But what happen if the seller take back his account by proving the ownership of old address after sell the account to someone? Is it still possible right?
Please respond, I'm curious about this one.
No need to worry if the buyer have signed message from the seller when buying accounts, that would serve as proof of account transfer and he cant claim it back Well when you buy an account you ask the seller to sign a message that that account is sold to you, and you must keep this message for future, so you are protected. - my opinion its not just your opinion, i agree with it as well. by stating in the signed message that the account will be sold to you, the seller can no longer claim the account back as theirs using a signed message. Quick question about signed messages: Now, from what I understand, for a signed message to be valid, it must have been fron an address associated to the account from a post or something at some point. If a person were to purchase an account, and then decide to resell it for whatever reason, how could he legitimately prove ownership without having access to an address that has been associated with the account for an extended period of time? The buyer can't proof that he is the legitimate buyer except he got a signature from seller that says that the previous owner sold the account to him. The new owner should have posted a bitcoin address so that he can proof, with another signature, that he held the account since then. When selling an account then the message should contain the date of sale, the account to be sold and the buyer who bought it. I agree with you, a date should be included in the signed message, i dont know if we can verify when has been signed the message can we? No, it can't be verified. The only thing you can verify is that the address that was used to sign the message is old. When it was posted, and hopefully quoted, on the forum some time ago. Only when the account holder is the one from that time or if he sold the account and gave the private key for that address to seller it can be possible that this signature could be created. And the buyers name included proofs that it is not an old signature. |
|
|
|
we all know for a fact mining is not profitable why are this mining companies still around, how are they still making profit and why are people putting money into this.
It's because there are always noobs that don't know about the difficulty. These noobs buy highly expensive miners or bitcoins on ebay too. They see how much they can earn with mining in the next week on actual difficulty and often think that will proceed the way in the future. Then they buy contracts and learn eventually that their real profit will be way less than their investment, most of the time. Huh, thats funny. I have been making about 10% a month on hashnest. I better call them up and tell them to stop paying me. It is true that most mining companies are not legit, but to say that cloud mining is a waste, I think that is just silly. It IS possible, you just have to find one that makes sense. Bitmain likes to sell hardware, so it makes sense that they would try to increase their sales by housing the equipment for you. And if you buy an s5, they will house the hash and send you the machine when you want it. How is that a scam? How am I losing money? How are they a ponzi? Blanket statements are silly. you can be sure those company can be mining but main return there should be trading crypto otherwise they wont be able to keep paying 10% montly ,and most new companies pay well on begining then start reduce and raising the fee,soo they will say the difficult and the energy costs must be readjusted ,anyway if you invest 10 btc in a cloud like you example you will get 1 btc montly means 10 months to ROI invest 1 btc of those into altcoins will make 10 % in a month and will keep with 9 bitcoins lol. He most probably didn't get that profit from mining on hashnest alone. He most probably did trade his contracts and earn from that. That he makes that profit constantly seems to show that since the difficulty would make it impossible to make a 10% monthly profit over time. |
|
|
|
I agree with you. When you pay with a bank card then the merchant instantly knows the payment is safe. It's not the same with bitcoins unfortunately.
This is not true. The merchant does not know that the payment is safe, instantly or otherwise. I am familiar with a website that accepts credit cards and provides music downloads. When the credit card processor gives preliminary approval the web site enables the download. Rarely, a fraudulent or dead-beat "customer" can complete his download before the credit card processor revokes the preliminary approval. The web site never gets the funds, but the customer has the electronic goods. With this credit card processor it is possible to reduce the probability of loss by waiting longer, but this takes several hours (and there is still a charge back risk). The website owner made a business decision to deliver the goods immediately, for customer convenience. So far, this has proven to be a good decision. How is this different from accepting bitcoins with zero confirmations? You are right... the transaction could come from a carded credit card. So the transaction will be charged back when the real owner sees it. The only difference would be that you have at least some details, like IP or so. Though it's open how far you can go with that. With a clever carder you probably won't have a chance. I wonder why scams not happen more often since you sound like the risk is very small. |
|
|
|
Why is this a problem, exactly?
