|
Don't several wallets implement stealth addresses already?
Why do you want this github BIP? Just go do what you need to already.
|
|
|
|
double SHA-256 proof-of-work isn't computationally useful for anything
You don't find bitcoin useful? I disagree. Well, computationally un-useful for things besides Bitcoin; that's what I meant. Well this is hardly a criticism of blockchain tech, wouldn't you agree? Consider this criticism of headwear tech: A helmet is only useful for protecting the head. It is un-useful for things besides head protection. |
|
|
|
Is there any hashing algorithm that could not be implemented in ASIC ?
Sure, take any hashing algorithm that requires more gates than fit on the largest imaginable chip; e.g. scrypt using 16GB. The downside is that verification of the Hashcash proof-of-work becomes way too slow to be of any practical use. Non-Hashcash proofs-of-work don't face this limitation though. What's a non-hashcash proof-of-work? |
|
|
|
double SHA-256 proof-of-work isn't computationally useful for anything
You don't find bitcoin useful? I disagree. control of blockchain is proportional to computing power; it should be proportional to number of human users.
It looks like you are saying, it should be vulnerable to Sybil attacks. I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
This is also the first ever post to bitcointalk.org.
Pretty cool eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the reason why all five points will be ignored by anyone with a clue is that the premise is ill defined.
WTF is a "bitcoin business"?
If I am selling tacos for 5 milllies each is that a "bitcoin business"? Because most people would call it a restaurant.
One does not simply name a currency and then imagine that in so naming, one has a business. Perhaps if one did do this, one would want to worry about name, social media, conferences, or anything else that would distract us from realizing that hey: we have nothing anyone actually wants.
Image problem? How about starting with a business plan?
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, financial elite are interested in money. Who'd have guessed.
What's next, pimps recommend hos?
Maybe top physicists admit to having studied math?
The surprise is that Al Gore has perhaps the most astute comment from the bunch, actually identifying the raison d'etre of a public coin.
|
|
|
|
np  Whats the future with Log coin anyways? Wheres the gambling sites  or investments idk No gambling sites are in the works from my cave, unless you by gambling you mean tumbling in which case there might be an offering but still far off. As for investments, a mainnet coin or two will still get you a substantial fraction of the LOG supply. Hard to make it much easier than that. If there's anything you'd like to see, do please tell  In other news, all the recent discussion of block sizes had stirred up people thinking about reward structure again. This is good, they will eventually notice that a LOGarithmically increasing supply makes a lot of sense economically. This one from Gavin's blog at gavinandreesen.ninja: The fear is that as the block reward diminishes, either the number of transactions or the average transaction fee will not rise enough to replace the block reward. So miners will drop out, and the network will be less secure against an attacker with a lot of mining power (or, equivalently, it would cost an attacker less to amass enough mining power to successfully attack the network). Indeed. The woodcoin reward curve finds a balance between the need to cap the supply with an ever decreasing reward, and the need to keep some reward so that folks will still mine. The supply is capped, but the rewards never stop. Any way you look at it, fees are going to go up on mainnet bitcoin. I doubt that any block size increase will go through nor any TX malleability fix. Traffic is going to go up on those altcoins that are still around at that point. However we choppers are still just 6 months old. Nothing. Give it a full year to see if we are still around |
|
|
|
Have i lost these coins then?
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 02/05/2015 18:30
Nearly 24 hours
The network seems to be working just fine. I'd bet that you just need to repair your wallet or resync, and you'll find the coins have never left your balance. How about you paste the TXID and we check if the transaction ever made it to the blockchain? nvm it moved once I sent another payment, Idk why. Thanks for reporting here Houndirno. Unfortunately I can't see why this happened, it looks like some kind of GUI update bug. Please report back if you are able to reproduce it. |
|
|
|
Funk,
I have tried everything to create a vanity address using vanitygen with namespace 73 (W). For some reason, the resulting private key is not actually the address that Woodcoin imports. What's up with that?
(Am I using the wrong namespace)?
Which version of vanitygen are you using? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks for reminding me bitillionaire, I never finished modding the vanitygen in my github repo. Remember woodcoin uses a different elliptic curve than all other coins (that I know of) so the algo which goes from privkey -> pubkey is different (as well as the usual first character modification). If you want to play around with keys, use logaddress.org (working) (wallet details) and see what different privkeys get you. After some travels I am now back on the scene like a record machine (sayin' ooh-papa-doo, how y'all do), so hopefully I can get you a working LOG vanitygen in the next few days. Please let me know if anyone has one working in the meantime. Ah, well that would explain it. I had the same result on all three versions I could track down. Which lines need to be modified to account for the new elliptic curve? I didn't realize that this would extend to the way addresses are generated, but it makes sense in hindsight. We have a working woodcoin vanitygen you can use at: http://github.com/funkshelper/vanitygenThe README: This version of vanitygen was forked from Samr7's lovely C code, by funkenstein the dwarf, to make vanity addresses for Woodcoin. DO NOT USE THIS FORK TO CREATE BITCOIN ADDRESSES ON MAINNET BITCOIN DO NOT USE THIS FORK TO CREATE ANYTHING BUT WOODCOIN ADDRESSES Please for the love of the Ents only use the "-W" flag with this software!!! The elliptic curve has been globally changed from secp256k1 to prime256v1, so we are ONLY going to produce valid woodcoin addresses with this code. Keypairs and addresses for other namespaces will not work on their respective networks. Example of proper use: Notebook-PC:~/work/temp/vanitygen$ ./vanitygen WWWWW -W Set addrtype to woodcoin Difficulty: 569190 Pattern: WWWWW Address: WWWWW2CeHtsp9JGLLBEYMFJfYkMpU7Xtpw Privkey: 7jjuUgwDQJQ5ZTDhTU5bSNKmYcFun2avpg6Y5wi6xLLn574qrvZ Notebook-PC:~/work/temp/vanitygen$ ./vanitygen WaLoG -W Set addrtype to woodcoin Difficulty: 2276760 Pattern: WaLoG Address: WaLog7e223podw2RiZYpzBgwP67xszxN76 Privkey: 7k26wvk88vVhDvsQQsMQGbFaazzXayYrAvTPHb9HLcH21BGgtkH |
|
|
|
|
TXID or it didn't happen.
