I have option on many things, but all of them would be off topic, except the one that some of you guys serve us a cheap propaganda in this topic. Seriously, don't you see it? As for the other things I know, knowledge is power, so don't think my friend that I will just share mine with you for free.  So it doesn't bother you that the payment protocol that took you few years to develop guarantees that a guy who had an access to your email address at time in past can just issue payment requests in your name? You still think it's great and people should use it for making sure that they send coins to the right address? Well, I don't Well, I certainly do see plenty of cheap propaganda hereabouts, but not coming from the side you seem to think it is coming from. So far, every objection against the payment protocol that I've seen has been emotional. With the exception of your current post, the one quoted above. I have two objections to your objection. First, you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Having an optional easy to use signed invoice is a vast improvement over the alternatives. Note that I said "easy to use", which disqualifies PGP, and probably bitcoin message signing. Second, you don't even need to lose control of your email account for someone to create a bogus PGP key in your name. |
|
|
|
There's a real debate to be had; name calling just makes it impossible.
That is like 9/11 conspiracy theorists saying "there is a real debate to be had!" ... after they repeatedly fail to listen to rational arguments ("Jet Fuel doesn't burn that hot! It cannot melt steel!" ... after being patiently told about the physics of furnaces: burning in a heat-trapping chamber). I still haven't heard any rational arguments on how the payment protocol is worse for privacy. If piotr_n makes one, please let me know. Sure: conspiracy theorists blew up three WTC towers into pieces in 2001, just to blame it on the government. And in 2014 the same conspiracy theorists try to break Bitcoin by not embracing the new payment protocol and speaking against increasing the block size, in favor of off-chain transactions. It's all because we "repeatedly fail to listen to rational arguments"... and our arguments are obviously never rational, so it is completely fine to not listen to them. Do we really need to call this guy a lead bitcoin developer? Because it seems like an insult for an actual bitcoin developers. If he doesn't understand that gasoline has no potential to blow up buildings into pieces, then he doesn't even deserve to be called an engineer. Unless in America you have different laws of physics. Or different criteria to become an engineer... Wow. I thought he was just using a clever analogy, but it appears the arrow hit the mark anyway. Do you have any opinions on the moon landing? |
|
|
|
At the other hand, from the paying side, when I get to a merchant's web page that gives me SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount I ought to send - why in a world would it not be enough for me?
Why would I need an additional, payment request, signed with exactly the same certificate?
Good luck taking your screenshot of the "SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount" to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay. In other words, you don't really understand which problems the payment protocol is trying to solve. Which court? If the merchant is in Chile and the customer in Russia, what use is this? Bitcoin is a global system, but there is no world court people can go to, to settle disputes. This can in theory only apply if the two parties agree which court settles disputes, and the court even considers itself responsible. If you're drafting social protocols you should have some understanding of how economic transactions work. Commercial transactions consist of much more than just the payment itself (what happens if there is no delivery, delivery not on time, bad delivers, ...). And if you want to integrate with legal systems via software, you better clearly specify what you're talking about. Since when is the Bitcoin network dependent on courts?! And if the payment protocol addresses any of these issues, why is not stated in the draft protocol. Just because this idea is in someone's head doesn't make it a fact. The Bitcoin developers "in charge" should really think harder about these issues. And if they claim no one is in charge, then please find someone to understand the economics and write proper protocols. If I'm following you correctly, you think that there should be no courts because they can't help in all disputes? That every transaction should be spelled out in complete detail, even though it is pointless because neither party needs to follow it? The vast majority of internet transactions are "local" to one judicial system, and also follow a standard template (I pay you X, you send me Y). A signed statement of X and Y, along with blockchain evidence that X was completed, gives the purchaser some confidence that they will have some useful recourse in the event that the vendor fails to complete Y. Good luck taking your screenshot of the "SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount" to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay.
