, you mean does it make sense for other people to actually use altcoins? No, not at all.
|
|
|
Actually, a satellite can be seized. It's impossible to hide, everyone on the planet with a telescope knows exactly where it is, and anyone with a space shuttle can go grab it. Of course, if you don't need to bring it back in one piece, there's an even easier option.
|
|
|
Having the MAJORITY (51%) of the hashing power, more or less ends the currency, doesn't it?
No. The effects of a 51% attack are only temporary. As soon as the attacker stops attacking, or is overpowered by legitimate miners, the network will instantly resume normal operation. Some people may have been ripped off the attacker's double-spends, and everyone will be forced to temporarily stop accepting bitcoins to avoid becoming a victim of a double-spend themselves, and the exchange rate will likely take a massive hit as many people lose confidence in the currency, but apart from that it'll be as if nothing ever happened.
|
|
|
Based on public/private key cryptography that even quantum computing cannot break.
Not true: ECDSA as used in Bitcoin is indeed vulnerable to quantum computers. Fortunately, real quantum computers of sufficient power don't exist yet, and likely won't exist for a long time. (Sorry for stealing your name, by the way.)
|
|
|
I don't know about the UK specifically, but in general mining income is taxable as ordinary income based on the market value of the coins at the time you mined them (even if you don't sell them). If you later sell them for a higher price than they were worth when you mined them, you have to pay capital gains tax on the difference (if you sell them for a lower price, you have a capital loss; I don't know whether you can claim a deduction on capital losses in the UK).
|
|
|
|