I hate going through 3rd parties for payments. The two things that shouldn't exist in bitcoin are the mining pools and the exchanges. Reason is because they are making bitcoin centralized. All the BTC are going through the biggest exchanges and all the computing power is gathered together in the largest mining pools. If the banks felt threatened and bitcoin became outlawed all the exchanges would be shut down and you wouldn't be able to exchange your fiat for bitcoin. If the largest mining pools were hijacked then there is the possibility that the network could be overtaken because that's where the majority of the computing power is. We need a decentralized exchange and decentralized mining. When we have those things bitcoin will be much more stable in my opinion.
The problem is that mining pools are the only interesting option for people which doesn't have a mining rig. The whole mining thing is the most elaborate and wasteful means of trickling out a new block every ten minutes or so that the human mind could devise, so far anyway  As you rightly point out, the exchanges thwart the concept of decentralization. So, there's two requirements for Bitcoin 2.0, or the replacement for Bitcoin 1.0 1. Eliminate wasteful mining driven by computing capacity. 2. Decentralize the currency exchange function. #1 is easy, #2 not so... If you don't have mining, you have no way to protect against double-spend attacks, etc. People could change the blockchain at will. All of that "wasteful" mining ensures that no single person can change the blockchain record. |
|
|
|
You are a retailer. You wish to trust a customer and give them an immediate sale, regardless of confirmations. You have a Bitcoin wallet running on your local machine. Now you have two options:
- Your method: Ask customer for their sending Bitcoin address. Customer has to have a client running that will allow them to select which address to send from. If they can't cover the bill from a single address, they have to send from multiple addresses, which further complicates your creation of green addresses. Once you input the customer's addresses, the customer sends to your Bitcoin address. A few seconds later, you see one or more sending addresses pop up as "green" addresses, and you know it is ok to give the customer the goods without waiting for confirmations.
- My method: The customer sends to your Bitcoin address. You watch the wallet until you see the transaction pop up with 0 confirms. You make sure the total is correct with the receipt amount, then call it good.
Not sure who you in "your method" is referring too, but I think you are missing a piece. I believe that the green address thread had the idea that a transaction that has any of its inputs coming from a green adress should be considered green. This is the workflow I was imagining for a POS that can use green transaction. 1) Create an address for the customer's payment and show it to them (maybe via a QR code or something) 2) The customer pays the given address and tells their client to send the payment through a green address (on instawallet, it's a checkbox) 3) Your POS sees the new 0 confirmation transaction contains an input from a green address and accepts it immediately. OR 1) Create an address for the customer's payment and show it to them (maybe via a QR code or something) 2) The customer pays the given address with a wallet service that does not support green addresses 3) Your POS sees the new 0 confirmation transaction and you either give them the item now or you make them wait for 6 confirmations The second option 3 seems pretty stupid to me though. I'm convinced now that green addresses solve a non-existant problem since waiting the 6 confirmations seems unnecessary. So I guess my new feature request is to be able to spend inputs from transactions that have a customizable number of confirmations. I think this would be simple to implement and would allow for people to setup their clients for their own needs. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Point_of_sale_with_bitcoins_isn.27t_possible_because_of_the_10_minute_wait_for_confirmationOption 3 seems like it could work with Green addresses, but I no longer see the need for such heavy protection against double spends. I still don't see any benefit. If I know the customer is trusted, why couldn't I just look for the 0-confirm payment, then tell my POS software to complete the transaction once it shows up? Why is there a need to mark the addresses if I am staring at the customer in the face and watching my POS register? |
|
|
|
I've been watching the price since Wednesday and its barely moved. Could we be about to go through a uber-boring period where there a more coins being mined so inflation is increasing but the actual price remains solid?
I guess we may find out by the time this weekend is up.
There's never more coins being mined... small variances, but it always corrects itself to 7200 coins/day, and averages out to about that amount even including the variances. |
|
|
|
|
There's so much sarcasm in this thread that I can't even tell what points people are trying to make.
If you want to say something, just say it, straight up, without sarcasm.
I'll start: I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul, and would likely vote for him for President if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
lol thread
Who would invade? The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too. The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason - to take control of the commodity.
I never understood that argument. Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces? Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them? |
|
|
|
So what you're saying is, the marked addresses are on the receiver's side, not the sender's side? You might have two addresses, one for untrusted payments, and one for trusted payments?