Who said anything about screenshots? I meant something like the receipts localbitcoins.com do. Or whatever message "pay this amount, to this address, for this product", signed with either bitcoin address, or a PGP key - that's all you need for a digital receipt, mr big smartass but little imagination. And BTW, good luck taking your payment protocol receipt to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay. You are obviously living in a dream world. Though most Americans do, so you are just following the pattern. And how is PGP or bitcoin signing any better? Do you ask the court for a subpoena to search all of their records for evidence that they possess the private key that signed your receipt? Or do you think that the judge will take your word for it that you've brought suit against the correct party? One nice thing about being an American is knowing that our courts do, for the most part, understand cryptography and digital signatures. |
|
|
|
|
Your best bet is to make the pull request and see. The real discussion will happen on github, in the comments on the pull. If you plan on developing more, either you need practice using git/github anyway, or you are already proficient enough that making the pull won't be very annoying.
Keep in mind that this is not a feature that many people will ever use. And the people that are likely to use it already have other ways to accomplish the same goals, arguably better ways. That said, this is pretty light, and won't have a huge maintenance burden in the future.
|
|
|
|
At the other hand, from the paying side, when I get to a merchant's web page that gives me SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount I ought to send - why in a world would it not be enough for me?
Why would I need an additional, payment request, signed with exactly the same certificate?
Good luck taking your screenshot of the "SSL authenticated bitcoin deposit address and the amount" to court when the merchant claims you didn't pay. In other words, you don't really understand which problems the payment protocol is trying to solve. |
|
|
|
The part highlighted also looks odd. You may want to download and build from github because that version looks really old. Did you by any chance do an apt-get for bitcoin? iirc that version is way out of date. ...
"version" : 32400,
...
I have no idea what this error mean, or how can i resolve this kind of error.
I got this same memory error, get stuck at the same block, and have the same version 32400. That is however, the version installed from the bitcoin ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin Yeah, don't use that. It is ancient. |
|
|
|
You may also be interested in Namecoin. IMHO, it also satisfies both your criteria. It was launched already in 2011 (and was actually the first altcoin ever, I think), so not too much hype. And it implements real technical additions over Bitcoin, unlikely to be added to Bitcoin. (Even more unlikely than Bitcoin gaining strong anonymity, IMHO.)
Namecoin has had enough time to prove that it is not going anywhere. Which is fine, because it isn't intended to go anywhere. Namecoin isn't a monetary coin. |
|
|
|
This fulfills the bounty conditions IMO.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
createrawtransaction, signrawtransaction, sendrawtransaction
No external services needed.
|
|
|
|
The attack has been used on several alts, so I'm looking for the bug that allows it in the bitcoin code they have in common. You can claim it's an "altcoin question" if you want, but the bug that allows this is in the code they inherit, whether or not they aggravate it with difficulty adjustment algorithms that respond more quickly to changes in network hashing power.
Not a bug. There are several scamcoins that have deliberately chosen to disregard a safety measure built into bitcoin. Search for artforz. Several scamcoins ignored warnings that the attack was possible, so he demonstrated it live. |
|
|
|
Such kind of scheme has been repeatedly proposed. This does not improve security at all.
If you could direct us to those proposals, we may become more helpful and less repetitive. Do you have any links? I have a link that may be helpful. |
|
|
|
|
Well, with an unbiased review like that, it must be worth watching.
|
|
|
|
1. longest-chain-wins may be too simple. could be longest-VALID-chain wins, with some rules for validation, namely that the chain should include certain transactions.
Surely you can see that this path just closes the circle, right? How do you create a distributed agreement on which transaction must be included? 2. transactions can be timestamped, either locally by each miner, or in some seperate bucket or sidechain
Ditto. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking about a system where nodes can look at old transactions, ordered chronologically.
Oldest transactions should be forced in, not left up to miner's discretion. That's the basic idea.
How? Why? |
|
|
|
I figured he meant the signed hex.
I just tested this out on 0.9, once you have added the address to your wallet using addmultisigaddress, and the wallet is fully up to date, it will add the signature without having to supply the inputs. But nothing stops you from supplying them anyway if they're valid.
This has been true for a while. But it is pointless. Adding all of the keys to one wallet really defeats the purpose of having multisig. Trying to understand the following:
I signed a 2-3 multisig raw transaction and sent the signed hash to the counter-party. The counter-party will sign with their private key and send the transaction to the network.
