1KATWALSHTHECuz5DFHoNqJax6hnDbL6KN (I can sign with it if you want)
Any vanity pubkeys category? If so, I win:
0200000000000000000000003b78ce563f89a0ed9414f5aa28ad0d96d6795f9c63
14 letters  what are you searching with? and uh... what exactly is KATWALSHTHECuz? It's not the longest pronounceable or the longest real-word (not that I can see anyway - is it English or another language?) Maybe a different category? |
|
|
|
then create a single new larger unspent output that does not have a larger value that the sum of all the little outputs that funded the transaction.
Where in the world do things amass from smaller units and give you a total which is greater than the sum of its parts Work on your reading comprehension. They don't "amass from smaller units and give you a total which is greater than the sum of its parts". They destroy smaller units and give you a new coin which is greater than any of the individual parts (and less than or equal to the sum of the parts). You're making a wonderful argument for the use of the term pooling, DannyHamilton.
If you want to say that transactions are a pooling of previously unspent outputs, then you'll be pretty close to what actually happens. If you want to say that receiving multiple outputs to the same bitcoin address will result in the outputs being "pooled" into a single value at that address, then you're pretty far off the mark. My reading comprehension is fine Danny. I was chiding you for the superfluous nature of your statement on the sum of the inputs. As I originally stated... In the simplest terms, if all of your coins have been received to the same address and you continue to send your change back to that same address, owning the private key for that address is crucial if you want to spend them so essentially, the coins have pooled together.... So, near or far from your "mark", I can still move all my coins to one address with one private key and spend them as I see fit, receiving the change at that same address and effectively pooling my coins. Which is demonstrated by the address in the txid I posted originally. Somebody pooled 15o+ Bitcoins into one address. Pooled. Yep, I said Pooled. It was intended as a simple explanation for the OP who was already having trouble understanding the wallet. Now, after your bucket 'o gold rant, OP is probably more confused than ever. |
|
|
|
But are they considered pooled together after forwarding all the output to second address then to the third address as single output?
Technically, when you create a transaction the "unspent outputs" that are funding the transaction become "spent outputs" and can never again be used. The transaction then creates new "unspent outputs" with new values. If you think of the "unspent output" as a "coin", then the coin is effectively destroyed, and new coins are created to take their place. The protocol makes sure that the total value of the new "coins" (unspent outputs) is never larger than the total value of the "destroyed coins" (spent outputs). So the unspent outputs are never "pooled together" as they are received, but by sending them in a transaction you can "destroy" lots of little unspent outputs, and then create a single new larger unspent output that does not have a larger value that the sum of all the little outputs that funded the transaction. Where in the world do things amass from smaller units and give you a total which is greater than the sum of its parts (Excepting in the mind of Aristotle)? You're making a wonderful argument for the use of the term pooling, DannyHamilton. |
|
|
|
- snip -
how your coins pool together.
Coins never pool together. Each output that you receive is listed separately as an input when it is used in a transaction. Even if you use a wallet that always uses the same receiving address, each output that you receive at that address is still tracked separately and individually listed as inputs when they are later spent. In the simplest terms, if all of your coins have been received to the same address and you continue to send your change back to that same address, owning the private key for that address is crucial if you want to spend them so essentially, the coins have pooled together. If this were not the case, how would this transaction make use of an address which contains more than 50 coins (given that the initial mining reward was 50 coins)? txid:c27212a482cc4add5cbc51f131c1bd8fd3dc7d1fb058724f2268d819ddef3f07 NB. I just pulled a recent transaction that made use of an address containing a large number of coins. (it has not necessarily been confirmed yet) |
|
|
|
|
WTF. The website you refer to says:
"Disclaimer! Service in prototyping (beta) stage. Although we try to provide "best effort" service, be aware that funds could be locked. "
In all likelihood, you and the lender would both be out 0.1 BTC. This seems like a scam within a scam.
|
|
|
|
When sending money, you will send from the combination of addresses that sum closest to the total you are sending. The change will be returned into a new address in your wallet.
To expand on this: There are wallets in which you can specify sending address(es) (custom input(s)) and a change address (for example in Bitcoin Core). I use this feature almost every single time when I transact. An excellent point yet I would suggest that since Alley is still learning, she/he should probably not try to use the wallet customizations until he/she is a little more knowledgeable about the workings of the wallet. As we have seen in the past, people have mistakenly sent large transaction fees with their payment and Bitcoin is unforgiving of mistakes. There are no take-backs! |
|
|
|
|
Your wallet consists of all the addresses to which you have received. When sending money, you will send from the combination of addresses that sum closest to the total you are sending. The change will be returned into a new address in your wallet.
|
|
|
|
So if I got this right:
If person A wants me to search for a vanity address for him, but I would also like to search for vanity addresses for n other people simultaneously, the result that I find, with which person A can generate his desired vanity address, is only usable to person A if he has a certain piece of information from all these n other people?
