Sorry, my bad. It was supposed to hit about 13,000 miles west and make me one with the planet. I'm just so embarrassed right now, how will I ever carry out my mother's legacy now. I trick those scheming kids and the power company out of the black materia and manage to fuck it up like this? |
|
|
|
One or two of them missing would not be a problem at all. If, however, a large proportion of validators were missing, it may suggest a network split and everyone should stop accepting new transactions. The Ripple wiki has explained how this works.
A link would be helpful. You have to understand though that after an event like last years twin towers of the Pirate and GLBSE collapses, most or all validators not being so trustworthy is a tremendous concern. Retep makes a much more beautiful case than I can, because at the moment I am a vodka fueled trolling monster. There is no single point of failure. With the collapses of Pirate and GLBSE, we still have MtGox, BTC-E, bitstamp, bitcoin-central, Bitcoin Foundation, Bitinstant, Coinbase, Bitcoinstore, MPEX, SatoshiDice, Bitcoin Magazine, BFL, all devs, all moderators and donors of this forum, all individual members of Bitcoin Foundation, and a lot more. The list is growing exponentially as bitcoin economy grows. If 50% of them collapsed on the same day, that's essentially the end of bitcoin and there is no point to protect the blockchain anymore. Some people I listed may not be very trustworthy individually, but it is extremely unlikely for a majority of them colluding to defraud, while at the same time controlling 51% hashing power. Retep makes no direct comment on my proposal. I'd like to know what he thinks Let's get past the point where checkpoints after mid-2010 really don't serve a purpose and the earlier checkpoints just make sure clients are on the right blockchain. I'm not sure you realize how connected many of the people on your list are, but you still want to implement some new checkpointing system you thought about enough to come up with layers of without coming up with enough to offer some rules for it. There are things to be paranoid about in cryptocurrency, but your anxieties seem misplaced. You seem to think the people are less fallible than the computing when you need to flip that around. Have you considered this dietary supplement called Pimozide, I hear it helps people that nothing else can. |
|
|
|
Well thanks for the reassurance!
You're welcome |
|
|
|
how would the conversion go from bitcoin 1.0 to bitcoin 2.0? Is that something that was pre-planned or will we just have to cross that bridge when we get to?
The big change would be from ECDSA private keys and signatures to Lamport or another quantum resistant algorithm. The change would require no big disruption on the bitcoin network, and it was designed to be able to calmly make a switch like this. New and old algorithm addresses could co-exist. |
|
|
|
good to know that.  this person (Rampion) already has about 50K BTC, and trying to encash. Ah, that's pretty much going to have to go OTC or get dumped at Gox. Smaller trades might be smarter, but unless you are willing to spend a decade pushing out single BTC trades, with stepped trades trying not to scare the bull awakening the bear is a concern. To avoid that you can make one large OTC sale with someone going long, or you can just check the Gox orderbook and make sure nothing in the volume about to drop out of your rectum is objectionable. |
|
|
|
The problem is that's actually an Ars article and it came before the latest episodes of Wired hatin' on the coin. |
|
|
|
LevelDB is very simple, the code has a permissive license and can be bundled directly into the codebase, and it creates very space efficient databases that are encapsulated in isolated directories that are easy to bundle and move around. And it's also damned fast. Accessing the data in key-sort order is about twice as fast as I have been able to achieve with raw, low-level operations. Some benchmarks with favorable performance. (though, while looking up those links, I see some benchmarks for BangDB which are even better, but it sounds new and I've never heard of it) I'm not saying other DB engines can't do that. I'm saying that LevelDB meets my needs and has all the properties I want. The fact that it isn't relational doesn't bother me because I don't really need it -- the data it is storing is rather simple. So, instead of simply criticizing my ideas and telling me how inadequate I am at developing applications, why don't you make recommendations for how you would do it? If you are familiar with other DB engines that have a permissive licence, will not result in terrible linking problems, create nice encapsulated DBs in directories, and still has very good performance, I'll look into it. You seem awfully good at criticizing, but you'd be much more credible & useful if you actually contributed to the discussion. Your database implementation is awesome. I've switched my hotwallet to Multibit for RAM related reasons, but Armory's database implementations are Primo. |
|
|
|
It seems simple but I just get a code 4 error when trying to add the private key, am I missing something? I updated to the newest client and tried several addresses. importprivkey 5JR1q13wc8JxPxaggs7zm292LVYb2L2FzUYvCLsrq4fFLsP44wW
Error adding key to wallet (code -4)
did you unlock it? btw, really bad idea posting the privkey! Unlock it? I don't see any references to anything like that.. That's just some random private key. $ bitcoind help walletpassphrase
walletpassphrase <passphrase> <timeout>
Stores the wallet decryption key in memory for <timeout> seconds.
afterwards u should be able to import it Beautiful. |
|
|
|
One or two of them missing would not be a problem at all. If, however, a large proportion of validators were missing, it may suggest a network split and everyone should stop accepting new transactions. The Ripple wiki has explained how this works.
