Software absolutely should have protection against stupidity. But the network is enormously hard to update, and as I pointed to there are real use cases that involve paying high fees (and, indeed, fees greater than outputs) so what you are suggesting does not avoid an unnecessary arbitrary limitation.
We are trying to remove the IsStandard restrictions over time, adding more of them— especially ones that assume a particular value for a particular amount of coin, is entirely the wrong direction.
There is basically no boundary to the kinds of mistake poorly written node software can make. Perhaps they'll use a constant value as their DSA nonce— do you suggest we add code to screen for duplicate nonces on relay? Perhaps they'll use a 32 bit LCG to generate their private keys. Perhaps they'll confuse their main output and change output?
Brainwallet prefills the destination in the transaction make with an address. If you're using a system that copies on highlight then hilighting to erase the address will wipe out the address in your copy buffer and then you may paste the default back in without noticing it— It's a mistake I've made several times while screwing with the site, but I'd never use it for an actual transaction— shall we blacklist that default output?
Yes, I'm with you that arbitrary, hard-coded limitations are a almost always a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. Definitely not suggesting that the credit card examples above be considered for bitcoin, but I still think something like a fee > outputs check or similar shouldn't be ruled out entirely for some future implementation (it would prevent virtually all of these obvious errors). I can't really see any use case argument disallowing it, even for sacrificial tx's, since they might also be able to include an iterative output (back to the tx input) if necessary? - edit: It could be argued that existing enforcement of minimum fees is more arbitrary and poorly implemented (hard-coded) than anything suggested here! |
|
|
|
|
^^ Agree. It's not unthinkable that some kind of very basic enhanced tx validition be made part of the protocol either (i.e. fee > outputs = invalid). Something that wouldn't cause unnecessary, arbitrary limitations - but at the same time prevent obviously erroneous tx's from being confirmed.
Any commercial payment/transaction system has some type of validation to prevent common, obvious errors. Card processors will typically invalidate duplicate, identical credit card transactions from the same vendor within a few minutes of each other for example (and probably a $10000 visa purchase at Starbucks) since it's usually the result of some type of processing error.
|
|
|
|
Norway will instead treat Bitcoins as an asset and charge a capital gains tax, after Germany in August said it will impose a levy on the virtual currency.
sounds ok for me.
Pretty much the same stance as being adopted in Canada, UK, US etc. from what we've seen so far. Capital gains would also apply to foreign currencies, precious metals etc. in many countries, so asset vs. currency is a disctinction without much of a practical difference in many cases. |
|
|
|
I have to say it again. This has nothing to do with bitcoin, and it's just the issue of brainwallet.org. It should make it very clear that the transaction page is just used to manually create a raw transaction that move all BTC from one offline address to another offline address. It should not be used for other usages at all.
That's correct, but it's not unthinkable that sometime in the future, nodes could invalidate obviously erroneous transactions (like 20btc fees or unspendable outputs for example). Extensive error controls exist in all other financial transaction systems. No properly architected commercial system would ever pass through things like this. |
|
|
|
It sounds like he created the transaction using brainwallet.org from a brain wallet address to the payee address without a change address. So there is 20.199BTC input and 0.05271705 BTC output. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions#OutputAny input bitcoins not redeemed in an output is considered a transaction fee; whoever generates the block will get it. This website should be changed to default to sending the change back to the original address. There is no reason to default to sending the change as a tx fee. Yes, that default behavior is just ridiculous. Wait until more people start redeeming paper- and brain wallets. Expect to see a lot more stories like this. This is not good PR for bitcoin at all - Some type of 'maximum fee' principle by nodes might be more reasonable, with obviously erroneous fees returned to the input instead? |
|
|
|
Paypal will integrate bitcoin if they can reduce their operating costs, or if they can make money off of it.
It can reduce the operating costs. But they will lose money out of it as well, due to the reduction of profits. Why would their profits be reduced? There's very small chance that they'll have a separate fee structure for bitcoin. They already use dozens of different currencies and they all have the same fee model. Why would they treat bitcoin any differently? I think you're assuming on-blockchain transactions with bitcoin fees - which they definitely wouldn't be doing (except for transfers in/out of the Paypal system) |
|
|
|
While more and more people have heard of it, the total number of people involved with more than just dust in a wallet is still fairly small. What takes things to the next level is going to be integration with current technology and process to do one or more of the following. 1. Make it "easier" to purchase things. 2. Save the merchant money. 3. Make it easier to send funds to people or businesses. When some or all of those things happen, the demand will increase sharply and thus drive the price north.
The wheel was an amazing idea, but slapping four of them around an internal combustion engine was like the best thing since sliced bread. Same thing with Bitcoin.
+1 Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
Individual BTC transactions could quite easily be broadcast over RF, there is already widespread TCP/IP over RF networks in place called "packet radio" (amateur radio). Anyone could quite easily build an RF gateway to a bitcoin node.
