It appears that marketplace activity has continued to decline since I opened this thread last February. All of the examples I cited in the OP have continued to decline. I am not sure about how ad revenue has been trending.
I haven't looked at specific metrics, but it does feel like the forum is generally slower than it has been in years past.
That's because all the cross-talk and forcefully close(2)'d pipes have left, so there is naturally much less arguments than in previous years. I get the feeling that Bitcointalk's high "activity" was largely due to first the ICOs (which we kicked out) and the flame war fanners (most of whom left by themselves) and the scamsters in Digital Goods (exiled but far from gone). It seems mostly quiet here like maybe 2014-2015 levels, and I don't think that it's going to decline further. Lol, I can’t even remember the last time we had a flame war. I think that is probably a good thing, even if they were sometimes entertaining. I’d probably agree that the lack of flame wars and the associated drama has at least partially contributed to the decline of activity in the forum overall. I don’t think flamewars contributed to marketplace activity though. Flame wars tended to be limited to a fairly small number of threads. I have also noticed that the number of scam attempts in the lending section has all but disappeared. There is/was a sticky in lending that says that scammers will try to scam as little as a dollar in the lending sub. I don’t think scammers have been trying to do that recently. |
|
|
|
If you say that someone is trying to brute force that specific address, I would respond that they will be unsuccessful. No, I was referring to why and how sure you should be there's no such owner. I am just as sure that the BitcoinEater address has no owner as I am that every other address that has never sent any transactions has no owner. There is nothing special about the BitcoinEater address that makes it any less likely to have an owner. |
|
|
|
Yep, this is nuts already. Command line stuff. Sounds nice and complicate. I’ll stick with what I have. And hardware wallets with a secure element is considered cold storage. For whoever said it’s not. Thanks for all of the input guys and gals.
A HW wallet is "technically" not cold storage if you connect the HW wallet to a computer that is connected to the internet. With that being said, a HW wallet is only going to be marginally less secure than "true" cold storage. For most individual users, a HW wallet is going to provide more than enough security to keep your coin safe. |
|
|
|
Regarding the subject of this particular thread, I'd be curious as to whether things have changed or not--plus the argument between Vod and OgNasty likely derailed the discussion completely. The forum is far from dead, but since I don't generally keep an eye on the marketplace I don't have a sense of how active members are in trading with one another. It's even been at least a year (maybe) since I visited the Currency Exchange section, but last time I was there it seemed like things were humming along.
It appears that marketplace activity has continued to decline since I opened this thread last February. All of the examples I cited in the OP have continued to decline. I am not sure about how ad revenue has been trending. I haven't looked at specific metrics, but it does feel like the forum is generally slower than it has been in years past. |
|
|
|
Obviously, it is difficult to know with certainty if the "bitcoinEater" address is really one for which no one knows the private key. It's impossible to know with certainty, but you can easily be certain there's no such owner. Same as with PoW. You can't know with certainty that one spent millions of dollars to find a valid hash, but you can easily assume it's true, and you'll be right. One ought to spend millions, on average, to accomplish that. It's realistically impossible to find a valid Proof-of-Work without the work. Trying to brute force that address for all intents and purposes is not going to work. If you say that someone is trying to brute force that specific address, I would respond that they will be unsuccessful. The risk to someone knowing the private key associated with the "bitcoinEater" address is that someone could have happened to have generated the private key associated with that address, saw its potential use, and published the address for people to "burn" coin to. |
|
|
|
And don't use the same address more than once which they obviously have FAILED to do thus leaking their public key to the whole world. Where are you referring to? The BitcoinEater address? If so, it hasn't revealed its public key, since it's a burning address. You reveal your public key when you spend one of the outputs. I would point out that in order to know the public key, you either need to have access to the private key, or have learned information from someone who has access to the private key. The "bitcoinEater" address is claimed to be an address for which no one has the associated private key. If this is true, there is no projected risk that the private key will be able to be calculated based on the address. If it is not true, whoever has the private key can just steal the coin. Obviously, it is difficult to know with certainty if the "bitcoinEater" address is really one for which no one knows the private key. |
|
|
|
|
CBDC is more likely to kill banks than it is to kill cryptocurrencies. A CBDC is going to be centralized, and more importantly, can be trivially reversed by the issuer (the central bank). The appeal of bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies is that transactions are “final” once confirmed on the blockchain, and only those with the private key has the ability to spend your coin.
A CBDC would act very similar to a bank account, but without any counter-party risk, however minimal, that is associated with a bank account.
|
|
|
|
|
Any centralized exchange is going to be accountable to the government where it operates. Western governments are going to expect exchanges to follow AML laws to prevent money laundering.
