I propose a purchasing agreement, which mandates every state in the World to buy a certain amount of Bitcoin every year. The amount will be coupled to the country's respective GDP and could be something along the lines of 0.001%-0.01% of it. The states have to hold on to their purchased coins for a given amount of time until they can invest them again.
What kind of benefit are you expecting from this? |
|
|
|
Two simple concepts are all that are needed to prevent those problems: - Back up up your wallet/seed.
- A Bitcoin address is not an account number. It is a one-time payment code.
|
|
|
|
|
It is hard to say what will happen if you buy CLAM and hold it. I think it mostly depends on what happens to Just-Dice. I consider investment in any alt-coin to be extremely risky. Some people profit, but most people lose.
If you buy CLAM and you gamble it, then eventually you will lose it all. Strictly speaking, that wouldn't be risky because you know exactly what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
...
Paper wallet:
Plug Mycelium Entropy into printer USB port.
Print paper wallet.
FTFY Creating a paper wallet can be completely immune to hacking. |
|
|
|
|
He could easily prove that the 5000 BTC exists by signing a statement using the private keys of the addresses containing the BTC.
|
|
|
|
The intention is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Intention or is this just your opinion? Perhaps "intention" was the wrong word. The "benefit that was realized early on" of having a fixed block size is to support transaction fees. It makes sense to me. Here is a discussion from 2011: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0 |
|
|
|
BurtW's indictment was filed on 2014 oct 07 in the US District Court for Colorado. On the same day, at least three other cryptocurrency related cases were filed in that same court, with the same special agent Arran McWhirter, with the same prosecuting attorney of Michele Korver, all offenses listed as occurring in Boulder County:
14-cr-00398 USA v Burton Wagner
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00399 USA v Sean Swanson
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00400 USA v Michael Seiler
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
Count 1: Money Laundering
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
14-cr-00401 USA v Katherine Noland and Thomas Noland
18 USC 1956 (a)(3)(B) and (C)
18 USC 1960
18 USC 2
Count 1: Money Laundering (Katherine)
Count 2: Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business (Katherine and Thomas)
Very frustrating. I just went through all 4 cases' docket reports in PACER, and for all of them, the complaints are still sealed and even the plea agreements are sealed. So I have no idea what's going on other than it was obviously a connected series of busts and sounds like it may have been black-market related. Is that normal? What are they protecting/hiding? |
|
|
|
is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Ultimately, transaction fees alone will pay for the security. If nobody pays transaction fees (because they don't have to), then there will be no incentives to mine and and 51% attack will be possible. Someone might actually think this through to conclusion one of these days and stop spouting the same tired old nonsense. When the time finally comes that there's no more block rewards and the network has to survive on fees alone, it will need to have far more users than we're currently capable of supporting. More users = more fees. It's not rocket science. The fees generated by the current number of users would be entirely insufficient even to be considered an incentive at all, let alone a good incentive. The userbase must increase as the block reward diminishes. If the intention is to have a slow network where your transaction may not get included in the next block even when paying a fee, there will be even less incentive to mine when people switch to another coin that does confirm their transactions in good time. If anything, full blocks will result in a smaller userbase and less fees to support the network. I just can't take people seriously when they say full blocks will somehow add security. Please stop. Simply increasing the user base is not sufficient. As the subsidy diminishes, if there is no restriction on the number of transactions in a block, then a miner will include any transaction with a fee* because excluding a transaction paying a fee will lower their profit. That means that the fee that people pay will drop to 1 satoshi because there is little incentive to pay more. Even if every block contains a million transactions, then with a 1 satoshi fee it is only worth $2.50 (at current rates) to mine. Furthermore, Bitcoin's "slowness" may be a problem for certain types of transactions, but it is not a problem for all types. It is not necessary for everybody to adopt bitcoin for everything. Any widespread adoption whether mainstream or niche will result in a user base that it much larger than today's. Bitcoin doesn't have to be the only currency in order for it to succeed. Finally, full blocks increase mining revenue, which makes it more expensive to launch a 51% attack. That is why full blocks increase security. You may disagree, but calling that "nonsense" only highlights your ignorance and your arrogance. * There may be a lower bound to transaction fees because the marginal cost to process a transaction may be more than 1 satoshi. |
|
|
|
Yes, it is what I noticed too. Bitcoin wealth is quite centralized unfortunately. Not as much as in real world but well, differences are still overwhelming. I am also just another poor idealistic bitcoin user with just dus in his wallet...
The idea of "bitcoin wealth" is absurd. There is no corresponding idea of "dollar wealth" or "euro wealth". Is it a problem that Albanian lek wealth is centralized? Does it bother you that nearly 100% of the 340 billion leks are held by less than 0.04% of the population? |
|
|
|
|
Brownout
The intention is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Ultimately, transaction fees alone will pay for the security. If nobody pays transaction fees (because they don't have to), then there will be no incentives to mine and and 51% attack will be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Determining a miner's location and enforcing legitimate voting will be difficult.
|
|
|
|
Good afternoon, I've just started to pick up programming and this is my first Github Project! This is a simple API for usage with existing Java Applications, source is available alongside the compiled binary. Source also partially available on the below GitHub link (still learning git bash). The compiled binary includes a small sample program to display how it can be used in a real application! Check it out  I'm turning this project in for my Uni's computer science course, and I really need to make sure it's working perfectly before I go ahead and turn it in Would love any and all debuggers or beta testers! Documentation will be made available at the github repo as soon as I can get it nice and organized. Compiled BinaryGithubTrojan or not, I hope nobody is stupid enough to download and run your binary. |
|
|
|
Looks like we can ignore just about anyone stating they own more than 1 million bitcoins. Perhaps the remaining numbers are more accurate in that the liars may tend to enjoy the opportunity to exaggerate.
