|
So you already have purchased 100 TH/s? Of course not that is just a lie. Thus you don't have economies of scale. Even if you did by offering pricing at $20/GH (for one year) you certainly aren't sharing those "economies of scale" with your clients suckers.
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to let you know that the first transaction without fees was processed and everything's fine now.  So the second one was and still is being ignored. Interesting that it didn't override the first. Thanks all! Yes and pointing out the network actively tries to prevent double spends. Any node which saw the first tx will drop the second tx and not relay it. |
|
|
|
The other thing is, surely as less mine it will take longer to confirm transactions
No. The network is self adjusting. 1 person (or more importantly 1 GH/s) or 1 million people (or 1 quadrillion GH/s) the network will target 10 minutes per block. |
|
|
|
I thought "chargebacks" of people whose account got "hacked" is 1 of the biggest problems of PayPal and the beauty of Bitcoins? :O Seriously tho, an independent database just for information could be cool. And somehow a wallet or way to make hacks less common would be cool. Of course all the nerds here (including me  ) can easily say " what you hold 100 btc in a hot wallet?" " what you use your password on another site too?!" " what you didn't use 2FA?!" " what you still run flash and java in your browser?!" But the reality is that most people do that and to get bitcoins more mainstream these issues somehow have to be resolved. Saying it's the problem of the user is not the best solution I think. I would not recommend my mother to hold a lot of bitcoins at this moment. But what the real solution is.. I don't know. What would be the solution if your mother walked around with 1KG gold bar and someone stole it from her? Theft happens. The "solution" to preventing (or more realistically reducing it) occurs PRIOR to the theft not after. |
|
|
|
|
He is talking out his butt.
This guy is a professor? I certainly hope not a professor of electrical engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
No.
A required attribute of a currency is fungibility. If Bitcoin loses fungibility it has lost its purpose for existing.
|
|
|
|
I have always wondered this in the bitcoin world, how do you get the supplier to perform?
eg I buy laptop online send btc he does not perform. This seem to be a disturbingly regular event for online service such as wallets and exchanges that just have their btc disappear.
I suppose trusted escrow will be the new "banks" until that escrow runs off or is hacked.
Buy from someone who's rep is worth far more than a laptop? If NewEgg accepted Bitcoins tomorrrow with 2% off everything in their store today and everday would you worry about non delivery? What if amazon.com did? I wouldn't. Both companies have spent a small fortune building their brand and reputation. |
|
|
|
If you cut a key in half then the key strength of brute forcing the other half is reduced by half.
EDSA 256 bit keys has 128 bit strength security.
So if you cut it into two 128 bit "half keys" and the attacker has one it is only 64 bit key strength to resist an attack. While it may take some time and effort that is computationally feasible.
A much better option would be to construct the partial keys using XOR making each key have full strength.
I know what you mean, but to make it clear; it is not halved, it is 2^128 2^64 times easier I updated the post, your right it is unclear. A clarification though, 256 bit ECDSA only has 128 bit key strength so half the key would be 64 bit key strength (too weak for me to sleep well at night). So it is 2^64 (or a whole hell of a lot) easier to break then the full key. Still you are dead on with the larger point. It SIGNIFICANTLY degrades the strength of the key and 64 bit is too close for comfort in my book. Keys with 64 bit key strength have been broken in a distributed computing project as a demonstration. It is almost certain that major nation states have the ability to break keys with 64 bit strength in a reasonable amount of time. |
|
|
|
|
If you cut a key with a key strength of 2^n in half then the key strength of either portion (assumed the attacker acquires the other portion) is reduced to in half to 2^(n/2). An attacker would be 2^(n/2) times easier.
For 256 bit EDSA the full key has 128 bit strength security a half key then only has 64 bit strength if the attacker has the other portion. While it may take some time and effort that is computationally feasible. 64 bit key strength should not be considered safe from brute force attack. You have made the attackers job 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 easier.
A much better option would be to XOR two 256 bit "partial keys" to create the final key. Each partial key retains the full key strength.