Bandwidth is extremely limited however (mostly by physics). This might have some hypothetical no-more-internet/post-apocalyptic type applications but could never really replace a high bandwith scenario of millions of interconnected nodes.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will likely be between $1000 and $2000 for a while, similar to how it stayed between $100 and $200 for a disproportionately long time. In fact, if it continues to follow the somewhat unsettling and poorly understood phenomenon known as "Benford's Law" the price will begin with the digit "1" about about 30% of the time: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/418850/benfords-law-and-a-theory-of-everything/One a positive note: When it does finally break through $2000, we can expect a relatively quick rise to $10K... |
|
|
|
Prediction: Paypal will adopt XBT as a new 'currency' soon (mostly out of necessity to maintain their market share).
This is ridiculous. Paypal will never adopt Bitcoin. Doing that means cutting down their profit margin by 90%. JP Morgan has recently finalized its plans for the "Bitcoin killer". I think PP will soon join them. .. That's not the way they'd do it. They'd just process bitcoin transactions like any other Paypal currency, with their normal fee structure, buyer protection, reversability etc. |
|
|
|
Yes, here's the link to the analysis (from the legal thread). Clearly the dusted-off JP Morgan patent appl. has no substance or relevance whatsoever: http://www.m-cam.com/sites/www.m-cam.com/files/JPMorganMonopolyMoney.pdfThe best chance JP Morgan has in bitcoin is to re-package 'sub-prime' bitcoin derivatives (black/red-listed?) and sell them as lucrative investments.  Hey, it worked last time... |
|
|
|
|
Coinbase is the new Paypal. $25,000,000 in new funding today by none other than silicon valley VC giant Andreessen Horowitz.
Recent comments show that Paypal's CEO is not at all adverse to the concept of bitcoin, although still not sold on its utility as a currency.
Prediction: Paypal will adopt XBT as a new 'currency' soon (mostly out of necessity to maintain their market share).
This will make them a bitcoin wallet, exchange and payment provider all at once. Their shareholders will eventually demand it.
Vendors and customers will run from Paypal as soon as a viable, widely accepted alternative exists. Vendors generally hate Paypal and view them as a necessary evil - chargeback and reversal rates are much higher than for regular credit card transactions due to the ease with which fraudsters manipulate their "customer protection" policies.
Once customers realize that they're the ones ultimately paying for chargeback fraud, a 2-4% discount for using bitcoin will be welcomed.
|
|
|
|
...
How long till the winklevoss twin's ETF is up & running, so I can get my 401k involved?
Fidelity has just begun offering IRA investment in Second Market's fund (as of today). Word on the street is that JP Morgan already has plans to package 'sub-prime' red/black-listed bitcoins into lucractive derivatives. |
|
|
|
This is big news. Fidelity is no small player. Quite a turn around from their position as recently as six months ago (July 2013).. A few highlights (referring to the proposed Winklevoss ETF fund): Does the World Need a Bitcoin ETF?
BY ABBY WOODHAM | MORNINGSTAR
07/03/2013 | 61 VIEWS
Related Symbols FB
Earlier this week, Math-Based Asset Services LLC submitted paperwork to the SEC seeking permission to create a bitcoin exchange-traded fund, perhaps setting the record for one of the most outlandish ETF filings to date.
...
The SEC likely will put this opaque, risky, and illiquid asset under extreme scrutiny. Should the proposed fund beat the odds and make it to launch, the vast majority of investors should avoid it just as much as retailers avoid using bitcoins as payment today.
source: http://research2.fidelity.com/fidelity/commentary/article.asp?dockey=1514-601775-0U64O5P3U8IEPTTJSG5NL4I1NK |
|
|
|
Transaction time has nothing to do with confirmation time. Also the " amount of hardware" doesnt matter as a block is found in 10mins on avg.... by design
CC transaction is instant but takes 60 days to confirm.
Very true. And a guaranteed 'loss' of 3-5% in fees even if it does 'confirm' (i.e. if there's no reversal or chargeback). |
|
|
|
|
Their business model is essentially unchanged since they began transfering funds using Telegraphic Transfer (aka "T/T"), which was of course a huge innovation over hauling banknotes and gold around in escorted Wells Fargo carriages. Ironically banks still refer to a wire transfer as a "T/T" - a term well over 100 years old.
They will either embrace cryptocurrency or soon become completely irrelevant. The way I see it those are really the only two possible scenarios. (They could easily do this since they already have the "hard part" of KYC/AML in place worldwide)
With those Q3 results and hesitant, FUD-like statements I'd feel pretty safe shorting WU at this point.
Think I'll send a telex to my broker...
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant. Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
... here is a little "good-night" story from LiteCoinGuy for you  Yes it was - unfortunately we had to wake up to the "red dawn"... |
|
|
|
|
This wasn't really unexpected. It basically just brings China in line with most other countries which already require registration of exchanges and require basic KYC/AML procedures like customer ID and reporting of suspicious activity.
US, Japan and many EU countries already have these restrictions in place. No banks in China (or anywhere else, except perhaps one or two) deal with bitcoin anyway so the 'ban' part of the announcement won't really change anything.
The specific statement that individuals may engage in bitcoin trade (..at their own risk) can actually be considered an indication that more restrictions are not likely to follow, at least for now.
|
|
|
|
|
One man's 'crash' is another man's buying opportunity.
Buying in at these 'post crash' low points has always been a good strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