It's not a huge problem now but imagine (maybe somewhat in the future) you paid for something in a shop of a significant value (say $100) in bitcoin and the vendor required one confirmation for payment to be accepted. Waiting 10 minutes wouldn't be a problem but 1 hour or more would start to be really inconvenient. You could also find that so many transactions had built up during that hour that your transaction would be delayed by a block or two (even with a miners fee). If bitcoin wants to replace existing payment structures then we want to think of ways we can avoid these delays even if they are occasional. 3 days ago there were 2 long waits within a 2 hour period 364834 11/07/2015 09:14 364835 11/07/2015 10:03 364836 11/07/2015 10:06 364837 11/07/2015 10:09 364838 11/07/2015 10:16 364839 11/07/2015 11:08 I agree with you. When you pay with a bank card then the merchant instantly knows the payment is safe. It's not the same with bitcoins unfortunately. Sure, merchants might sell on zero confirmations but it sounds like a risk when the network is spammed and someone sends a zero fee transaction.And i was in the situation that i sold something and waited with the seller for a confirmation. It's no fun. Especially when the seller needs to get his train or something. If possible, a solution here would be nice. Don't send a zero fee transaction. I think, they will disappear anyways(I still send them sometimes). There are some factors you have to look at, so you could also accept a 0-confirmation transaction without having to worry. And all the people, who tell you how easy it is to double spend with a 0-confirmation transaction: They are full of shit. None of them ever showed any proof of that. My point was more about the merchant being at risk. I mean you say, correctly, that transaction might get lost. But there are payment services like bitpay.com that accept a payment after it shows up on the network, they don't wait for a single confirmation. Probably that is something good for adoption, since people have a good experience and it would no make sense for them to wait for, maybe, an hour. But i don't see how the risk of that payment not going through can be covered by bitpay.com. And they are responsible against the merchant when they payment doesn't reach with them. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the clarification turvarya. Normally i would have thought that the standard client will create the same addresses again. So when 100 are not enough and he creates more 100 then it would not be a problem when there is only a backup for the first 100. The second 100 could be created from seed.
I wonder why that doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
I mean, if you have a lot of capital, the amount of existential press diminishes, right? So you are fully entitled to sit in a meadow and meditate though the rest of your life. What else would you want to do?
I would open a spiritual newage healing clinic if I wanted to do something more.
You can do that with no money. The issue is how long you want to live before food runs out or how set you need to be. Was listening to two people on disability talking recently and they get by on $920 a month. So you could meditate all day and still eat and have a roof over your head. Nope. With no money, I will be worried sick about the future. Exactly. Having no money can be REALLY stressing. Having to fear what will happen in the future can bring up some serious existencial fears. Having enough money might bring up other fears. Like how to keep that money. But generally a sane person can live better with money. |
|
|
|
i think a good method is asking in forums ecc... someone help like that : who wants to help me grow can donate here : 17BUUx3BbPAdxNAAa29ExgwQfKU6bG2F5t  ;D i hope i was helpfull  so donate donate donate No this is a good method to get a ban, and to get neutral/negative trust. Also this address now it's linked to a sort a homeless... because only homeless ask coins and donation... I will repeat, what stupid method to growing BTC ! Exactly. And i don't know anyone who would donate in such a case. These things are known already to an extend and no one with coins will fall for it. Bitcoin simply is too much of a scammer paradise for that being to work. |
|
|
|
Fastest way to grow your coin is play dice and go yolo, you will find your coin growing in a couple secs.
if you are patient enough, grow your coin in the garden and dont forget to watering them.
wait until they are grow up.
Dice and Yolo is never been good idea for growing bitcoins because you can lost too much from them also better use some positive attitude and trade then you can take some good result I guess you didn't bother reading the second part of his text. You would have noted that he joked.  |
|
|
|
Luckily it was not a big mistake i did but it was trusting that cloud mining can bring me a profit.  But when i read what mistakes others did i think iam rather lucky at the end. |
|
|
|
Can satoshi or the main of the bitcoin who made it, can he decide to recover the lost bitcoins that people lost them.
no there is no bitcoin CEO, and satoshi wasn't a ceo of bitcoin either, it always based on consensus you can't go there and add a random amount to the supply just to retrieve those lost coins(which are actually a good thing for the future value), i'm not saying that it cannot be done, i'm saying that miners in primis should be favorable to it, and i doubt they are... It can be done generally, though it is not a certain person can decide. But when all bitcoiners, or at least the most miners, decide to change the protocol and go with that change from now on, then it would be possible to retrieve missing coins. You simply would override the rules. In fact it's impossible because there is no way the majority would agree to such a step. |
|
|
|
|
Mine came from mining... cloud mining... but i did not make a profit because it was not profitable enough. Guess i didn't know at that time that cloud mining is not profitable most of the time.