You don't have it right. Person A gives you a key which you use in the generation of A's address. You can only do A's address unless the n other people want to share A's key (N.B. they do not). Now only A will have the private key. |
|
|
|
A slow, steady climb as I have depicted in this graphic would be nice.   |
|
|
|
I eat rice every day because i'm chinese (its my duty to fulfill the stereotypes) and its a good idea. Just dont eat too much because rice has a lot of cholesterol. Everybody in my family seems to eat a lot, but I dont really like it. It's good for your health though so I just eat it.
I eat rice too and yeah its high in cholesterol. So i prefer rice for fat. Plant cells have little to no need for cholesterol and they produce next to none. Oil extraction from plants will concentrate the cholesterol but even then, you would need to eat a kilogram of palm oil to get 20 milligrams of cholesterol. In contrast, you would only need to eat one 50g boiled egg to get ~190 mg. On average, the human body synthesizes about 3 grams of cholesterol per day. Rice contains essentially zero cholesterol per kilogram. Where did you hear that rice is high in cholesterol? It's simply untrue. |
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you mean there is no unbiased press in the West. There really is freedom of the press in the West but in America, over 50% of the general public don't believe mass media to report the news accurately, fairly and fully. No doubt many of the networks you cite have their own agendas to push and they certainly are free to do just that. You could always start your own news service but then you would also be perceived as biased - against mass media - based on your opinion here.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like there should be a change address 1AkGK5CZMNfE2N7SNYMdVgtNr2eXeXNXyS in that electrum wallet of yours. I'm not familiar with electrum though so I wont be of much help. Is there a setting to show all addresses?
|
|
|
|
According a study of a European institution especially the sourthern states of Europe has banking deposits of more than 100k. I do not claim that every European has more than 100k, but the most have. Europe is the most wealthy region in to world. But even when the people would have one fifth of the deposit on their banking account (what is very likely) it would still 100 billion. Let me tell you with 100% certainty that very few Europeans have current accounts with €100,000 in them. You are confusing total wealth with bank deposits. People have money tied up in their home and other investments, savings accounts are not for holding all of your assets especially with interest rates being at all time lows. There would be no need for such a huge sum were all of the banks in the EU to suddenly fail. I don't know the exact figure today but in 2010, the average EU person's bank account was around €6800 Sorry to disappoint you, this is a promise the EU and your country could not hold when it comes to extreme. 100k € times 500 million people are 500,000,000,000,000 € (in words 500 trillion).
People have right on their money. Still due to the economic system followed over the past people have money and certain value assigned for money. So certain changes need to be done in economic system.
People think they have right on their money. Whereas in reality they have right on nothing as they don't own money. Banks own money and people have bank credit that's all. If a bank closes you lose all your money. Not in my country, friend! Our deposits are insured. I get my money back if bank closes. 100% coverage up to 100k. Yeah. which means only 4% of what's necessary is insured. No. 100% is insured and .8% is held in reserve. Also those figures from previous poster are wayyyy off. I'm done wasting my time with this. Look it up. Well as you wish. It doesn't matter whatever you believe. Fact is here, I don't see where they would find the money in case of bank crash! Yep. There is simply no way to create more money as debt. You're right. I give. Ahahah! Great! So the debt will simply be transfered to another bank with higher interests... Quite likely the IMF in a serious case, yes. Did you actually read any of my earlier posts? I already mentioned that. As well as the US bailout in which case the taxpayers are on the hook for UNinsured debt. Pff... Tell this to the Greeks... Sure. If I can find one who lost his insured deposit to bank failure, I will mention it. Here is why you're wrong. It all depends on the ECB nothing more. No that is not in the mandate of the ECB and they overstepped their authority |
|
|
|
According a study of a European institution especially the sourthern states of Europe has banking deposits of more than 100k. I do not claim that every European has more than 100k, but the most have. Europe is the most wealthy region in to world. But even when the people would have one fifth of the deposit on their banking account (what is very likely) it would still 100 billion. Let me tell you with 100% certainty that very few Europeans have current accounts with €100,000 in them. You are confusing total wealth with bank deposits. People have money tied up in their home and other investments, savings accounts are not for holding all of your assets especially with interest rates being at all time lows. There would be no need for such a huge sum were all of the banks in the EU to suddenly fail. I don't know the exact figure today but in 2010, the average EU person's bank account was around €6800 Sorry to disappoint you, this is a promise the EU and your country could not hold when it comes to extreme. 100k € times 500 million people are 500,000,000,000,000 € (in words 500 trillion).
