 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
|
Just use laminated paper wallets. We have a 100 year old book in our library within a glass box, and it's still looking
pretty good. The laminated paper should last much longer, because it's protected from external humidity. Just keep it away from direct sunlight.
I would not trust any digital media, because the technology and standards change too quickly.
I have actually a 100 year old book (printed in 1917, so 98 years to be honest) in my bookshelf and it's in decent shape. Its covers are slightly worn and pages somewhat yellowish, but that's all. A laminated a paper wallet will last even better. If kept in dry and dark place and avoiding disasters I'd say it will last for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
$237. The market is saying what it thinks about 7 tps.
Don't worry. The Devs will meet in Canada. Everyone agrees in Canada. It's the consensus capital of the world! Well, except the French. I wouldn't put my hopes up.  They have talked about it since early 2013 and haven't got it done. If anything their views are now more entrenched than ever. Showing some support for raising the block limit will make their decisions easier and the only way to do that is to run the code. So install Core+BIP 101 or XT and be done with it. Let them veto till the end of days if they wish, the community doesn't need to wait for these guys. |
|
|
|
Btw. you can currently write ฿ with Ctrl+Shift+u, then 0e3f followed by space in Linux and Alt+0E3F in Windows.
can you explain the bold part. I don't understand what to do. I mean should I type in 0e3f with ctrl+shift down also when I press Ctrl+Shift+u a popup comes up showing my cpu+... usage that I had no idea was there You have bolded the Windows part, but telling me your trying the Linux part so I don't quite follow you. Maybe I'll rephrase it with little more detail. If you are on Linux: 1. Press and hold CTRL+Shift and then u (You enter Unicode input mode. Underline will appear below the letter u like this: u.) 2. Release all keys and type the hex code: 0e3f 3. Press Spacebar ( u0e3f changes into ฿.) About Windows I can give no exact instructions as I'm not running one. You can try following methods: 1. Press and hold down the Alt key 2. Press numpad + 3. Type the hex code: 0e3f 4. Release Alt or 1. Press and hold down the Alt key 2. Type on numpad: 3647 (3647 is the same hex code in decimal) 3. Release Alt |
|
|
|
The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.
You do know that blocks are made of transactions? So generally, more transactions means exactly that, bigger blocks. |
|
|
|
Block size has not been changed over the last 5 years, this is what I mean by people fundamentally misunderstand the issue.
Maybe it's you who is totally misunderstanding the issue or just trolling. (I'm beginning to think of latter) Block size has changed as you can see from the graph. The block size limit hasn't changed. So far the gap between actual block size and the limit has been so large that it has had no effect on economy whatsoever. (aside from recent "stress test".) Think of it like the oil market. If block size is increased that's like discovering another Saudi Arabia and will flood supply, directly forcing total transaction fees downward. That makes no sense. Total fees have increased so far with increasing block size (and transfer rate). There is no reason to think that total fees would suddenly drop while transaction volume keeps growing. History shows us that exactly opposite is true. More apt comparison would be that if more oil is transported the transport companies will make more profit in total, even if growing market would drive unit transportation fees down. If you honestly think that limiting block size will profit miners I have a great plan for you. Lets set block size limit to 0 and let miners enjoy huge profits from zero transaction rate. yay logic!  |
|
|
|
If Unicode adds BTC, a small company could sell a keyboard with a BTC key and market it to Bitcoin users. I'd pay .2BTC for one.
You can design and order custom Cherry MX keycaps (or complete key sets) at: http://www.wasdkeyboards.com/index.php/Tutorial at: http://support.wasdkeyboards.com/customer/portal/articles/1518370-creating-a-custom-layoutBasically it's just downloading an .svg file with a default layout, loading it to inkscape (or other vector graphics editor) and adding the symbol you wish. Currently most European layouts have € symbol at the lower right corner of the E key (Alt Gr + E). Would it be good to place ฿ or BTC symbol to the lower right corner of the B key on these keyboards? I guess on others it would go near £, $ and € on the number row. [edit] The US layout doesn't have Alt Gr. key so I have no idea where Bitcoin symbol would fit. US international layout does have it though. Btw. you can currently write ฿ with Ctrl+Shift+u, then 0e3f followed by space in Linux and Alt+0E3F in Windows. |
|
|
|
You might get a block increase, but you will be sorely disappointed by its results. Why do you want a block increase anyway?
To make bitcoin ready for future growth in transaction rate. To make room for new users, merchants and use cases. To keep transaction fees competitive and affordable to larger demographic. To give confidence to all actors in bitcoin space that the transaction rate will not be stunted by some artificial cap designed for a completely different purpose. To give an opportunity to Satoshi's vision that the "eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets". (We wouldn't have bitcoin if he wasn't right in great many things) Well, that's few reasons I could think just now, but there's probably more. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin as it is works fine and it can scale globally as it is, the proper way to see things is to think that bitcoin simulates gold with the added property of being portable. you would not buy a soft drink using gold or a $100 dollar bill, for that reason alt coins like litecoin o dash have a purpose, we do not need 500 alt coins, but maybe a few are needed. Bitcoin whitepaper describes it as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" right in it's headline and "an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof". Wouldn't redefining it as e-gold be breaking the social contract and alienate lot of users? Only time gold is mentioned in the whitepaper is to explain mining, not usage. When you reduce the use cases for Bitcoin you also reduce its demand. With the reduced demand its valuation will decrease, unless you get enough new e-gold bugs to join to compensate for disappearing sectors of bitcoin economy. As bitcoin is obviously intended to work as payment system. Wouldn't it be better to create an alternate coin with a whitepaper that tells its users that it's main purpose is to work as e-gold? No one would feel cheated and everyone would be happy. |
|
|
|
The forking is gaining speed.
