|
Allow for a free market in money.
No more central banksters' monopoly money.
No control of money by the state. Separation of state and money.
|
|
|
|
It ouputs:
-Bitcoin address for saving
-a key to "unlock" address both in hex and base58
Real output of one run:
Address: 1QAueRC2LqquRmu5S3XMknyu7SyWUCMkY4
Key: 1QAueRC2LqquRmu5S3XMknyu7SyWUCMkY4 What are you saying here? The bitcoin public address and the key to "unlock" address is the same thing? edit: it must be a typo ... running the script yields a "private" key base58 beginning with a "5" as it should. Not such a good "example" demo, huh? |
|
|
|
|
Watching.
(PS; got a makefile (with list of working dep.s) for a recent bitcoin build on Fedora 15?)
|
|
|
|
|
BC will get bitcoin associated with British Columbia and all that BC bud that ends up in USA ... we wouldn't want Bitcoin associated with BC bud, it would give it a bad name
|
|
|
|
|
Self-similarity in USD/BTC price based on difficulty-period time scale ... ok, you've piqued my interest.
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin is not for stupid people .... yet.
... don't give matches to children to play with.
Step 1) Think of it as electronic gold ... (no, I mean really, alter you mind somehow and imagine that you have gold sitting on your hdd, usb, etc)
Step 2) Now, who needs to know about this and can handle the mind expansion that goes with it, not to mention the technical competence necessary to use it safely?
Figuratively, we are in the wild west when grains and nuggets and sacks full of the gold stuff are flying around, casinos, saloons full, whorehouses over-flowing, thieves and bandits lurk around every corner, few rules ... can't see it changing overnight.
Old school bankers, financiers will be the first to get bitcoin from the Wall St. Journal set, guys who really understand money ... if there are any left, but are they up to snuff on the tech.?
Seems like we are on our own and advertising it is pointless ... aim much higher. E.g. send a tech. memo to the BIS!
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like a simple bitcoin-namecoin exchange would be a good little test case for an Open Transactions implementation.
|
|
|
|
Duncant, you say on your site that "The payout schedule for this service is not secure against analysis of the bitcoin chain."
Is that a reference to the problem that occurs when you have to few customers and/or to many different sizes of coin, or is it something else?
The problem is that there are too many unique transaction sizes. I've had a fix to this problem in the pipeline for the last few weeks (see my last post), but what with the MtGox hack and my day job's machines all deciding to crash, I haven't gotten the chance to work on it solidly. As you may have noticed, I've taken the site down for the weekend to get this and a few other bugs fixed. Everything will be back (and better) on Monday. The warning message that you quote will be gone because I'll have fixed that flaw. Also, for anybody who's interested. I've consulted off-the-record with a few lawyers about the legality of this sort of thing. They're all of the opinion that this certainly does not constitute money laundering because bitcoin isn't "really money" in the eyes of the law. It could, possibly, be consider smuggling, but that is unlikely considering that no physical goods are exchanged. I don't see how it could be. It is a purely mathematical process performed on some electronic data. Are we going to outlaw any electronic maths next? Is that the realm of insanity the totalitarians are taking us into? Money needs to be free or it no longer functions as money, and all society suffers for it. |
|
|
|
|
PC World is a cheap lightweight rag .... nuff said.
Bitcoin surely is flushing out the haters ... lotsa bad karma getting stored up, we gots the new money, they got hate.
|
|
|
|
|
botnetters running on the bitcoin network is not without risk.
The controlling node runs a much greater chance of being tracked and found when they try to bitcoin mine than when they are spamming because of the volume of similar traffic that is continuously going from the hub to the nodes.
|
|
|
|
I think you've confused what YOU need with what everyone else needs.
My wallet is already secure. My client is already setup. I don't have a business and I don't see how having people donate 5% of their cpu to a pool /if they want/, in any way could possibly help me any more then it would help anyone else. And, it technically isn't even to help us, but to help those new to bitcoin and to make it easier for those that are new, many people wont be bothered with it unless its secure and "works right out of the box". So tell me... how is this to help me? Fair enough. EFF directed funds redirected to development projects .... helping people into bitcoins versus helping them out of bitcoin troubles ... just can't see the rationale, sorry. |
|
|
|
The best choice is glaringly obvious to me. We the bitcoin users want bitcoin to succeed and catch on. but it has a few major issues in the way first. while i respect the doners and what they want their donated money to be used for, i think these issues are of greater importance to the community as a whole.
