|
Perhaps I missed it, but are there any messages showing up indicating an error when you go to make it?
|
|
|
|
I am using 0.9.0 on my Ubuntu PC no issues so far
Can I ask you to look at my issue compiling the 0.9 source? The makefile is generated, so it can't be missing library dependencies. I'm thinking maybe disk permissions or compiler config, but not certain. Makefile output in this thread, a few posts up I've been running it on Ubuntu too - 13.10 though vs 13.04 - without a problem (since last weekend-ish, forget exactly when I updated it). I didn't see anything obvious from what you posted that would cause an issue. |
|
|
|
Personally I don't think this is a priority.
In my opinion the following are priorities.
Security: eliminate the need for pools - they WILL eventually overwhelm. Imagine BTC is 100000 USD per unit, wouldn't YOU hack the system as a pool owner just to buy 5 houses?
Security: protect the zero-confirmation transaction by implementing the pre-mined block announcements, so you can see which transaction HAS been received by miners, while it's not 100% guarantee - it helps for the merchants.
Security/AntiDDOS: implement bitmessage like path-cost
Clean up: delete the irrelevant parts of protocol (like locktime, size etc), this will lower the size of blockchain and transmissions.
Speed: implement partial block announcement so clients can get just the inputs/outputs related to it's addresses.
GUI: can't even count the UI mess we have now. at least implement blockchain.info functionality to trace transactions and processing.
As far as the pools go, p2pool eliminates many of the issues - coins are paid right away so there is no pool wallet to hack for example, mining is more distributed, lowering the possibility of a 51% attack. |
|
|
|
Up to now, people (including the reference software) have relied on the transaction id being meaningful. There is a difference between a txid of a x-times verified transaction (in blockchain already, x>=y where y>0 (usually 6) is the security block count of the receiver) and a txid in an unverified transaction.  100% correct. Until there are sufficient confirmations, you cannot depend on it. Even a transaction can be replaced prior to confirmation which is why confirmations matter. The reference client displays unconfirmed transactions as a user convenience since they can be altered but does not rely on transaction IDs for refunding money. |
|
|
|
Hello Look guys what I found: http://p2pools.org/Is there a posibility to measure from website what pool is the best for me? You can open up the terminal and use ping to get a measure of how close a node seems to be. e.g. If you were to use the command: ping www.google.comThe results would be something like this: PING www.google.com (173.194.37.146): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 173.194.37.146: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=19.328 ms |
|
|
|
|
Potentially lower orphans due to increased connectivity.
|
|
|
|
I have been taking a cryptography class and I'm wondering if someone can assist with my question in regards to understanding the "transaction malleability" BTCitcoin vulnerability that was supposedly exploited by Mt Gox customers to double-spend their BTCitcoin' (see press release below)? I'm surprised to learn that the SHA256 signature of the block chain is "malleable". I thought any secure MAC protocol would prevent this sort of 'attack'. And I don't see where the security proof is broken for the BTCitcoin protocol. https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20140210.htmlSee: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460944.0 |
|
|
|
And now almost an year later, i can't believe how poorly this was covered by the worldwide media, like it's not the most outrageous government theft in modern history but just a minor hiccup.....
Don't forget the ponzu scheme retirement programs in most countries where they rob from the young to pay for the old. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will not survive, the Bitcoin foundations cooperate with the enemies of Bitcoin, what do you expect?
Substance, not trolling, is what I expect. |
|
|
|
Wow! My miner found a block. Number 285163. A first for me.
Mine found 2 a couple days ago throughout a single day and my rig is microscopic in comparison to what I see out there. Is that equivalent lightning striking twice? yes very odd.. a friends 60gh/s rig found 2 blocks last week. essentially an impossible feat in comparison. but luck is luck, or someone is manipulating the data I have to ask: do you get any kind of "Bonus" when your hardware finds a Block? Or the usual reward you would get for participating? It depends on the pool. With Slush, no bonus. Other pools have different rules - p2pool pays a 0.5% bonus to the person who finds the block. |
|
|
|
Ok, I have my AntMiner S1, which pool is the best to use? BTCguild PPS or PPLNS, or a different pool?
Slush pool any good?