People have right on their money. Still due to the economic system followed over the past people have money and certain value assigned for money. So certain changes need to be done in economic system.
People think they have right on their money. Whereas in reality they have right on nothing as they don't own money. Banks own money and people have bank credit that's all. If a bank closes you lose all your money. Not in my country, friend! Our deposits are insured. I get my money back if bank closes. 100% coverage up to 100k. Yeah. which means only 4% of what's necessary is insured. No. 100% is insured and .8% is held in reserve. Also those figures from previous poster are wayyyy off. I'm done wasting my time with this. Look it up. Well as you wish. It doesn't matter whatever you believe. Fact is here, I don't see where they would find the money in case of bank crash! Yep. There is simply no way to create more money as debt. You're right. I give. Ahahah! Great! So the debt will simply be transfered to another bank with higher interests... Quite likely the IMF in a serious case, yes. Did you actually read any of my earlier posts? I already mentioned that. As well as the US bailout in which case the taxpayers are on the hook for UNinsured debt. Pff... Tell this to the Greeks... Sure. If I can find one who lost his insured deposit to bank failure, I will mention it. |
|
|
|
According a study of a European institution especially the sourthern states of Europe has banking deposits of more than 100k. I do not claim that every European has more than 100k, but the most have. Europe is the most wealthy region in to world. But even when the people would have one fifth of the deposit on their banking account (what is very likely) it would still 100 billion. Let me tell you with 100% certainty that very few Europeans have current accounts with €100,000 in them. You are confusing total wealth with bank deposits. People have money tied up in their home and other investments, savings accounts are not for holding all of your assets especially with interest rates being at all time lows. There would be no need for such a huge sum were all of the banks in the EU to suddenly fail. I don't know the exact figure today but in 2010, the average EU person's bank account was around €6800 Sorry to disappoint you, this is a promise the EU and your country could not hold when it comes to extreme. 100k € times 500 million people are 500,000,000,000,000 € (in words 500 trillion).
People have right on their money. Still due to the economic system followed over the past people have money and certain value assigned for money. So certain changes need to be done in economic system.
People think they have right on their money. Whereas in reality they have right on nothing as they don't own money. Banks own money and people have bank credit that's all. If a bank closes you lose all your money. Not in my country, friend! Our deposits are insured. I get my money back if bank closes. 100% coverage up to 100k. Yeah. which means only 4% of what's necessary is insured. No. 100% is insured and .8% is held in reserve. Also those figures from previous poster are wayyyy off. I'm done wasting my time with this. Look it up. Well as you wish. It doesn't matter whatever you believe. Fact is here, I don't see where they would find the money in case of bank crash! Yep. There is simply no way to create more money as debt. You're right. I give. Ahahah! Great! So the debt will simply be transfered to another bank with higher interests... Quite likely the IMF in a serious case, yes. Did you actually read any of my earlier posts? I already mentioned that. As well as the US bailout in which case the taxpayers are on the hook for UNinsured debt. |
|
|
|
According a study of a European institution especially the sourthern states of Europe has banking deposits of more than 100k. I do not claim that every European has more than 100k, but the most have. Europe is the most wealthy region in to world. But even when the people would have one fifth of the deposit on their banking account (what is very likely) it would still 100 billion. Let me tell you with 100% certainty that very few Europeans have current accounts with €100,000 in them. You are confusing total wealth with bank deposits. People have money tied up in their home and other investments, savings accounts are not for holding all of your assets especially with interest rates being at all time lows. There would be no need for such a huge sum were all of the banks in the EU to suddenly fail. I don't know the exact figure today but in 2010, the average EU person's bank account was around €6800 Sorry to disappoint you, this is a promise the EU and your country could not hold when it comes to extreme. 100k € times 500 million people are 500,000,000,000,000 € (in words 500 trillion).
People have right on their money. Still due to the economic system followed over the past people have money and certain value assigned for money. So certain changes need to be done in economic system.