The trolls are downvoted heavily. I guess the 21 Million Dollar attack won't work. But trolls can't be downvoted here on BCT. All reasonable discussion drowns due to few trolls conquering the threads and driving others away. (people get tired of constant nonsense and ad-hominem attacks) |
|
|
|
Why would they? It looks like this isn't very clear to you. Bitcoin scales much more efficiently off chain, and that is a fact. Offchain is not Bitcoin, if you don't have the private keys you don't control your coins. Sidechains have their problems too. How does exchanging your bitcoins to some sidechain coin happen? How do you know on which chain a merchant works? It all should be completely transparent to the user, but how is that achieved? There's so much to do and so many challenges on that front that it will take years before anything usable comes around (and what will be limitations and compromises of those solutions?). We can scale the main chain now (Why is this even an issue?) and play with side chains later. Or should we just wait for n number of years and hope that Lightning Network or some sidechain solutions will appear? Seems like some Core devs think we should. :/ [edit] When I invested in Bitcoin I read the whitepaper and nowhere it says that Bitcoin should be only a settlement layer. |
|
|
|
Here's interesting comment from Gavin about scaling bitcoin: People claiming that "Bitcoin Doesn't Scale" are theoretically correct: you still need O(n) bandwidth and CPU to fully validate n transactions-per-second.
Someday, when Bitcoin is the number 2 payment network in the world, we might have to start worrying about that. Here are a couple of back-of-the-envelope calculations that show that we should be able to scale up to n=15,000 transactions per second before running into that O(n) bandwidth limit.
For perspective, the number 1 payment network in the world today (Visa) handles about 212 million transactions per day; 2,500 transactions per second on average. Their peak processing capacity, needed on the busiest shopping days, is reported to be 40,000 tps.
My home Internet connection is getting about 90 megabits download bandwidth per second right now. An average Bitcoin transaction is about 2,000 bits, so my current consumer-level Internet connection could download 45,000 transactions per second, over ten times average Visa transaction volume.
While it is nice to know that I could run a full node handling more-than-Visa-scale transaction volume from my house, running a dedicated machine in a data center somewhere makes more sense. 15,000 250-byte transactions per second works out to about 7 terabytes of bandwidth per month. One of my hosting providers charges $20 per month for a virtual private server with 8 TB of bandwidth per month-- or $240 per year to handle MasterCard-level transaction volume today (August 2014). https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2He obviously thinks that the blockchain should be inclusive. I don't know what's Core developers' or Wladimir's stance on the issue, they have been more ambivalent. Maybe they just don't have a clear consensus about the goals. (i.e. what Bitcoin is/should become.) Then they ought to say so publicly. Is there a schism between "Blockchain is for everyone" vs "Blockchain is only for those who can pay high fees."? (It doesn't matter if reasons are purely technical or not) We don't even know that yet. |
|
|
|
I've bought camping/hiking accessories and some caffeine chocolate from Varusteleka. |
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jjnnz/attacking_bitcoin_in_the_uk_offences_under_the/cupuun0From Mike Hearn's reply to coinwallet.eu: We know that the address on your website is fake but consider this: you have a large footprint. You have a website, have been talking to the media, have been posting to reddit and are running Bitcoin nodes on the network. If you have made just one mistake that means people can find you, and if you live in a part of the world with a non-joke legal system, then you are very possibly going to end up in prison. You can't argue your way out of it as you seem to think you can.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite sad to see people cheering for blackmailers.
|
|
|
|
It's just a generic UDP flood attack so there's nothing a client could do about it. |
|
|
|
...
Every month or so I check the couple of websites (showing BTC ATMs) as well as the Facebook page re the International Bitcoin group.
But, I am dismayed that these BTC ATMs (I saw "BTMs" written elsewhere, clever) do not appear anywhere near my city.
I don't see the purpose of ATM's, bitcoin is supposed to be anonymous, and ATM's just defeat that purpose. why buy it in public when you can buy it online without ever having to leave your house In Finland buying or withdrawing from ATM is more anonymous than doing the same in most online exchanges. There's no KYC or bank account required. Where can you buy/sell bitcoins online with/for cash? Localbitcoins, maybe. |
|
|
|
Blockstream does not decide if changes are made to the Bitcoin core, the community of devs does.
Yes, the blockstream controversy is likely just another conspiracy theory. Along the lines of Gavin being a CIA mole, etc. I think it's just that the "community of devs" often disagree and Wladimir doesn't want to dictate the direction. |
|
|
|
|
- For bitcoin storage I generate paper wallets with vanitygen and transfer my bitcoins there.
- For small amounts and view only addresses I use BitPurse (a bitcoin wallet made in python) on my smartphone.
- For a node I use Bitcoin XT (to support BIP 101 and larger blocksize limit)
|
|
|
|
So you want to increase to reduce later?
Very clever indeed.
Yes, reduce if necessary. What's the problem with this? If technology and adoption won't grow at rates projected, and if all that slack would cause some issues, it would be easy to adjust the future limits downward. |
|
|
|
Irrational fear of controversy, and of the idea of hard forking in the future (i.e. making decisions) is not an adequate reason to push a reckless regime of exponential scaling.
Have you considered that it's technically much better to have generous limits which you can reduce via soft forks if needed, than having the limit set too low and then be forced to do another hard fork to raise it. Also we've already had 32 MB limit in Bitcoin's history and it created no problems. And the fact that Satoshi's idea was to remove blocksize limit entirely when light clients became available. The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. |
|
|
|
|