Slush and BTCguild are both fine pools. Deepbit.net is fine too. All three reputable, honest, and have been around a long time. P2pool is good and should get your lower fees and a higher return over time, but with higher short term variance. It is really just a question of looking at the costs, orphans and benefits of each and then deciding what is important to you. |
|
|
|
So if I have 1 Antminer S1, would you suggest to use btcguild (PPLNS) ?
How about Slush pool?
The math shows that p2pool will come out better over time (plus lower fees, in theory lower orphans, mining right to your own address so no worries about lost/stolen coins), many people are impatient or haven't read enough and won't give p2pool a few months to show its benefits. The OP is discussing doing a longer-term test to show this. Pools have plenty of variance so even if the math shows that p2pool is going to come out ahead, there are weeks where it won't. And visa versa, weeks where it would come out way ahead. |
|
|
|
It quite makes sense, because people started noticing it only after these gox problems and people not believing them, no?
Of course given how technically inept Gox has proven themselves over the last year++ we may be giving them too much credit. |
|
|
|
While transactions are signed, the signature does not currently cover all the data in a transaction that is hashed to create the transaction hash. Thus while uncommon it is possible for a node on the network to change a transaction you send in such a way that the hash is invalidated. So some of the non-essential data can sometimes be changed. And that is what leads to malleability of the transaction, even though it remains perfectly valid and will go to the exact address as intended. Relevant link : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_MalleabilityIt is like the post office (or someone else) stamping the outside of the envelope - it still gets there [well, that is debatable!], but the envelope isn't identical to the way it was when you placed it in the mailbox. |
|
|
|
Is there any work being done on reverse-transactions in bitcoin?
Yes. They just aren't widely implemented yet. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2:_Escrow_and_dispute_mediationBitcoin has the added benefit that both sender and recipient can choose in advance who has the power to reverse a transaction in case of a dispute. [...]the transaction could be reversed by consensus?
In principle, any bitcoin transaction CAN be reversed by consensus. Bit since this requires changing the protocol it is unlikely to ever happen for individual transactions. During the March 2013 fork event transactions were successfully reversed: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-forkMore realistically, you could also set up a multisig transaction that requires the consensus of a "committee" of previously selected mediators. Why was this block rejected? What in specific made it incompatible with earlier versions of the software? See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawikiAs far as reversibility, OP, don't just say "we need X" - if you believe it, do it. Talking does nothing. Please fork the software, and fork the blockchain with your idea. Let us know when it is complete. If it is true that "We need Reverse Transactions", then everyone will switch. The rest of us will be selling your new PayPalCoin. Either way, it will put an end to these repeated ideas for changes that make no sense. |
|
|
|
In a sentence: bitcoin mining (pools) must be regulated.
LOL. Regulated by whom? If ANY pool operator tried that, s/he'd lose most/all of the miners within hours or minutes. And get people to mine with p2pool to help with centralization if you are really concerned. |
|
|
|
Guys, you are not helpful... I asked this in the speculation sub-forum and it was moved here.
The newest info is that the problem is not limited to MtGox, but is an attack on the whole network.
Someone is spending time and money sustaining this attack, and probably hopes to get huge returns.
Market confidence may be broken badly if this is let to spread and persist. I'm a bear and want cheaper coins,
but not single digit ones. Now, is it possible to trace the source of this attack?
There are a number of threads on it in here, they answer all the questions. |
|
|
|
Hi, I have problem with connect to ws://websocket.mtgox.com. No data on TCP. I tried to connet from different IP, but without success.
Does anybody have the same problem? And what is solution for receiving lag, trades and also sending my trade commands?
They have right now much bigger problems than websocket api. . But my question is about websocket. Apparently not, but regardless, as jl2012 said, this doesn't belong here. |
|
|
|
Maybe good in the long run.
Pot shops will be more inclined to hold the bitcoins instead of auto-trading them with a processor. I'm sure the markup on pot is very high (no pun intended) so they are in a position where volatility will not kill them.
This means they will be more inclined to push the bitcoins into the supplychain; try to get employees, growers etc.. taking their bitcoins...
Exactly. This should be looked at as a positive! The banks are so gun-shy now that they don't want any hint of something illegal at the Federal level and anyone who deals with the banks is getting caught in the same net. |
|
|
|
The price of bitcoin will take 1-2 years to go back to what it was if it goes back. That's just my opinion tho
You might want to check the price. Very true. The same things were said in 2011 when the price was going between 3 and 30 and last year when Gox had issues and it was going between 50 and 266. People panic and then regret it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