Lesson learned, but they were my first bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Posts have been counted and the new chart will be up about 24h from now. Payment should be done shortly
Thank you all for posting
Thank you. Re-enrolling. Post count: 525 |
|
|
|
No, miners don't pay transaction fees. They GET PAID the transaction fees from the transactions in the block they hash/verify. My point is, when transaction fees are the ONLY incentive to mine (and that will happen eventually as a certainty) the total sum of the transaction fees must match the cost of mining the block they were included in. If the block costs more to mine than the value of the transaction fees in a block, miners (most) will shut down. At least so many will shut down that the network becomes insecure and Bitcoin will die. Currently, at the existing transaction per block limit, that would mean that a fee of $1.5-$2 would have to be paid for EVERY transaction to be added to the blockchain. Alternatively, the functional or "real" value of BTC should be ten times higher to compete with an average alternative payment processor. That is of course if you look at BTC from a purely transactional and transfer point of view. So, I'm looking for ideas as to what the ecosystem as a whole will see as a solution to this. Either Bitcoin finds mainstream adoption and the price increases to at least match the cost of mining or the blocksize will have to increase to accommodate more transactions with a lower fee. Perhaps a bit of both. Either way, if either are to happen, Bitcoin will need to find mainstream adoption before the block reward becomes less than the cost of mining. I think I read that Satoshi said that Bitcoin would be everywhere or nowhere in 20 years and this might be what he meant. 20 years is 5 halvings of the reward. We're almost 2/5s of the way there. Of course, I may be way off here, this is all hypothetical Miners can't await that the fees make up for losses of reward halving. The fees simply would have to raise to a level that bitcoin would die from. So for now they have to deal with mining becoming less profitable. Which means switchign off old miners and only letting the good ones run. At the end... these profits will rise again when the bitcoin adoption is rising, more transactions happen and so the miners will get more fees as a reward. But the total profit will proceed to drop for years now. |
|
|
|
backupwallet is the same as copying wallet.dat
encrypting the wallet means encrypting the private keys.
If you have made a backup, and then you encrypt your wallet, you need to make a new backup because the old one will not work anymore.
Anyway that's my understanding, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. And I'm sure I've missed some important points.
Wasn't there a bug in a previous version of bitcoin-qt where the backup did only back up the first hundred bitcoin addresses so that the ones coming after that were not backed up. Then does this mean the backing up procedure of the wallet.dat did change? |
|
|
|
But it could be possible to temporarily fake a human out and make them think they had real bitcoin which is all that is required for an effective counterfeiting operation. Eventually the sucker will find out their duped but by then the thief could be long gone.
I disagree. How would you want to scam the other person? He would check his own wallet and see that nothing is there. If he really would accept a wallet, screenshot or block explorer showing him that there are coins then he could be fooled by an easier scam attempt too. |
|
|
|
Can you explain simply for people like me who doesn't understand?
I would second that. He proposes a second blockchain to stabilize the bitcoin price or what? I nearly stopped reading when i read the blogpost and read that he claims that bitcoin will be forked for the first time. He should know that this happened a lot already. Only without the attention and drama it has at the moment. |
|
|
|
supermarket.
fund, toilet paper.
be realistic ... bitcoin is for commodities.
i want pay my Mcdonald's and pizza with bitcoin ! (no, i'm not in a very very big town for this ...)
This is how I feel but even if silver was accepted everywhere I rather spend my fiat and hoard my silver. I guess others want Bitcoin to be a first dual system commodity and true currency. The value of bitcoins is in it's property of being a currency. Without that bitcoin would be nothing. I think bitcoin adoption will move on. This will lead to a more stable price which will lead to more adoption in return. |
|
|
|
|
Can these addresses be the ones that were created for spamming the bitcoin network? I don't understand how it works but i read it was something like that:
The spammers created addresses with a little bit of coins on it but with huge transactions. People claimed those addresses but in fact they should have to pay more coins in fees than the amount of coins on the address is worth. So they would help spamming the network.
Though i wonder how it works since the coins should be one value now and an outgoing transaction should be small. Anyone knows?
Edit: I see now it's already mentioned but i'm still puzzled why these transactions are expensive because the coins should be on one address now. And they are spent from there then. One amount isn't it?
|
|
|
|
I don't know why Backpage has adopted BTC but I sure hope it's for good cause. We need all the support we can get to keep this community alive.
They did not have a choice. The big credit card companies, and other payment services, decided that the content of that website, sex is offered, is not matching their image. So they closed their accounts or stopped them otherwise from using them. Backpage.com had to find a solution and they were cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
I dont see this as being good news, we all know that backpage is mainly used for prostitutes, yes i have no problem with bitcoins and prostitutes, I do have a problem with the fact that backpage is known for having under aged prostitutes listed, if anything happens and bitcoin was used, it would further taint the bad reputation we have
But whether you pay in btc or cash changes nothing. I am starting to think that the bad press for bitcoins is encouraged by banks, because anyone knows that you can still buy prostitutes with cash, you don't need cryptos for that. Bankers love prostitutes as much as we love bitcoin, but please we do not need bankers or government any where near bitcoin at all. Could you imagine bitcoin partial derivatives, that makes me feel sick just thinking about it. I insist. Please yes, bankers are welcome. It's a good tactic in a fight when the fiends fighters are coming over to your side. Even more when they still are behind the enemy lines. They could move way more in favor of bitcoin than the average bitcoiner. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
