If I make a copy of my wallet what prevents me from useing both copies? for example if I have 2bct and make a copy then load it onto another computer what happens?
You won't be able to spend the coins twice. The network will prevent it. However, Bitcoin is not meant to be run like this, and you might lose coins by accidentally making invalid transactions. |
|
|
|
|
You need >50% of the computational power to get 6 confirmations. For 1 confirmation, 1% of CPU power will give you about a 1% chance of being able to reverse the transaction, regardless of how well the original transaction propagated.
If the attacker can't do that, then broadcasting and waiting a few seconds does give a good chance that there will be no double-spending. However, nodes will not relay transactions they consider bad, so you might not see bad transactions until they're in a block. This is why a centralized "super node" with many connections is desired. And Bitcoin doesn't currently warn you about double-spends, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
This has been discussed over and over again. The entire economy can function on 1 bitcoin. Deflation is not a problem.
|
|
|
|
Well, the point of all this is to ensure all chains benefit from the same pool of cpu power. So they'd need to have related difficulty in some sense.
They do share CPU power. You only have to increment/hash once to try for a whole set of chains. If the Merkle root is below one of the targets, then you claim just that one (leaving the invalid branches so the root stays the same, but not announcing them as solutions). If the Merkle root happens to be below all of the targets, then you can claim all of them. What's the advantage of that, compared to declaring that the "new" block chain will start with the same difficulty as bitcoin (and will automatically stay in step after that)?
Not everyone will work on every chain. To maintain 10-minute (or whatever) targets, separate difficulty is necessary. |
|
|
|
First block makes more sense. USD is a measuring stick made of wormwood.
I agree. January 3 rd should be Bitcoin Day. |
|
|
|
|
That does sound like what Satoshi was thinking of. He specified that each chain would have separate difficulty, which I suppose could be achieved by leaving invalid headers in the tree when the Merkle root is below the target for any of the chains.
|
|
|
|
How do I issue the RPC from command line?
Just "bitcoind setgenerate true threadNumber". Bitcoin acts as its own RPC client when it's given any parameters that don't start with a dash. |
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, no one ever figured out exactly what Satoshi meant in that post.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't currently run as a full network node without full blocks, since there's no way to represent on the network that you're sending just a partial block. Would the vectors currently used for Merkle trees even work if part of the tree was removed?
I haven't seen any relevant code. I don't think transaction trimming is intended for use in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is feasible. Alice's client could let her send the same coins again with a higher fee. One of the two transactions will make it into a block and the other one will be ignored as a double spend.
Exactly right. If the two transactions share any inputs, then they will conflict, and both can't exist in the block chain. Each transaction input has a sequence number associated with it. This is intended for replacement situations like this; a lower sequence number indicates that this transaction should take precedence over other transactions with a higher sequence number. However, miners currently don't respect sequence numbers, so you must rely on the network's forgetfulness. |
|
|
|
|
The network forgets about transactions if they haven't made it into a block within a few days. You could resubmit it then.
Bitcoin doesn't currently allow you to "unsend" a transaction, though, so you'd have to restore from a wallet backup to get the "stuck" coins back.
|
|
|
|
|
You can use the RPC command "setgenerate true threadNumber". Bitcoin will store the number of threads to run in your wallet and remember it across runs.
|
|
|
|
so the "send remaining account balance" could be patched as a sending to myself / use the same address?
that would be very elegant hack, probably for "advanced" tab settings but i can imagine that being very useful for the late adopters and lay community.
If you patch Bitcoin to send change back to the original address, then the address balance will be accurate. This would be a pretty easy change to make. It also makes backups more reliable, since a new address is not needed for each send. It's terrible for anonymity, of course. |
|
|
|
I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more please?
Take a look at "Against Intellectual Property" (PDF), which largely represents my views on the matter. If I own a section of land, then no one cares. I can't interfere with the use of anyone's property. My ownership doesn't affect anyone. But if I own intellectual property, then I have the right to stop people from using their property in certain ways. I can stop someone from using their ink and their paper to recreate my words. I can stop people from assembling their electronics into certain formations. This is exactly opposed to the libertarian principle of allowing people to do what they like with their property. |
|
|
|
Though, since bitcoin can use a tor proxy, it gets all those features. How well would it work to use a tor location hidden service as your available IP? If the client just forwards everything through the proxy, letting it do DNS lookups, then it would mean that you just wont resolve for any clients not using a tor proxy, but it should be transparent for anyone doing it.
Bitcoin doesn't handle hostnames. You need to use Tor's MapAddress to use a hidden service (explicitly with -addnode), though this does work. |
|
|
|
|
I think we could just remove the special "dust spam" fee and rely on the priority mechanism. Then "dust" would only be allowed in the first 27k of a block, and non-dust would usually be given priority in that area.
The -limitfreerelay switch can be enabled by default to protect relay nodes from dust spam.
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. fergalish describes one approach to IP, which seems to be quite reasonable.
There are, of course, extremes even within the so-called "libertarian" crowd. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit..
Respect for property rights is the core libertarian issue. I have a hard time considering people libertarians if they say, "Property rights are absolute, and everyone can do what they want with their property, except when someone else already used their property in that way." |
|
|
|
Is it not possible to forward two ports for bitcoin? E.g. 8333 and 8334 and announce this ports in the distributed database, like bittorrent does?
No. You could modify the source to use a different port, but "stock" Bitcoin greatly prefers to connect to peers on port 8333, so it wouldn't do any good. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