As far as I understand it the counter-party will need to include the unspent outputs to the signrawtransaction RPC command like I had to do the first time (the hash I signed is not enough, is it?). Now, how does the counter-party know which unspent outputs to include? I suppose the counter-party needs the same outputs as me and he might pick different ones or pick a different fee. Am I supposed to send him the signed hash and the transaction array I used to sign it the first time (including the redeemScript)?
What the second signer needs is enough information to sign the transaction, nothing more, nothing less. Because a P2SH prevout doesn't include enough information for signing in the block chain, the first signer needs to provide the redeemscript. The script gets incorporated into the new transaction during the first signing, and does not need to be supplied again by the second signer. In the scenario described, you should be able to just send the partially signed transaction. |
|
|
|
|
At this point, the forum is mostly dead to me. I used to be active in about a half dozen boards. Now once every few days, I check the "new replies" link up top, check maybe 2 or 3 of the threads, click "mark as read" on the rest, and check Dev&tech for big news maybe a couple of times each week.
Feel free to go back to page 14 and check the post histories of the people I've got on ignore (everyone except DiamondCardz). I have, and I'm not missing anything.
Ad signatures aren't the only problem here, but they sure are a big part of the decline.
Better handling of the ignore function (don't bump threads in the notify and replies lists when the only new posts are from ignored users) and ignore list syndication would help revitalize this place.
|
|
|
|
Inflation is a term much maligned in today’s media, but correctly managed it is not necessarily a bad thing. The European Central bank has as one of its objectives the management of inflation within the Eurozone area and this management is generally accepted as maintaining the inflation rate as close to 2% as is possible. If inflation begins to rise above this magic figure then the ECB imposes credit restrictions via interest rate management and reels in economic activity back. If, on the other hand, inflation threatens to drop into negative territory and the ECB is afraid that this may stifle economic growth then they practice quantitative easing to increase the supply of money. Quantitative easing refers to the reduction of interest rates and controls and the printing of money, and that is one of the powers of a country: Countries have the capacity to print their own money. Bitcoin is fundamentally different to fiat money in that important respect.
I find it funny that people defend theft if done slowly enough. At 2%, it takes the ECB 35 years to steal half of the savings in Europe. At what point would you be upset? 25 years? 10? |
|
|
|
Why should Members and below be blocked from having a signature because people are spamming due to signature ads?
Damn. You broke the streak. If not for your two posts, I was going to have 100% ignored posts on page 14. |
|
|
|
I totally agree with the originator of this thread for my company is also on a similar albeit a more hands on approach. We are here to help the masses and we hope this message will be beneficial to all the free thinkers out there and maybe save our dying planet. BitCoin is the way forward just like FREE energy it empowers people against greedy governments. My company has invented FREE energy it scared the U.S government so much that they shut down Liberty Reserve and stole over $2million USD in hard currency from me (All evidence is on our website) yes my company is the REAL reason they shut down Liberty Reserve we have invented FREE energy something they said in school was IMPOSSIBLE read more about it here http://www.blaze-power.org and http://www.blaze.technology we are also about to make an IPO through a bank we believe has the balls to fight the U.S government and win visit http://www.e-bank.si to buy shares in the biggest thing yet since the internet (YES BitCoins accepted) they also have REALISTIC investments to grow your BitCoins from 4.5% interest which is normal and realistic unlike HYIP that offers unrealistic non market indicative targets. Imagine an electric car that runs forever and never needs a recharge or run your home on FREE electricity and NEVER pay the energy companies again. We have started the revolution with OUR OWN money to prove that we are not profit seekers but freedom fighters. Check it out today and empower yourselves Oy. And which free energy scam are you pushing exactly? I'll be impressed if you name something that I haven't already heard of (and don't already know what the flaw is). |
|
|
|
I am asking this seriously and I am not trolling.
FALSEIf you were honestly interested in an answer, you would have read any of the thousand other threads that ask exactly this same question. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