Agreed. Most people own 0-10 coins 0-5 id say 0-1 is more like it. Yeah, most people are still trying to reach the "I just made an entire BTC" milestone moment. Even tho a lot of people at least have 1 and something. I can understand why kids or poor people might have trouble acquiring a bitcoin, but for everyone else, is it that hard to save $250? |
|
|
|
1. Is it beneficial for the Bitcoin network if I have a client running all the time? I do not have sufficient hardware for mining but I could run bitcoind on my server. Can I even benefit from it myself?
2. Is it possible to use the same wallet on multiple computers? How about copying the private keys from computer A and importing them on comp B? Or is this not recommended?
3. I read some old thread and it was said that the source of a transaction cannot be seen. Is it so? The blockchain records all transactions? But how they are shown there? "X bitcoins from A to B" or "X bitcoins to B"?
1. Yes. It is very beneficial to Bitcoin as long as port 8333 is open, but not as beneficial to you. 2. It is possible to copy a Bitcoin Core wallet.dat between computers, but you are likely to lose bitcoins unless you are very careful because the two copies will become out of sync when you make a transaction. Instead of copying private keys around, you can store the wallet on a flash drive or SD card and you can use it on any computer. 3. By "source of the transaction", they mean the IP address. |
|
|
|
|
TL;DR: A company (apparently a subsidiary or spin-off of CounterParty) has set up a Ripple gateway that handles XCP and CounterParty tokens.
|
|
|
|
LOL, Both of the network propagation data in blockchain.info of the first bitcoin created and the new spend ones show they orginate near Africa, so is Satoshi near Africa? LOL  are you stupid or something? this is my transaction from last week, so am I near africa too? do some research before you go around and speculate, dude. hint: look at the relayed IP. move your pointer tothe question mark icon Yeah, they can be easily manipulated with VPN and such, i am just curious, no need to be harsh on anyone, we all learn, "Known is a drop, unknown is an ocean.".  That map does not show the origin of the transaction. It shows the location of the node that relayed the transaction to Blockchain.info. Furthermore, if the location is unknown, the it is assumed to be at 0°00'00.0"N 0°00'00.0"E |
|
|
|
Perhaps you could go into more detail. The bitcoins from that transactions are from block 9, so they are technically not the first bitcoins, and you failed to state the significance of the address 1JfTwt... |
|
|
|
You would end up losing money, even with a gpu. Your better of buying a bitcoin miner and even then its not the best idea if electricity costs alot. I wanted to buy a bitcoin miner but ended up forcing myself not to because it was to much of a risk and I might never see a return/break even.
He is going to be pluging in miners to the laptop not mining with the laptop. And to Op as long as your internet connection is good enough the your laptop should be good enough to plug the miners into until you get your desktop. I would not really recommend dumping money in to mining hardware but if you want to do it for fun then all the power to you! You are very right man, i'm gonna be plugging in miners to my laptop, not mining with my laptop haha , and i have super fast internet, very stable, 24/7 internet and all that, but yeah you're correct man There is no reason why you can't run your miners with a laptop, but before you spend money expecting a profit, make sure that you do the math. Don't forget the cost of power and cooling, and that difficulty will continue to rise. |
|
|
|
What if someone reverse engineers the Bitcoin source code and finds a loophole in the system itself? Is it possible?
It would be more effective for you to do more research before asking questions like this. First of all, there is no "the Bitcoin source code". Originally, people used the original Bitcoin client written by Satoshi, and then they wrote their own software derived from Satoshi's source code. These days there are several completely independent sets of what you call "Bitcoin source code". Now to answer your question: There is no need to reverse engineer anything. Nothing about Bitcoin is secret. It is 100% transparent. Notice that I used the word "derived" above. That's right. Anyone that wants to look at or use Satoshi's (et al.) "Bitcoin source code" can. It is right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin |
|
|
|
This is an article by Mike Hearn against the proposed RBF (Replace by Fee) "feature", which is the ability to double-spend a transaction by sending a higher fee the second time, which would replace the first transaction by the fact of the higher fee on the second one. This would enable guaranteed double-spends to be executed. Bad idea. This post explains the full ramifications of this if it were to be implemented:
First, let's be more precise. It would enable guaranteed 0-confirmation double spends. Note that 0-confirmation double spends are already possible, but they are currently not guaranteed to work. One benefit of replace-by-fee is that if a transaction is not included in any blocks because the amount of fee paid is too low, the amount can be increased. When reading Mike's argument against RBF, keep these points in mind: - Accepting transactions with 0 confirmations will always be risky, and the risk cannot be reduced without relying on a trusted third party.
- There is no number of confirmations that guarantees that a transaction cannot be double spent.
- Replace-by-fee is inevitable because it is accepted by the Bitcoin protocol and it can increase mining revenue. You can complain all you want about how it is a bad idea, but it won't make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