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about difficulty only rose once and it 2%? Difficulty has almost tripled in the last month (as in +200%) from ~155 million to 550 million. Everything else being the same you would be making 72% less. If you started a little earlier and the initial difficulty was ~100 million you will be making 82% less.  |
|
|
|
It's not just about taxes although that is one end of the spectrum. Many other countries use "taxes" as political weapons like China, and Russia. The bread and butter of asset protection business is setting up corporations, LLC, and trusts to defend against frivolous liability and other lawsuits. Some examples are set up slip and fall or suing for pretend injuries in auto accidents. Many lawyers who take up these cases work on a percentage basis and tend to avoid situations were collecting would be hard. Collecting with bitcoin is impossible.
Not really, if you get a court order to cough up your Bitcoins you sort of have to. What Bitcoins? I lost my wallet.dat, it got corrupted years ago. Bitcoin is the first wealth that is portable and reputable. Kinda hard to say you don't have a physical asset (say gold) when they open the safe and it is there. Kinda hard to move $1M in gold bullion out of the country (damn TSA metal detectors). Then they'll just take your physical assets. You can't claim you have nothing for them to take. Well they might be doing that anyways but that is one asset they can't take. |
|
|
|
Well it is comparable. Why hasn't (and no tor is a service running on the internet) a completely incompatible rival internet been created? We got coke and pepsi why not internet and hypertubes? Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effectThis isn't to say Bitcoin is "the one coin to rule the all" but the network effect can be hard to overcome. Baring a scenario where Bitcoin fails the successor would need to be not just "as good" or "marginally better" but vastly superior so that Bitcoin stakeholders (merchants, service providers, users, developers) switch over in mass. Otherwise the larger it gets, the more utility it gains, the more utility it gains, the more people that adopt it, the more people that adopt it the larger it gets .... |
|
|
|
since there is no central authority, who would it be that decides when all of the exchanges should use mBTC/satoshis as opposed to BTC?
is it the bitcoin-qt developers? and at what level will this likely occur?
The exchanges based on market demand. i assume this is like splitting a stock.. i don't know how it all works, but it'd be for psychological reasons mainly (and plus computation)... so how do they decide when it is a feasible option? It isn't like a stock split. It is more like deciding to show dimensions in meters, centimeters, or millimeters. They are equivalent. Nobody needs to tell you when to use 6 mm instead of 0.006 m, nobody could stop you if they wanted to. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody. Everybody.
For your own wallet you probably can right now if you want to you can right now. The QT client can show your balance in mBTC, uBTC, satoshis, etc. Switch it to mBTC, tell your friends the Bitcoin price in mBTC (still under a dollar). If tomorrow MtGox wanted to change their quotes to show prices in mBTC they could and nobody could stop them or maybe they won't for 15 years. I have seen a few stores which price in mBTC, some can switch, some are only BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
The internet it is great but whats to stop some new internet from being developed ...
|
|
|
|
Check out the alt-coins subforum. There have been a hundred (or at least a 50) Bitcoin networks altcoins. Most have gone absolutely nowhere and none have come close to rivaling Bitcoin. Still you seem to have this view it is "us" vs "them" as if Bitcoin only has in its camp a couple stoners, one barely competent programmer, and a stripper and in the other camp is the best of the best in IT, finance, marketing, etc. The reality is significant money is pouring into Bitcoin. Venture capital firms, startups, Bitcoin Trust, ETF, etc. That money and resource will lead to more money and resource. Every "stakeholder" has a vested interest in seeing the network improve. I will leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law |
|
|
|
|
At least once it goes private I won't have to worry about it accidentally burning out my retinas.
|
|
|
|
What would those innovations include?
QuantPlus will be an early adopters and thus it will be good, as opposed to existing coins where he isn't and they are bad. Wealth envy is always a sad thing to watch, cryptocurrency doesn't make that any different. |
|
|
|
From what I understand the MPP originally only insures against the increasing speed of the network and not due to HashFast delays. Nothing in the contract insures against HashFast delays. The Oct 30th insurance was only a recent development.
Well to be clear the MPP provides additional haspower but it isn't insurance. Hashfast is clear to point that out. Depending on the order, price, ship date, and difficulty it is possible orders without MPP do better. It is also possible even with MPP to have a loss. |
|
|
|
If this selloff breaches 340 we're doomed. 340 is 24hrs low.
Doomed I tell you. Bitcoins might only be worth what they were worth three days ago. Hold me back or I might just throw myself out a first floor window.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
