Version 1.0 will not be a beta, by convention. 0.9 will be the last major new feature update during beta. Incremental updates 0.9-1.0.
|
|
|
I've seeded already in total for sure above 100 GB. I'm up to 1 TB! I downloaded the torrent in 65 minutes. WOW
And the bottleneck is probably your connection. I think this is perfectly downloadable in 10 mins. I'm over 400 GB in < 30 days...wow!
|
|
|
I hear ya. You are running a full node and you wonder at what level of economic activity on the the Bitcoin network will your bandwidth requirements force you to upgrade to higher bandwidth. Clearly the late stage evolution of all crypto currencies is to centralize in pockets around cheap, wide bandwidth, as well as cheap electricity. If keeping up with blocks now is your concern, you need to ensure you can pull 0.1 megabyte (0.8 megabits) per minute (~15 kilobits/sec) through your connection. If you are using a 14.4 kilobaud modem from 1994, you probably are gonna have trouble doing that now; but a modern 56k modem from 1998 might work just fine Seriously though, bandwidth requirement right now is fixed by the 1 MB/block safety limit. It shouldn't trouble your connection too much!
|
|
|
...because I don't need dollars...
|
|
|
If you wait a long time it may become economical to spend your dust. The transaction fee defaults go down periodically as price goes up but most miners don't change the default settings; the next version of Bitcoin-Qt will hopefully have a market based, free floating transaction fee.
|
|
|
No need to share wallet.dat; just post all your addresses.
|
|
|
How much ฿? A lot can be done if significant value lost. Don't write to drive.
|
|
|
A January 2009 address was used to send bitcoins to DPR. That's the thrust of the article and claim (probably valid) of Ron and Rivest. Whoop dee doo.
Probably of no consequence but could shake the markets at a time no one can put fiat money into an exchange.
(Reposted in this thread with a more informative title...in case you were wondering why the identical post in the haha thread)
|
|
|
A January 2009 address was used to send bitcoins to DPR. That's the thrust of the article and claim (probably valid) of Ron and Rivest. Whoop dee doo.
Probably of no consequence but could shake the markets at a time no one can put fiat money into an exchange. That's rather clever at least...
|
|
|
Yes. That's the Shamir as in rSa.
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
wtogami> The bonus payment has been reduced slightly due to the verbosity of the above two statements. wtogami> <facepalm>
You're complaints have been noted and filed in triplicate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSA2BGAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7dA8H/0kdjHkDj+XjIwIxN3EsrTIV +sIc6NbHZBqOxT8TklB1iDgRwEJGHegGQql0Y4wsw8CQi4RiX7+dms/wHNFRBzL9 uhW0fodjxfzeZebqf3DrrwmLx2yH6XMc97nPAglcc1m3thsJk3b4evoTKNIHjsyd kCzGnDjGsR70gj2c54ToybrwWfAqffOkVZXOUrEiJOKK/RvBQJQ7UqAHt4U+eH1w nJVSLhKZdr3iqJBK9NqoX7giUc4cjF86FyI8hbxM/U8p6cmNWt+tveRUBIFhMATA D0b+gGnazNox6JPSSVmdZK5V99BhhgLiqjpLf9lSezVQgclSs6qqIseKUWn+6Qk= =1Rlz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSA2B0AAoJECqCA6OBPEql0nsIAKz9ts/pYR881UYv8EheQray WcTHOr4bhVw3tkgvLMDBgS1YEP0aQQec5Jx/SdUkl43HGLrN7ytf623u5fPZrfkZ XX0Kmn8yScR2v0hrMAV4OhWeGemaFSMXSJAohvyk7JRsDLgXJ2ixsF+eyswvl2sh b8lols69odjq+ChbTOfqTMAyZHQtLTI6PMC58spUGYdG/GDac45c7BcI71ubbwUk V3KuILq5K9J1yZ0RUPbiQ8lAn507gWEYZ46IwtCvH3cmzrpI94nemwOyXrbweuu1 HvVcv7q/OVx+JaQu9r9wrs3nR7mBQ0PlmT/RGyvAk/2LHHWvNOihD26gyG/+ugE= =fiqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN OPENTIMESTAMPS TIMESTAMP----- Version: 0.2.1.5.2_BETA/Build#2462 (GNU/Linux; Ubuntu Precise Pangolin 12.04.2 LTS) Include: DATA, SIGS