People think they have right on their money. Whereas in reality they have right on nothing as they don't own money. Banks own money and people have bank credit that's all. If a bank closes you lose all your money. Not in my country, friend! Our deposits are insured. I get my money back if bank closes. 100% coverage up to 100k. Yeah. which means only 4% of what's necessary is insured. No. 100% is insured and .8% is held in reserve. Also those figures from previous poster are wayyyy off. I'm done wasting my time with this. Look it up. Well as you wish. It doesn't matter whatever you believe. Fact is here, I don't see where they would find the money in case of bank crash! Yep. There is simply no way to create more money as debt. You're right. I give. |
|
|
|
According a study of a European institution especially the sourthern states of Europe has banking deposits of more than 100k. I do not claim that every European has more than 100k, but the most have. Europe is the most wealthy region in to world. But even when the people would have one fifth of the deposit on their banking account (what is very likely) it would still 100 billion. Let me tell you with 100% certainty that very few Europeans have current accounts with €100,000 in them. You are confusing total wealth with bank deposits. People have money tied up in their home and other investments, savings accounts are not for holding all of your assets especially with interest rates being at all time lows. There would be no need for such a huge sum were all of the banks in the EU to suddenly fail. I don't know the exact figure today but in 2010, the average EU person's bank account was around €6800 Sorry to disappoint you, this is a promise the EU and your country could not hold when it comes to extreme. 100k € times 500 million people are 500,000,000,000,000 € (in words 500 trillion).
People have right on their money. Still due to the economic system followed over the past people have money and certain value assigned for money. So certain changes need to be done in economic system.
People think they have right on their money. Whereas in reality they have right on nothing as they don't own money. Banks own money and people have bank credit that's all. If a bank closes you lose all your money. Not in my country, friend! Our deposits are insured. I get my money back if bank closes. 100% coverage up to 100k. Yeah. which means only 4% of what's necessary is insured. No. 100% is insured and .8% is held in reserve. Also those figures from previous poster are wayyyy off. I'm done wasting my time with this. Look it up. |
|
|
|
You're simply wrong. Stop spreading FuD.
The EU sets requirements that insured deposits must be accessible for depositors within a specified time frame. Under EU rules, payout deadlines must be gradually reduced from 20 working days presently, to 7 working days as of January 1, 2024. The insured amount is currently €100,000.
In the USA, no depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits since the FDIC was created in 1933.
Many countries have deposit insurance schemes. Look it up man!
That means nothing. What's insured is indeed any account under 100k€, but it's insured by a fund having around 0.8% of the bank funds and only in 2024 not right now! "The Deposit Insurance Fund would be equivalent to 0.8% of the covered deposits of all banks in the Banking Union by 2024." http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6153_fr.htmThis is no FUD man, if one small bank sinks no problem normally, the money should be found. But you gotta have only one and not too big. So it's sUpErFuD? What are we talking about then, full scale global economic collapse or just the collapse of the European Union? This is deposit insurance. The failed bank will be taken over and it's assets liquidated. What insurance scheme anywhere has to fund 100% of ALL potential liabilities? None; nowhere and neither is it necessary. NB. I'm not an actuary but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last month. Lol! There is a difference in saying it's 100% insured (which is hard I agree) and say that it's 0.8% insured!!! I don't really call that insurance! Would you say your house is correctly insured if I promise you to repay you 0.8% of its value if it burns down? I don't really see the FUD here... It IS 100% insured up to 100,000 euros payable in 20 days. The 0.8% is the amount the insurer must have on-hand in reserve. Your scenario would have every house insured by my insurer burn down on the same day. The only way that's going to happen is some sort of cosmic event or "act of god" - in this case, my insurance policy would be nullified as it doesn't cover era-ending asteroids or world war. And how will they get the 99.2% in 20 days please? --' Again, you're going to have to define your terms. There are a number of insurers and they insure more than one bank. Are you suggesting all banks under one insurer fail at once? If not, they don't need the other 99.2%; if so, I would imagine they would simply take a loan against the value of the bank until it is liquidated. In the US, the too-big-to-fail banks which actually weren't insured by the FDIC (or anyone) were bailed out by the govt (read taxpayers). In Iceland, the investment banks were accidentally insured by their deposit insurance due to negligence (Icebank should not have been operated as a branch of Landsbanki) and ultimately, they defaulted and refused to pay. Anyway, the country secured a sovereign loan from the IMF and covered all domestic deposits. |
|
|
|
For security, I could create a system where after the purchase the private key gets sent to you via email. And we send the wallet address with QR code by mail. This could maybe work?
No you have to use part private keys so nobody but the buyer gets to see the private key. The receiver would have to combine the private key you send with his part private key to get the actual private key of the address containing the coin. This would remove some of the trust issues around purchasing a paper wallet but it would also complicate the process. |
|
|
|
So you want us to go back to writing cheques?
no not really, just an idea Might be cool for vanity addresses if you could somehow guarantee the security of the private key. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