If you don’t like this, as oelio points out, your only real option is to not use a centralized exchange.
The information that those in the list in the OP are using is ultimately public information. Anyone can look at the same information and come to their own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
I think the intention is to make individual trust ratings less meaningful and to encourage people to make independent judgments about the risk to dealing with a person, rather than relying on the subjective opinions of a few people.
I'd agree. Introducing a lottery would seem designed to make DT dysfunctional to experienced users and encourage them to exclude default trust and rely on their own chosen trust list. But at the same time leaving a DT system in place where actual scammers will still be likely to be seen as tagged by newbies who haven't worked out how to use the trust system yet. If the idea had really been to make it some kind of democracy then it would be based on the most votes counting. No democracy enters all candidates with a minimum number of votes into a lottery. I don’t even think it is a matter of if a particular rating shows up by default or not. I think the intention is to get people to look at the context of the rating and it’s references and come to their own conclusion. This reduces the impact of a frivolous negative or positive rating, while maintaining the ability of the community to warn others about potential scammers. |
|
|
|
Anyone can complain online, and tell a slanted version of their side of the story, but if courts are not granting judgements against exchanges for seizing coin, one might reasonably conclude that exchanges are not seizing property that lawfully belongs to their customers.
One might also reasonably conclude that a multinational exchange with billions in the bank have a better legal team than someone who has had 0.1 bitcoin stolen from them. There is also the argument that nothing you hold on an exchange is legally yours in the first place. As we saw in the recent Coinbase filings with the SEC, anything you deposit to Coinbase is legally theirs, and you are an "unsecured creditor". A good lawyer/legal team will only help at the margins. If an exchange has a loosing case, a competent legal team will tell the exchange to return the money/coin. I also don't think the fact that exchange customers being unsecured creditors of said exchange is anything new. This is exactly what happened when Gox failed years ago. |
|
|
|
I don't think many miners would be willing to do this. Taking less coins in the coinbase transaction is a no-fork. That means, you can stay in the current network and always do that. We can't see a lot of burned bitcoins, because there is no incentive. But: if it would be "please burn 1 BTC, and I will give you 2 BTC", then some miners could agree to do that. Another option is to create something based on Bitcoin, where all coins that are burned in the coinbase transaction, will automatically reappear on some other chain with some other features. That chain could have zero coins initially, and create them by burning bitcoins. But of course, having two-way-peg is better than one-way-peg, we saw that in practice in some tokens like 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr. Imagine that all of those coins could be burned in the coinbase transaction, instead of sitting on that address. Using OP_RETURN is another option, but then it is not directly connected with mining, and I think consensus rules should be connected with that. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. It is already possible to burn coin via OP_RETURN transactions. You are proposing something along the lines of creating an altcoin that sits on top of bitcoin, while using bitcoin's legitimacy to further its own. If you are paying a miner 2 BTC to burn 1 BTC, then you are only burning 1 BTC, and not 3 BTC, although I think many would claim to be burning 3 BTC. Unless you mean the reason Satoshi did this? Likely just an oversight.
Chances of it being an oversight are low, in my opinion. If you think about it, Genesis block and its reward (worth $1.5 million today) is technically a premine IF it could be spent and that's would not have been a good thing to have in Bitcoin. I would tend to agree with oeleo above. In addition to his points, I don't think satoshi anticipated there being a lot of interest in mining bitcoin in it's very early days, and it appears that he had the capacity to mine many blocks while bitcoin was only days/weeks/months old. The coin from the first block is a drop in the bucket compared to the coin that satoshi is estimated to have mined. I'm not sure that would have been a motivating factor for Satoshi. Was a "pre-mine" even a concept which existed prior to altcoin creators using it to make themselves richer at the expense of their users? Would Satoshi even have known of the concept of "pre-mining"? If he was overly concerned about being seen to be pre-mining, then it doesn't make sense for him to have mined the first block 5 days prior to announcing the release of the software to the mailing list.
And you could equally argue that the genesis block isn't a pre-mine; it's a regular mine. Pre-mining is setting aside x amount of coins before your chain is even launched. The genesis block wasn't that, but rather the standard block reward for mining a block. It just so happened to be the first block.