-The client *must* have security for the wallet itself! not having this is ridiculous and if we expect anyone to use bitcoins it has to have virtually *no* setup and be idiot proof.
-this whole thing of *currently* waiting *24* or more hours to use the client is a joke! we need the /other/ implementation that only requires the most recent transactions/the ones that affect the user (possibly for mobile devices or a way of quickly getting the App itself working so you don't have to wait 24 hours)
-we need code made for websites that is Completely secure that allows *ultra easy* setup to allow for doing business in BTC.
-more of a personal desire, but i think having all clients able to mine for a pool would benefit the system as a whole to provide a somewhat stable amount of hashing power, possibly using something like 20% of unused CPU power/GPU power if the user enables it. (ie, say I'm using 60% of my CPU and have 40% unused. 20% of whats left is 8%) this wouldn't be to 'make money' but to 'secure the network' (the money would of course go to the user automatically).
So my proposal is this, put the money into a found for bounties, handed out/selected by Gavin(or a poll he runs?) with a readout Somewhere that shows Exactly what the funds have been used for.
I think you've confused what YOU need with what everyone else needs. |
|
|
|
has anyone ever considered that bitcoin pretty much is a botnet itself? I mean, really, people, you are all doing distributed work which is controlled by a piece of software over the network. To translate from the german wikipedia entry for botnet: A botnet is a group of software bots. these bots run on networked computers, whose network connectivity and local resources are at their disposal.
One other from the english wiki page: Botnets are controlled en masse via protocols such as IRC and http. Anyone hearing a bell ringing? The only difference is that most Bitcoiners run the software willingly. Another small, but very important difference: No C&C Server, meaning no herder. ... and the big difference is the miners get paid for work performed voluntarily ... the bot machine is a slave to someone else's control that has been stolen through force and coercion ... in fact, bitcoin net is the anti-botnet ... how long until these schmuck's with the compromised windoze shitboxes wake up to how much they are getting stolen from them  ffs ... fools and their money. |
|
|
|
Wooo, 4 bitcents!  Better than nothing I suppose...  It's more than you would get for interest at a normal bank account. At a bank you get your deposit back. Not anymore. |
|
|
|
By that logic there's no need for Bitcoin either since governments can take down any node/merchant/exchanger they wish.
Well, Bitcoin's strengths aren't only in anonymity; and yes, without Tor or i2p, if anonymity is to be maintained, there is no need for Bitcoin For instance, if Silk Road wasn't on Tor and used Namecoin, the servers probably would have been taken down by now. You could be confused, namecoin and bitcoin would provide exactly the same level of anonymity/traceability for transactions .... depending on how you use them. |
|
|
|
|
You are correct.
They have stolen ....
... and legions of economists have apologised for them.
|
|
|
|
Namecoin is essentially filling a need that does not yet exist. The US gov't has been meddling with the internet more and more and wants to control whatever they can.
Remember lawmakers talking about 'tax' on email like 15 years ago? I think domain name seizures will become increasingly common (we already saw major poker sites and seizure of a botnet earlier this year) and the need for a P2P DNS will be realized.
I still don't understand the need for Namecoin. Governments can still take down any servers they want to, or block access to them like the Great Firewall. These sites need a way to not only protect domain names, but also their servers. And there are already networks for that; i2p and Tor. Yes, but the great unwashed don't use Tor or i2p and probably never will since they don't give a rat's about going deep black for privacy ... e.g. facebook. BUT they will click en masse to a "forbidden" link that has titillating details about what scandal their congress critters or State Dept. have just gotten up to or a simple 1-click link to a low-risk site serving up on-line poker, etc, etc ... ... .bit domains will serve those grey markets just fine. Not so much about clandestine operations and secrecy but freedom of speech and transparency. |
|
|
|
|
Do we have definitive answer that ClearCoin is not for sale?
|
|
|
|
|
Following ... maybe rename title "Namecoin SSL/TLS" ... (in reference to RFC above.)?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