|
|
|
|
I'm still not so sure tx malleability is a real issue. One can always check that the receiving address received payment from the sending address. And what else is really so important? In the recent proposal of payment channels (lighthouse) there is also talk that malleability could cause a problem. I haven't understood how that is the case yet. What am I missing?
You're correct, TX maleability is only an issue if people use the TX hashes as Ids. You're not correct, things are not that simple. Malleability has big impact on any anything depending on transaction hash of unconfirmed transactions, e.g: Thanks for your reply! And yours Cryddit. I see more clearly how this malleability thing can suck. It looks from your link like a partial solution is already proposed by GMaxwell. An imperfect solution. However I see another potential solution: private TX mining. The trouble with malleability in the case of the refund situation is that the transaction has been broadcast publicly. If I were to forego that and submit it privately to one of the large pools, the malleability attacks could never happen. Sure it wouldn't be mined as quickly, but for these protocols that is probably not an issue. I'm sure if there were a demand large pools and/or consortiums of pools would publish pubic keys and accept TXs delivered encrypted. After all, this means more fees for them even before they charge anything extra. In fact I'm a bit surprised nobody is doing that yet. |
|
|
|
Thanks funkenstein. ccminer is working well so far. The nethash makes it possible to mine solo a little. I'm just on it with a single 750ti to make no chainsaw massacre in this wood  I will hold and watch this coin further. Thanks for your report PVmining! Unfortunately I have not heard much back from the community on how the chainsaws work. Personally I prefer the axe as well so I understand your hesitance. Judging by the amount of sawdust in the air and the noise pollution, it looks like a few of you tried using them but nobody has undertook serious operations. Don't be bashful, remember we are working with the blessing of the Lorax and the Ents on this project. I am still not adding to the OP or website materials until I hear back more from the community. Happy chopping -- funkenstein the dwarf |
|
|
|
Funk,
I have tried everything to create a vanity address using vanitygen with namespace 73 (W). For some reason, the resulting private key is not actually the address that Woodcoin imports. What's up with that?
(Am I using the wrong namespace)?
Which version of vanitygen are you using? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks for reminding me bitillionaire, I never finished modding the vanitygen in my github repo. Remember woodcoin uses a different elliptic curve than all other coins (that I know of) so the algo which goes from privkey -> pubkey is different (as well as the usual first character modification). If you want to play around with keys, use logaddress.org (working) (wallet details) and see what different privkeys get you. After some travels I am now back on the scene like a record machine (sayin' ooh-papa-doo, how y'all do), so hopefully I can get you a working LOG vanitygen in the next few days. Please let me know if anyone has one working in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
I'm still not so sure tx malleability is a real issue. One can always check that the receiving address received payment from the sending address. And what else is really so important? In the recent proposal of payment channels (lighthouse) there is also talk that malleability could cause a problem. I haven't understood how that is the case yet. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
If you need to enable chargebacks, you need escrow. Consider a trustless escrow using multisig, such as done by 2crow.org.
|
|
|
|
There are couple questions I keep asking myself about future of bitcoin. I thought about it and I am sure that government intervention in the bitcoin industry is simply inevitable.
And we can't do anything about it really. Governments are greedy, they want a share of everything and therefore thy will be trying to snatch some of it from us.
There is a really high chance that we see in the future a lot more government action against bitcoin, including some changes of the core protocol.
Another case is that I think bitcoin is "too good" now for people. So Bitcoin will be changed to bring it in line with other payment systems.
We probably will se some dreadful changes like adding possibility to blacklist funds and and change that will allow to store identity information of users with bitcoin transaction.
Your thoughts?
Just lol. Guess again. There are no "governments" as you seem to envision them. There are people that claim to have authority over you who claim to represent governments. They will intervene in the affairs of other people, and kill us from time to time, but these people can't change the laws of nature or mathematics. BTW you can already build blacklists and identity lists if you like. Nobody is stopping you. |
|
|
|
|
Cool, I didn't know this was possible. What is going on here? Why??
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
