It's true you might have to go through other places for a channel but if you think about a supermarket/grocery store that you go into daily or a few times a week, you can open a channel directly with their node or open a channel with a node from the town you're in in order to make sure you don't need many hops between nodes.

There's a bit of a trust issue with your system too, if those 36 people know each other then they might take anything deposited.. Even a 20 of 36 multisig issue might have problems if there is something big enough at stake... Its a good start for a system but I don't see it being particularly safe
 

I thought it broke at a complexity of 128^3 from what was previously discussed last time (I have no links though). Isn't this old news? I'm sure we saw the same headline about 6 months ago...

Forbes and the financial Times seem really awful sources nowadays, perhaps their editor bought stocks in Google or something..., There seemed to be a consensus that the sha256 hashing algorithm was quantum proof too - people don't want to act until the nsa release standards of quantum proof encryption so we're stuck in the hope that's the case anyway...

It wasn't slow? It was loading a block screen fast as far as I can remember.

And ahh, this is why I switched to firefox 6 months ago...

The PoS system seems like the one Ripple uses (with a few trusted nodes controlling the network) ?

You can't use sms for verification but you could potentially use auth codes (phone numbers are fairly easy to hijack) - you could also get them to sign something on their phone too.

This solution would also be bit slower than the current lightning network as the current network doesn't have to ping as many nodes to create a transaction.

That's an interesting issue actually because a lot of miners would be unprofitible if the algorithm needed to change and there was a way to bruteforce hashes but there'd then not be very much power on the new chain side. Although programmatically the chain would have to split to accept new versions of blocks so I guess that would stop the quantum hashers from mining the currency but it is still a bit of a problem that a lot of the hypothetical miners at that time will have spent huge amounts on hardware and not be able to roi.

That'll also have a huge impact on the price of the currency if the network looks to be less secure or stable, especially if people start splitting the chain with the new algorithms...

99 cents on current price...

This is merely something to test the lightning network. You won't get a loan for the antminer here  as it isn't backed by any collateral.

Actually it probably won't affect many individuals - I see it being a problem for exchanges though.

If people are using bitcoin wallets as they were created to be used then their coins will be stored at an address and not a public key. Addresses are public key hashes and are hashed with ripemd160(sha256(pub key)) so the issues of private keys being compromised are only issues where the public key has been published (if an address is signed or a transaction has been sent). Unless something's changed since this was last discussed, it's believed that SHA256 is still at a difficulty of 2^256 even with quantum machines).


I had to try to get an old dell desktop machine working a while ago. It had a 16GB hard drive (which probably for the time wasn't small) but it is quite amazing how far we've come in terms of digital storage - after looking at old video games, it takes about a second to download what you could store on 7+ floppies from 25 years ago.

I don't think large amounts of money being pumped has much of an impact on Bitcoin... Most money the fed pumps in is there to benefit the larger corporations and give them more money in a bailout, it normally reduces the value of the people at the bottom and the middle and the people at the top have too much money to be able to put it into bitcoin without hugely manipulating the price.

That's interesting, I've been using that generator for a while to transfer partially signed txs and addresses but it's probably best they just copy the request in code tags.

And thanks!

It depends on your computer and the operating system. For phones, I quite like coinomi for multiple currency support. For desktops I'm not sure there's much of an option without investingin a hardware wallet for ~$70 for a basic trezor or ledger (if you have more than $500-1000 then it's definitely worth the investment for the added security).

That all? I'd have thought it was higher...

---

Yeah most of us have come across leet by now (seemingly one of the first meme-type expressions to come from the computer using community)... shame there aren't more quirks added on these numbers (especially for the sub-10000 category).

I noticed a couple of threads on here offering tests for the lightning network in a form of a loan and they seem to have a lot of restrictions so I'm going to make one a bit nicer...

Terms:
• Amount: 10 000 satoshi
• No interest will be charged on this
• Anyone can apply but I can pick who I lend to
• If you use the eclair mobile wallet you should be able to open up a channel with an ability to receive coins via the lightning network but you'll have to turn this on before opening a channel (it's in settings).
• I need invoices to be between 11AM and 11PM GMT+1:00, expiry time should be set to 6 hours (this can be found in settings)
• Full repayment should be made within 7 days, I won't personally tag you but I can't control what others do and it may harm any future trades if you don't repay. No merit will be awarded directly for repayment either.
• You have to send 125% of what you can receive on eclair. If you want me to send you 0.0001, you must have previously sent 0.000125 for it to be accepted by your app (you can swipe across from putting your pin in after loading up the wallet to see how much your channel can receive).

last edit to fix bbcode: terms are the same

You're right there!
Its a lot harder to do chain analysis on inputs and outputs if they're delayed in transit. If ChipMixer take about 4 days to respond normally, then people might not check their emails for a while afterwards so you can't even look at the time the site came back online to do analysis as the user might wait a day or two.

That's an interesting question, I'm not sure you can but I'll have a bit of a test.

I know you can do it by making two 1 of 2 multisig wallets but I'm not sure if youc an do it with a regular one.

Yeah I just realised it'll take a lot of scraping and cross referencing...

---

You've proved for that day that the new rules certainly helped the distribution on merit though.

It could've been meta just ecame more active that day?

I'd be more interested if you could find the number of newbies receiving a merit on all time data (since jan 18).

If you didn't decide on a system yet, I'd say offering multiple slots at once is probably best for quite a few reasons:
• less analysis on your end, you don't have to keep going through 60 new applicants' 20+ posts a week to see which is best...
• There's less of a chance of 2/3 great users applying and you having to reject 2 of them because one was almost unnoticeably better in quality/discussion with their posts.

It's still very similar no matter what anyways, you can always do like you did this time and say 1-4 posts are open and avaliable and then choose how many you distribute once all of the applications come in.

Not exactly, I mean there's a higer chance but it's not a big one (for example: I don't give out my ID unless it's to an exchange that will watermark it - for people that want ID I normally use cash transfers to get around it).

@OP, you can't do anything without verifying some sort of ID, I've been asked to photograph a debit card (with your finger over the long number) which should be fine (since a standing order/direct debit need an address for verification if the person on the other end was an attacker).


I recentrly cancelled a contract, and it takes ~48 hours to use a PAC to transfer someone's number (and the PAC was sent instantly to my device) - if the device were compromised then anyone could get the number and then remotely delete the text...

I seem to remember something like that too, either vod or someone making a userscript that can be added to show if a user is banned (and I think number of posts/topics deleted but I could be wrong there)...

Perhaps @OP, you could try bumping that thread or PM Lauda?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-Mac-Mini-Late-2014/dp/B07FMWT6Z3?psc=1&SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-fpas-uk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B07FMWT6Z3 <-- it looked a bit like that actually so it probably was - around that time period too.