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It is the sending address that is declared "green", "golden", "disbursal" or whatever. But the logic to recognize it must be on the receiving side. So you cannot just use a single adjective "marked address" to describe the whole mechanism. The practical examples in the USA are probably various special checks. Funds from the average check are held by the receiving bank for the "hold period". If the check is "Treasury check", "cashier check" or a "check from a corresponding bank" the "hold period" is shortened, sometimes to zero. But the exact rules of which checks deserve fast treatment are specified by the receiver, not by the sender. Well, that's exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about a disbursal account, so I'm not sure where the miscommunication was that made you think we were talking about different things. Regardless, now that it's clear, let's talk about marking Bitcoin addresses (I'll call them green addresses). You could mark a certain address from say, MtGox, as a green address, but in all likelihood, you'll never receive a withdrawal from the same address twice. So the mark is only good the instant you see the funds pop up in your wallet. But then, if you're watching for the payment, and know it is from MtGox, what's the use of marking it as a green address at that point? You could argue that a private party might have a more consistent send-from address, but the default client has no control over what address is used to send coins. You could argue that the default client could be further modified so that a sender could choose what address to send coins from, but let's step through a process in detail. You are a retailer. You wish to trust a customer and give them an immediate sale, regardless of confirmations. You have a Bitcoin wallet running on your local machine. Now you have two options: - Your method: Ask customer for their sending Bitcoin address. Customer has to have a client running that will allow them to select which address to send from. If they can't cover the bill from a single address, they have to send from multiple addresses, which further complicates your creation of green addresses. Once you input the customer's addresses, the customer sends to your Bitcoin address. A few seconds later, you see one or more sending addresses pop up as "green" addresses, and you know it is ok to give the customer the goods without waiting for confirmations. - My method: The customer sends to your Bitcoin address. You watch the wallet until you see the transaction pop up with 0 confirms. You make sure the total is correct with the receipt amount, then call it good. And that's even assuming a full-fledged retailer is using Bitcoin on a regular basis which, so far, hasn't happened. So what am I missing? Why does this need to be added to the client now, when there is currently no useful purpose for it? You mention government checks vs corporate or personal checks. Ok, but no one is doing transactions similar to what checks are used for (paying bills, corporate remittances, etc) with Bitcoins yet. And even there, I can't really see the usefulness. Again, please give a specific situation (like I gave above with regards to a retail environment) where something like this would be useful. |
|
|
|
Any company large enough to have automated tracking of disbursal account addresses would be running bitcoind with a custom front-end anyway.
The replies from slush and SgtSpike show that they simply don't understand generally accepted accounting principles. The cannonical use of disbursal account is an exact opposite of what you think: 1) big organisation sets up disbursal account 2) lots of small payees use the "golden" account number as a shortcut through their credit approval process. This is exactly the case of why a "general purpose" popular client should have a built-in ability to mark some sources of funds as requiring less verification. Since this is 21 century there should be some sort of PKI interface that allows adding and removing "trusted account" numbers. Sort of like every modern web browser has a some sort of weakly hidden tab to set up certification authorities and other PKI miscellanea. So what you're saying is, the marked addresses are on the receiver's side, not the sender's side? You might have two addresses, one for untrusted payments, and one for trusted payments? I'm still confused how marking addresses would be useful though. If you know what address you trust, you can just look at the client for the "received with address 1XXXXXXXXXX" to find out which address it was sent to. If it's a trusted address, then you can finish out the transaction even if it is still at 0 confirmations. Can you please provide a specific example of how marking those addresses would be useful in a real-world setting? |
|
|
|
I work at a place enclosed by a fence with barbed wire, the barbed part points outward. The fence is designed to stop a fully loaded semi at top speed. This is a place which is on the "top ten terrorist targets in the US". Not a government institution, though.
My only guess is a nuclear power plant? Nope, not a power plant. Although, a few years ago there was a proposal to add a nuclear power plant to the site, but it never got built. Defense contractor? |
|
|
|
"Green Address" is just a weird name for the old practice of having a "disbursal account".
Call it green address or disbursal account, but it don't change the fact that I don't see the point in implementing this into the general purpose client. It does not mean that I don't see the benefits, green addresses may be great for B2B clearing (like ewallets can trust themself up to some amount, so moving bitcoin funds from mtgox to tradehill will be instant). But I see that GA can be misleading for normal users unless they fully understand GA concept. I'd have to agree. If you want to accept 0-confirmation payments from certain addresses, just be on the lookout for those payments. It should pop up within seconds of the transaction being broadcast. There's no reason to have a whole tracking system for those special addresses built in to the default client. Any company large enough to have automated tracking of disbursal account addresses would be running bitcoind with a custom front-end anyway. |
|
|
|
I work at a place enclosed by a fence with barbed wire, the barbed part points outward. The fence is designed to stop a fully loaded semi at top speed. This is a place which is on the "top ten terrorist targets in the US". Not a government institution, though.
My only guess is a nuclear power plant? |
|
|
|
I have to say that having read this, I am very disappointed. The anonymity available in bitcoin comes done to this: with special tools, a specialist will be able to violate the anonymity of anyone using the standard client. Shouldn't this be fixed at the protocol level? Perhaps by exchange of bitcoin amounts with random clients, these transactions might disguise legitimate transactions breaking the chain of address dependency. This is not 'what it says on the box'!
Its true that eves-dropping is an issue, but its another issue, and in particular it requires action beforehand, while the blockchain is a permanent record, so can be analysed years afterwards to prove that I was sending money to more than one hot_lady! (or whatever!)
Eves-dropping is an issue, but its not a reason for lack of action on this issue, Gavin, how could you imply such a thing? It sounds like an excuse for inaction.