The basic concept of a pre-mined coin is "coins that were produced in an unfair way when one party has all the advantage". In other words the fact that nobody else could mine block 0 and Satoshi mined it in private makes the reward of that block "pre-mined". I'd say that the fact that he mined the block doesn't change that. In contrast block 1 could have been mined by anybody since the software was released and the network was live before the block was found, which makes the rewards of blocks 1+ fair distribution. What pre-mined altcoins do is the same thing, they just remove the effort to mine a valid block by summoning the coins out of thin air but the principle of "coins created in an unfair way" is the same. If you were to create some altcoin Today, on June 4th, you could disseminate the announcement of said altcoin via some channel that is unlikely to get a lot of attention, mine the very early blocks of said altcoin "fairly", and later announce your altcoin via some other channel that is likely to get more attention and interest on June 10th (for example). While satoshi did announce bitcoin via a channel that resulted in it getting the maximum attention possible, the attention that it initially got was very small. |
|
|
|
The problem is that it is not possible to know if someone generated the private key or if they generated a random, valid address. I think numbers selected in a "nothing up my sleeve" way can be "trusted" in general. But of course using OP_RETURN is cheaper. And the cheapest is miner-based burning, because then it takes zero additional on-chain bytes, so it is possible to put more transactions, and get (or burn) more coins, so it is more effective. I think if people want to introduce Proof of Burn as a consensus rule, then it should be done on a mining level. I cannot think of a way that it would be possible to prove to an arbitrary third party that you generated an address at random, without generating the associated private key. OP_RETURN transactions are really the most appropriate way to "burn" any coin that you "need" to be burned. Based on current consensus implementations, this coin cannot be spent. Implementing "burning" transactions at the mining level would require the consent of the specific miner that finds the block that includes the subject transaction(s). Someone could "burn" 1 BTC by including a 1 BTC transaction fee into their transaction, and the miner could produce total outputs that are 1 BTC less than the block subsidy plus the sum of all transaction fees, however, I don't think many miners would be willing to do this. |
|
|
|
Can I setup a time lock which will allow access to the coins in x amount of years but only allow access during that time if 2/3 other people sign it? I do not want to give these people access but my goal is to keep Bitcoin until a certain date 2030. I want to make sure that despite what happens with the btc price I do not withdraw. My solution is getting trusted friends and family to have a multisig setup which does not give them access to the coins but allows them to prevent any impulse withdrawing because of emotional attachment.
I have never attempted to setup a multisig in this way and I am just trying to work it out. I want it to work like this:
1. 2/3 signatures needed during the time lock period
2. Those in control of the multisig cannot get access to the funds without the master private key (owned by me)
3. Set a date of 2030 as a time where the wallet will unlock.
Is this possible?
What do people think about 3 - 3 multi sig? Secure enough? Anyone that I trust with the signatures would not have motive to not sign but the only issue is if one of them were to die or forget their private key I would be locked out if any emergencies come up.
Based on these two posts, I would advise against trying to implement what you are proposing. There is no reason to force yourself to wait until an arbitrary date far into the future to sell your coin. There is a very real possibility that the price of bitcoin will be zero in 2030, and if you assume this to be what will happen, there is also a very real possibility that the price of bitcoin will be very high at some point in time before 2030. Based on how much coin you are holding, and your personal financial situation, there is a price point at which it no longer makes sense to continue holding if your long-term goal is to sell your coin, and you should have the ability to do that. From a technical perspective, what you are proposing is possible. You would need to implement a smart contract in which 2-of-2 signatures are required, with the second signature needing to be from 1-of-2 possible keys, and the other signature needing to be from your key. |
|
|
|
|
There are generally no security risks associated with running a full node. Some businesses have had their hot wallets hacked, however their servers were not a target because they were running a full node, they were a target because they had private keys associated with large amounts of coin.
Running a full node will consume resources. Depending on what type of business you are conducting on your computer, and how critical it is to maximize your various computer resources, it may be better to use another computer/server to run a full node.
In general, running a full node will maximize your privacy associated with using bitcoin. It is however resource-intensive if you want to import a private key associated with an address that has previously received transactions, and especially so if you are running a pruned node.
|
|
|
|
it is possible for the government to get a consolidated view of all transactions you have received by getting information from various banks/payment services. You're highly overestimating my government. Sure, they can do this when a team investigates a large crime, but not automated and not on a large scale. Just recently it was in the news their IT system can't handle reducing VAT on vegetables. I'm not even kidding  And the information they have, they don't know what to do with. There's no way they're going to analyze dust transactions. Sure, it is unlikely that western governments can successfully investigate on a large scale, however, the information is still available, long after the fact. If you argue that the government cannot monitor your financial transactions at scale, you might as well say that you have nothing to hide and take no steps to ensure your privacy. |
|
|
|
Why does that make it more provable? As far as I know this just adds am Message to the transaction? Because an OP_RETURN script cannot be unlocked, and so these coins cannot be spent. Coins in burn addresses can be unlocked by one of the correct private keys, it is just that no one knows what those private keys are. I would also point out that sending to a "burner" address will increase the size of the UTXO set, while an op return transaction will not. So sending to a "burner" address will make it more expensive for everyone to run a full node.
