Thanks for the suggestions! I'm going to use it to hold some encrypted Bitcoin private keys and then deal with decryption and transaction signing. By storing it in a safe deposit box, I'll then have a device immune from hardware keyloggers where I can input passwords safely. I have almost no experience with soldering, etc., which is why I wanted an integrated input method. Theoretically I could use only one button, though more buttons would be easier. The Arduino's USB port can probably be used with a keyboard, which would work. I'll also check out those Atmel microcontrollers. This looks useful: All AVR microcontrollers contain lock mechanisms to prevent reading and copying the program stored in on-chip Flash. |
|
|
|
Does this mean a fee of greater than 0.01/kB wouldn't increase the 1st confirmation speed?
In most cases, yes. If your fee is enough to get all miners to include your transaction, then there's no point in adding more. The network increases the minimum fee automatically when there are many transactions queued. Nowadays the default minimum fee is lower, though, so 0.01/kB will usually be sufficient even when the network is being spammed. |
|
|
|
With the extensive list of requirements in mind, does anything at all come close to satisfying them?
Not any existing software, probably. The forum will be paying for someone to either modify existing software to support all of this or write new forum software from scratch. |
|
|
|
Feature request that some forums have:
Subscribe to thread - without having to make a post.
Unsubscribe - remove it from new posts/unread list so you can leave the thread behind when it's degenerated into bickering.
Both are very useful and missing from SMF.
This is already in the feature list. See "watchlist". |
|
|
|
|
What's the cheapest programmable device with some integrated storage, an integrated input method, and some way of interfacing with a real computer? The cheapest devices fitting this criteria I know of are the TI-8x calculators, but it seems that there should be cheaper ones.
|
|
|
|
Ah, there's a misunderstanding here. I was referring specifically to buying and selling, not to forum reputation in general.
Maybe the forum could integrate with #bitcoin-otc for trade ratings. |
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with this trolling (which was fun to watch), but wasting my time with "account recovery" after posting shock images gets you permabanned.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was definitely off by 100 BTC. The number lost is actually 100.01000001. All losses are accounted for, then: 100 BTC from duplicates and 0.01000001 from the transaction dree12 linked to (0.01 fee that BBE mishandles plus the satoshi dropped purposefully by the miner). You wasted 10 minutes to help me - I'm honored! I sent a tiny donation as a token of thanks.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
Okay, thanks. How did you obtain that number: ran a script over the blockchain? ABE?
I queried the BBE database. It currently takes like 10 minutes to compute, though, which is why I don't make it available on any page. |
|
|
|
|
It's the upper limit. If you remove coins that have been obviously destroyed in that way, the number would be 200.01000001 less than the upper limit (at the moment).
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it should matter what the error code is, but I created an empty one anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Usually you'd get that error quicker, but the database needed a lot of time to even gather the counts and basic data. That ledger would have 16,850 rows if it was actually displayed.
One fee method I've been thinking about is charging more for increasing the total block chain size. If these transactions are all 0.01 BTC -> 0.01 BTC, then the spent transactions can be forgotten and there's not much cost to the network. But if it's splitting 100 BTC into 0.01 BTC coins, then fees per transaction should be much higher to reflect the extra storage required by everyone.
|
|
|
|
I'm talking about my personal client development. I can set NODE_NETWORK to whatever I want... though it sounds like 0 or 1 are the only options that are meaningful.
NODE_NETWORK is a constant flag that is applied to nServices, a bitfield. Not applying it leaves nServices at 0, but NODE_NETWORK remains at 1. Without NODE_NETWORK, you are not a "network node". |
|
|
|
By "not set" I assume you mean setting NODE_NETWORK to zero. It sounded like the reference client doesn't really take this into account yet, but that's not a reason to ignore it...
Well, NODE_NETWORK is a constant always equal to 1, so you don't set that... It is taken into account in places, and Bitcoin will even unset the flag for itself when it is compiled to behave as a lightweight client. Does this mean that I should be relaying full blocks if this value is set (i.e. other nodes expect me to respond to getdata requests)?
Right. Bitcoin expects to be able to download the entire block chain from you. |
|
|
|
So, you are using .htaccess tricks to force robots.txt? or...you just don't have the file there so you show an error instead?
There is no robots.txt. |
|
|
|
|
Not having NODE_NETWORK set indicates that you're a lightweight client. When Bitcoin doesn't set NODE_NETWORK, it means that Bitcoin is downloading full blocks but then throwing them away except for the Merkle trees. So Bitcoin lightweight-client nodes currently do relaying and as much verification as possible, but they don't have old blocks on hand.
There's not yet any way to show that you're running in an even more lightweight mode, though you should definitely not set NODE_NETWORK.
|
|
|
|
|
Another feature that should exist in the forum software: OpenID as an alternative to normal username/password authentication.
|
|
|
|
Would a trust system almost exactly like eBay (before they removed negative feedback) work?
I don't like any trust system that has a global trust rating. It disincentives people from posting controversial ideas. Past versions of an edited post being available to mod/admins (or maybe even just admins) with the ability to revert a post to a previous version would be extremely helpful. Also, the ability for a mod or admin to prevent someone with lower rank (including the original poster) from editing a specific post. This would mostly be used after a mod has to edit a post for some reason, and would likely be a checkbox on the edit page.
Good ideas. I'll add that to the final version of the specification. One thing I've started seeing custom forums do is have the server cache external images. We can charge for this image mirroring if we want or just give it to donators. This can even be outsourced to a different company.
I thought about that, but I don't really like embedded images, anyway. I can only think of a few cases where embedded images are actually useful. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
