|
There's no code required. Just post the address.
|
|
|
|
|
That's about it, yes. If you buy or sell 3000 btc right now it's only about a $0.10 premium over the ticker price. If that's still too much you could try breaking your order into smaller lots, but you'd probably end up moving the market nearly as much that way.
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on the level of security you need. Your original question was for a 1 day time lock. Anyone who would mail said pictures would be willing to simply hold you for 24 hours as well. If you have enough BTC that this is a serious concern, you need a cosigning service that provides a matching level of security.
If you have less than USD$1M in BTC just store the bulk of your savings in a safe deposit box with a two-party access contract. Anyone who can get access to it would be better off simply holding up the bank and taking the fiat. If you have tens of millions of USD-equivalent you should look at a high security facility instead of your local bank branch.
That's just for now... there aren't very many people with wallets that large. If the need arises I'm quite sure that high security timelock cosigning services will be created.
|
|
|
|
Just that I don't see how the outcome should differ from last time, apart from the spike being dampened by the experience. Or not happening at all unless someone wants to keep the price hike show up. Hush! We're trying to set up a bubble here!  The proposal is a Ponzi scheme if people are supposed to expect price to keep growing at current speeds on logscale. It's not a Ponzi (centralized). It's much closer to a pyramid scheme (decentralized). The wildly-optimistic scenario isn't for eternal growth, but just very fast growth up to the scale of fiat money supplies, first as speculators try to get in early, later as people switch from fiat to BTC on a widespread scale. |
|
|
|
|
You can create transactions that require multiple signatures to spend. Thus you can store coins in a way that requires both your memorized password and a co-signing from someone (perhaps an online wallet provider or a friend) who agrees to delay signing all your spends.
Further you can create a transaction that will allow spending by ( (you + friend) or (just your emergency backup key) ), and store that emergency backup key somewhere secure. This protects you against your friend losing the key.
This isn't commonly done now, but I'm sure it will be in the future. Do you have an immediate need?
|
|
|
|
What happens if the ECC encryption is changed against another I can't make a hard promise, but almost certainly your old ECC-based addresses will still be valid. As long as someone with a quantum computer didn't steal your coins you can just send them to a new Quantum-Proof address. would using an account that has been used only once, to transfer the bitcoins to it, provide protection even if ECC is cracked? Yes, it's protected as long as either SHA-256 or RIPEMD-160 is secure (you'd have to break both to compromise an address). Neither has any known preimage attacks (what we care about), and neither is vulnerable to any known quantum algorithm. Even if both are broken or or for addresses that do have spent coins, ECDSA is still marginally secure. It provides 80-bit security now, and 40-bit security after a quantum break. 40-bit doesn't sound very good, but quantum computers won't be as cheap, fast and efficient as digital computers for a long time, if ever. You would have to have a lot of BTC in one address before someone would bother trying to steal it. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to know one thing: Which department do you work in?
Is it the psych ward?
|
|
|
|
|
We Martians cannot allow a single entity such as Earth control 51% of the network. We have no reason to question your intentions, but the network's integrity is too important to allow such a situation to happen.
|
|
|
|
Essentially: Yay, the crashing is over! Happy days are here again! Did the fundamentals change? I've said that enough times that people are sick of it. Near as I can tell, No. |
|
|
|
Wow, that tightened right up. Still, I take a wider view. Short term: Up. I'm a bear but I won't fight momentum. Mid-term: Down. The fundamentals suck. Long-term: The future's made of RevCoins. |
|
|
|
|
Awesome! I may use that myself.
|
|
|
|
 http://bitcoinx.com/charts/Hashrate is directly proportional to difficulty. If you need finer data than that and it's for an interesting enough reason I can generate it for you. |
|
|
|
|
The one I linked as hashrates for every 2,016 blocks (IE, 2 weeks), but I don't know of a source for finer-grained data than that. Keep in mind that computing it much finer than per-day will give very noisy data.
What are you doing with it, if I may ask?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it works out OK. It's a case of the prisoner's dilemma: If all the miners collude it's a problem, but any individual miner gets an advantage by selling at the peaks when their coins are worth an extra 30%. Also, because of the time-value of money, and especially because we're pinning to inflating fiat, they're better off spending their coins than hoarding hoping to increase the payout. Keep in mind they're having to pay electricity bills the whole time.
It's an interesting objection that no one has raised before, though. I'll have to consider it some more and see if there ends up being some hoarding strategy that would let miners game the system.
|
|
|
|
|
If massive growth is "inevitable", then over the long term you only need to control one way. If it's failing, people lose value... Them's the breaks.
You can't prop up an unbacked currency. Destroying a percentage during a transaction just means that the recipient demands more coins (IE, the coins are devalued); so you may as well just admit that the coins are devalued and spread that hit among all holders instead of the ones who are trying to participate in commerce. Taxing commerce will just make it worse.
My idea is that preventing the bubbles will prevent the huge drops from occurring in the first place. It will also completely end the whole "it's a pyramid scheme" objections, and I suspect that will get a whole lot more people involved.
|
|
|
|
I don't see how you can do that without making it centrally controlled and acting like the fed (printing more or less based upon an inflation target of 0%). My idea (working name RevCoin) is to mine an exchange rate for a currency basket into the blockchain. Miners can use any quote source they want, but relay nodes will only propagate it if they agree the quote is reasonable (preventing miners from gaming it). Heavily smooth the value so that the price can float to let market makers and speculators provide liquidity by trading short-term fluctuations, but over the long term the coins generated per block are adjusted to keep the exchange rate flat. As the number of coins in existence grows, the smoothing-time will also grow to let the price float more; when the BTC market cap reaches the scale of fiat money supplies, it will be essentially free-floating. The idea is to keep a stable value and prevent speculative "to the moon" fluctuations until it's large enough to stand on its own. If it fails, of course there's no way to deflate to compensate (it will reset the target and recapture control at a lower level), but I think long term success is more likely without the current wild value fluctuations. See also: EnCoin, GEM. |
|
|
|
Difficulty: http://btcserv.net/bitcoin/history/Hashrate can be approximated from the blockchain itself. All you need is the difficulty and time between blocks, then apply a generous amount of SMA. |
|
|
|
|
Those are bots trying to make the spread look narrower than it actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