While I really applaud the work of coderr and the Bitcoin authors, anonymity is a part of Bitcoins promise, this post makes it clear to me that for now at least, the past blockchain can be forensically analysed to reveal far more information than a casual user would expect. We need to see how we can deliver on this promise.
The bottom line is, Bitcoin should have never been advertised as being anonymous, because it simply isn't true. At least, not with the default client. |
|
|
|
Any chance of a windows build of 0.5 with the patch?
+1 +2 |
|
|
|
And so it begins once again...
LOL, so true... |
|
|
|
It would be nice if they could spend the money as bitcoins. I'd imagine they could probably use it to buy some stuff at memory dealers for their serves. Does anyone know if there's anyone offering office supplies for bitcoin? It's not glamorous, but I'd imagine almost every charity that accepts bitcoins would need office supplies of some sort.
Or even just coffee for their office(s): http://bitbrew.net/ If we wanted to help get the brain juices flowing for them and future acceptors of Bitcoin, one sure fire way would be to send a gift bag of coffee, or other things purchased with Bitcoins and of course note on the card that they were purchased directly with Bitcoins. A good gesture and a passive suggestion that may just get their attention some more. Cheers +1 I really like this idea. Support bitcoin merchants at the same time. Great! So... do it! Have a bag or three drop-shipped from bitbrew straight to the guys working there.  |
|
|
|
Here's another excellent patch that hasn't made it into the C++ client, presumably because it is too useful:
Why does this seem to be all-too-true with regards to the official client? |
|
|
|
|
Hey, if he does it cheaply enough, it could quite the value for someone looking for unique stock images. Yes, it does take years of experience to become a professional-level photographer for weddings and such, but having a good camera and lens makes it pretty easy to produce high-quality stock images.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a pretty stellar deal!
|
|
|
|
|
1) I was talking about detaining people in the US, and executing them in a controlled environment. While drone strikes may be necessary to take care of leaders of terrorist organizations, I do very much agree that it creates more hatred against the US. But I wasn't talking about drone strikes, only you were.
2) The president is more trustworthy because everyone's eyes are on him. If he makes a mistake, there's a public outcry, a call for impeachment, etc. If someone in the military makes a mistake, a couple of boring news articles might be written about it, and the military leader might be demoted or dismissed entirely.
3) I am fine with torture too, provided it prevents another 9/11. Would much rather have the "rights" of a few men violated, then have people who those men are working for keep their secrets and continue to make plans for another mass killing of Americans.
4) I was asking all the who/what/where/when/how questions about politicians being able to kill people detained in the US, because you implied that it happens. So show me proof that it happens. Otherwise, I don't believe it.
|
|
|
|
I have been buying stuff through ebay for christmas (I picked up some original Transformers and Steve Jackson's Illuminati). I have started to ask the seller "Do you accept payment in bitcoins?" before bidding now.
EBay sellers are not allowed to accept bitcoin. Important: Sellers can't require you to pay using payment methods that aren't allowed on eBay. If your seller wants to change payment methods after the listing has ended, you can insist on paying with one of the methods specified in the seller's original listing. For more about safe payment methods, see the accepted payments policy. It does not say Ebay sellers are not allowed to take bitcoins, it just says ebay sellers are not allowed to require bitcoins. So you can put up a listing and say "Bitcoins accepted", but you can't put up a listing saying "Only bitcoins accepted". Well, actually it does seem to say that. Payment methods not allowed on eBay:
For most categories, sellers can't ask buyers to:
Send cash through the mail
Send cash or money orders through instant, point-to-point cash transfer services (that are not banks) such as Western Union or MoneyGram
Mail checks or money orders (except for items in categories specifically permitted below)
Pay through bank-to-bank transfers (except for items in categories specifically permitted below)
Pay by "topping off" a seller's prepaid credit or debit card
Pay using online or other payment methods not specifically permitted in this policy |
|
|
|
They accept it, because of 9/11. If some terrorists need to be liquidated to prevent another 9/11, then that is ok in my book. As long as one has reasonable assurance the target in question is indeed a dangerous terrorist, few people will disagree with that. But when its sufficient that some politician can just say he is a dangerous terrorist, with no oversight, no burden of proof, then it becomes a completely different matter. Thats the sort of power that defines a tyranny. Ok, so where is the proof that politicians can pull the trigger by just saying the word? And what politicians are we talking about here? I would certainly trust the president (whoever it was at the time) to be able to make the right decision, but I'm betting that some random congressman couldn't just issue a kill order on a person. So, give more info if it is true that a politician can kill people without consequence. Who can do this? And what are the steps to accomplish it? What checks and balances are in place? Who all would have to be "in on it"? Even if some of them turn up to be innocent. I would rather one innocent person die than thousands. Innocent people die all the time already, you really think those predator attacks shoot arrows rather than missiles that kill anyone in the area? Thats not the question however, the question is, is any of it making you any safer? My guess is: nope, quite on the contrary. And why would you guess that? Just a hunch? Another conspiracy theory, maybe? If you have proof that killing a suspected terrorist outside of the legal system would cause us to be less safe, then please, do share. Otherwise, I will hold by the belief that a suspected terrorist dead = a suspected terrorist who can't terrorize. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