U2VyaW91c2x5LCB5b3UgaGF2ZSB3YXkgdG9vIG11Y2ggdGltZSBvbiB5b3VyIGhhbmRzLi4uCgpC dXQgaGVyZSdzIGEgQml0Y29pbjoKCjAxMDAwMDAwMDEyY2U1MjIyMGY5OGNlMTM5MThjY2Q2MDdi NDlhYzRmODcxODA3NWZjNTI2Yjg4M2UzNzc3YjM0MjNlMWJiY2Y5MDAwMDAwMDA2YTQ3MzA0NDAy MjAwOTNjZTYyNzM4MzA1MDczOWRmNmYyMjJkODBjMzcyMzJjN2VhM2UwZDFkY2E2ODg5NWZkMGJk M2QxNWNkMzllMDIyMDEyNzcxNDc0MTM1Y2Y4OTY3YWI3ZWVmYWM3ZDY0ZjViYTE5YjllOWFkYTM0 YWE3ZDUwZjE0ZTRmZDQ0MzdlNmE4MzIxMDJhYmJjZjRlMWU5MzE5N2E2NmE1NDYxZjIxNjQ2ZmQ2 NWNkZDk5ZWU5Y2QyODljMTBjOTNlOTgxOTY0ODQ4ZGIzZmZmZmZmZmYwMTAxZTFmNTA1MDAwMDAw MDAwMzc1YWJhYzAwMDAwMDAwCgpXaGF0PyBJIHdhc24ndCBleGFjdGx5IGdvaW5nIHRvIG1ha2Ug aXQgZWFzeS4KCkFsc28sIGhlcmUncyBzb21ldGhpbmcgZWxzZToKCmhRRU1Bd0FBQUFBQUFBQUFB UWdBdU1GQ210R2wxUVRERWlBVzRTRC9uY01nOUYwZTBQdVBZbmZwdFpzTmhCQTVFS1Y5eENhdURz cjkKRVh0SjJhTCtETTI3bm9ZMzljdXo1MXp2V0VhdTVZNVd4ZTIzZDVuQ2gxNngxeHluR2wxOEJw QWdYVlZoY29xTjNMZVBWU0RCb09FUwpSSXVTbVpWL3VNNkxDOVJkMFc5eGpsRitXL3IvNktaTVBq VmY5Vzh4VUpnYk1SOXNtSU5vU2VxbUhuWFpuSTByY3VReGR3S2NzVGtYCnR1S2ZPZ2R4K0x3L1dJ V1ZSSGdURlF2a0NvOE03cFBQQ3BvdC8wbHQwVnNGRC9zc0xWNDZxSGF0ZVNYalJEbG9PbDF1RTIv T1RNMW0Kcy9OWjI2cGN2SnB4S1E3Sy93RnFNd0JTU1U0bld0RDFWNmVrRWtNMGtRYzJVTnk0TU1i eXJkL3J3ZEtBQVpOY0JoVFhKWnBqNExJWgp3ZEtJdmoxRE1MUGk5TS92Z1JoeFV4YThvcm9hMSsv RFJqQUVLM3pZWCs0V2VMbllKZmE3Q1dBVmlscVdjeW1uc3RUT0NWWGtYT2dXClFUT1lVRzNCNmFn UzNkQ1Y3U284MEJKKzFWdW5QWXNkSDU5MEEvRlRWOGJzTktudXVlL1MwSFVrQmZhdHZ1anBzUVRr NDZPR3RsR0wKQTJzPQo= -----END OPENTIMESTAMPS TIMESTAMP-----
Now _that_ was funny. Classic!
|
|
|
I didn't think there was a way to estimate easily...one would probably have to poll a sample or pool operators to make a guesstimate.
|
|
|
I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."
Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).
The answer is "no." If Bitcoin conflicts with AML/KYC laws, then those laws have to go. They are dragging down the non-bitcoin financial system for the same reasons they are not acceptable to Bitcoin users. Money tainting hurts fungibility. Without fungibility, you don't have money. "Know your customer" means that you lose a lot a privacy even in the traditional banking system. With Bitcoin, the transaction record is public. "knowing your customer" means killing pseudonymity (and privacy). Blockchain.info reports taint analysis. Is this bad or wrong? What do you think of this company that is creating a whitelist? http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/11/13/sanitizing-bitcoin-coin-validation/Tge question is, how are we gonna point out the ill defined nature of such a task and the impossibility of doing it perfectly? The people who will be making decisions that will heavily effect the value of your bitcoins are likely to want this in the Bitcoin protocol. That's not on the table, but, they might even think they can demand it. We done white or black list our dollar bills by serial number. Why should we do this to our bitcoins? Such arguments are more helpful than an angsty "NO NO!".
|
|
|
I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."
Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).
|
|
|
I would like to attend this meeting, even if I have to sit quietly in the back. Is there information on how I might be able to do that? I,d also like to help any way I can (I'm near DC)
Call your congressman's office and ask. The congress reps are really approachable. Edit: Rassah -- glad to see you are on the right track.
|
|
|
|