|
Wow! Things are moving fast! Strong work all!
|
|
|
|
|
Need someone very close by to him to make it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in. This is legit. See the coindesk article:http://www.coindesk.com/adventurer-make-first-ever-bitcoin-transaction-south-pole/ (in phins post too)
|
|
|
|
|
Might be better to print a few private keys via bitaddress.org and give those slips of paper instead. No waiter/waitress has time to install apps and setup accounts and serve your food.
|
|
|
|
Lol, so basically they gain what, 1 cent per year?
Exactly. Not one cent per year per user; just one cent per year. Period. |
|
|
|
|
Coinjoin? Is this much different?
|
|
|
|
|
Won't fly upon app review by apple. Not to mention that they won't mine a dime's worth of coin.
|
|
|
|
i never quite understood why you need the who block chain and not just last part that is large enough to make it hard enough not to duplicate. All unmoved coins beyond this point could just be complied into a continuous space, sort like defraging a HD.....or is that the size of the bloc chain already?
You only need to keep an entire copy of the Blockchain if you want complete trustlessness (For example, if you cannot trust anyone supply you with the last n number of blocks). This doesn't make a lot of sense given the cost for most users. The only reason there is a block size limit in the first place is to protect the Blockchain from spam. That's how it was set up originally and that limit will eventually increase. That limit isn't truly part of the Bitcoin protocol per se. There are some who wanted to spam the Blockchain considerably and wanted The block size limit to remain fixed in place so as to drastically increase the transaction fees. I don't think anyone holds that opinion anymore. I think we all, more or less, recognize that a Bitcoin is only as valuable as the size of the transaction network behind it. |
|
|
|
I've got a few references on the technologies that preceded and enabled Bitcoin. Send me an email: goss@btcedproject.org |
|
|
|
There was a gap in funding in late September, and then I went incommunicado for a few weeks, because of this:  Now that we're back home and settled, I'm back to working on authentication trees. Thanks in large part to the generous donation of Armory Technologies, Inc. and a few others, and the recent rise in price, I have the ability to focus on this project for some more months. Right now I am translating the Python code into a C++ libauthtree implementation, and working on a series of BIPs that describe the trie structure, various generic operations on it, and the specific application to txid indices, address indices, and merged mining. Invictus Innovations is helping with the BIP process due to their interested in using the structure for merged mining headers. I will be consolidating the recent news into a blog post update soon, hopefully by the end of the week. Congrats! |
|
|
|
“Misusing paper wallets is related to that. Not all wallet software is designed to support paper wallets. People who don’t understand this have managed to delete money before, by importing a private key that was exported, making a partial payment, then destroying the wallet – not realizing that the change didn’t go back to the same key they imported.”
Yikes! Which wallet software is liable to do this? Most people don't understand the privacy implications of reusing bitcoin addresses and thus see the failure to reuse addresses as a bad thing. Those sophisticated enough to be using paper wallets are certainly sophisticated enough to understand that if address A sends money to address B, the change does not got back to address A, but rather to address C (another address in the same wallet as A). This is a failure to communicate the core principles of the protocol, not a failure of the wallet software. |
|
|
|
So I was sort of "spring cleaning" through my tech, old MacBooks and what not and I realized I had a bitcoin wallet stored on my last Macbook from 2012 and found 300 bitcoins just hanging out. What a nice surprise!
Well done! |
|
|
|
|
Where is phin when ya need him?
|
|
|
|
|
The worst thing they could do is hold them in uncertainty...oh, wait, that's the plan.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is hard to estimate supply when inaccessible bitcoins look identical to accessible ones. For example, if an address has had 1M bitcoins in it without a transaction spent in 3 years....is the private key lost or just part of a savings plan?
|
|
|
|
You should change it kor stick to your original offer. Also "convince me" is very subjective, sounds like you ant someone to do work for free for you.
You must not know Dan. He's a real programmer (darn good too...really darn good) with a real reputation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