....Because an OP_RETURN script cannot be unlocked, and so these coins cannot be spent. Coins in burn addresses can be unlocked by one of the correct private keys, it is just that no one knows what those private keys are.
I know I have said this before but that is not 100% true / proven. With some of these addresses: We *assume* that due to the math that nobody has the address. We can prove that to generate the address through brute force cannot be done before the sun goes nova and destroys the Earth. We CANNOT prove that nobody has it. You can't prove a negative. And there is always the 2^160 to 1 chance (close enough to zero to be zero but still not zero)that someone has one of them. Sorry it's just one of those things that I think should be out there. -Dave I have generated the address bc1q3lj2xv859lf5a8jqk60lhev4czd590tue7qjjg and have access to the private key. Mathematically speaking, the chances that I have the private key associated with the above address is the same that I have the private key to any other arbitrary address that is valid. If someone generated a private key, and calculated the associated address, they could tell people to send coin to that address to "burn" said coin. OTOH, if someone were to randomly generate a valid address in a way that does not involve generating a private key, it can generally be safely assumed that no one has access to the associated private key, if in fact the address was generated in a random way. The problem is that it is not possible to know if someone generated the private key or if they generated a random, valid address. |
|
|
|
If hundreds of users would be selected in the future, I plan to instead choose a random subset of about 100 eligible users each time.
And we're not at "hundreds" yet, so it seems fully within theymos' expectations and I wouldn't expect any such changes any time soon. theymos is currently selecting 100 random, eligible users to be on DT1 each month. He has been doing this for the past 3 years.
Oh, if only we could go back to the old days when being on the DT list actually meant something.
I think the intention is to make individual trust ratings less meaningful and to encourage people to make independent judgments about the risk to dealing with a person, rather than relying on the subjective opinions of a few people. |
|
|
|
I'm not trying to hide transactions from government, they want to know far too much from me already. But I'm still careful selecting which inputs to link together.
Maybe a little off-topic, but this is another advantage of Bisq: probably every time you sell BTC for fiat, the money arrives in your bank account from a different sender. Instead, if you use one or two centralized exchanges, it will always come from those two bank accounts. This way, someone could link your outputs. 1] You send unlinked UTXO A to Binance 2] You cash out the amount to your bank account 3] You send unlinked UTXO B to Binanche 4] You cash out the amount to your bank account Even though they were unlinked, by sending them to the same exchange and subsequently the same bank account, they can be linked. Through Bisq, you could even sell one UTXO for fiat received via bank transfer, another for fiat received via Skrill, and another via 'cash in person'. Even if you receive deposits to different bank accounts or even different payment methods, it is possible for the government to get a consolidated view of all transactions you have received by getting information from various banks/payment services. The above may not apply to those receiving cash in person, although engaging in this type of transaction is generally risky, and has a high risk of you getting scammed, so instead of losing your privacy, you may just lose your money. |
|
|
|
|
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. There is no reason why Iran should be allowed to have any nuclear technology. In fact, Iran even pursuing nukes is a pretty strong argument in favor of launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran.
Typical leftist nonsense defending terrorists.
|
|
|
|
If I am not mistaken, most exchanges have TOS that direct people to only deposit their own coin onto their exchange account. And if I have sold you some good, service, altcoin, whatever, and you choose to pay me directly from your casino account, then legally speaking those coins you are sending me as payment are mine. And even if you send from your casino account to my own wallet, and then I send from my own wallet to an exchange, many exchanges will still take issue with that. As I said above, as soon as any transaction has taken place then you can no longer say that those coins have not changed hands, which makes taint analysis pointless. When you withdraw from a casino account, or any other online account, you are exchanging an IOU for coin. Regardless of what is in any TOS, there is no legal basis for an exchange to "freeze" an account indefinitely without a court order. If an exchange were to do this, the customer should take the exchange to court. Depends on your jurisdiction. If some government forces some hardline KYC requirements, then your account will absolutely be frozen unless you comply with them. And as I said in another thread: Maybe you know otherwise, but I am unaware of literally any successful cases by an individual user against a major exchange which locked their account or seized their coins. The judiciary will correct injustices against complaining parties and will do so in a neutral manner. Anyone can complain online, and tell a slanted version of their side of the story, but if courts are not granting judgements against exchanges for seizing coin, one might reasonably conclude that exchanges are not seizing property that lawfully belongs to their customers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