A link would be helpful. You have to understand though that after an event like last years twin towers of the Pirate and GLBSE collapses, most or all validators not being so trustworthy is a tremendous concern. Retep makes a much more beautiful case than I can, because at the moment I am a vodka fueled trolling monster. |
|
|
|
I can type, I simply prefer to keep things laid back opposed to uptight and professional, although as stated before i can deliver to your personal needs, so if you with your whole 157 posts feel that you need me to type in a grammatically correct manner for you i shall.
If you want to do any serious currency trading, you will need to polish your use of language and join the WOT. You will probably also want to join discussions not related to your business and sound competent in those discussions. From what I understand Paypal is awfully easy to charge back, so if you want to do more on this forum than fuck one or two people out of some coin then you need to act like you are putting some effort into this account. Here's a bit of an exhaustive write-up on what it takes to get serious in bitcoin business, though honestly people often seem to succeed on less. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441 |
|
|
|
There may be better trading strategies which would give you much more profit.
Per day mtgox USD market volume is ~75K BTC.
As you already have 50K BTC, you can push the market the way you want in short term, for profit .
Up until last week buying on Sunday and selling on Thursday seemed like a sustainable trend... |
|
|
|
What happens when the technology is at the point where the cryptography behind bitcoin is no longer secure? Will the cryptography really last another 28 years?
Probably at least for a century on the really important parts, but if something seems imminent it is possible to switch that out for a new algorithm. |
|
|
|
Are you sure the trades on Vircurex aren't just noise. IXCoin and DevCoin have had more sustained volume... A launch might happen, but you are going to have to set your idea of success awfully low... |
|
|
|
can someone kindly do this math for me?
i'm calculating a retirement fund. ;-)
It lost quite a bit in the late summer of 2012 before rebounding... |
|
|
|
that's also true, but in order for a btc to be worth anything, the rich have to be willing to spend it and redistribute it to others. The early miners might have an unfair advantage, but overall in the end, new comers don't really end up losing anything. they just have less of a headstart.
I believe many of the early miners have thrown a lot of their positions into circulation already. |
|
|
|
In case you do not aware, checkpoints ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp) are currently applied to Satoshi client. This means no matter how much hashing power one has, he will create a hard fork by trying to replace blocks before the last checkpoint. Therefore, bitcoin is never a pure PoW network. Currently, checkpoints are implemented for about every thousands of blocks, and it is solely determined by the devs. So theoretically, the devs could hardcode every single new blocks as checkpoints, making themselves as the central bitcoin clearinghouse, working like SolidCoin. My proposal is just trying to decentralise the process of checkpointing. If 6 blocks is considered too short, we may make it every 100 blocks, but definitely not thousands of blocks. 100 blocks checkpoint is not too bad, at least I am sure that the 10 million USD worth of BTC that I received in the morning will become completely non-chargebackable in the evening. I don't mind checkpoints as they are implemented. I worry about the ripple validation model because chain splits aren't actually that uncommon for a block or two, so as unlikely as a six block split is the six block split would be a concern in the validation model if there is a split vote between the two forked chains. There's also the more practical matter of just how much data is going to be added to the block chain if numerous parties from three distinct classes are signing every block once it reaches a depth of six. Trusting the core devs as they develop the software now is easy, because everything they commit is open. Expanding the circle of people to trust with such an intimate part of the software seems potentially messy. What happens if a number of your Elite validators just stop validating. Pirate and many of his pass through operators had great OTC ratings before the world burned and fools lost their money. You introduce a potential vulnerability that can come through a shortage of signatures on top of the one from a potential drop in hashing power. That and the only proof of stake systems at the moment (PPCoin, Novacoin), seem to have implementations that aren't all that vetted. 6 blocks is just a convenient number. I think as much as 100 blocks is reasonable and a split in this scale is very very unlikely. People like Pirate cannot exploit this system unless he has 51% hashing power; and even Pirate has 51% hashing power, he has to control at least 51% of validators before he could rewrite the chain. WIth these validators my concern is not rewriting the chain. It is denying blocks validation because people just up and disappeared. |
|
|
|
asnonmous listed some good information there. I cover all tat you would need to know in my book, Bitcoin Step by Step see signature and blog.
Pretty much. I'd also recommend Tangible Cryptography or BTCPak's services. They'll probably get the cash to you faster than Gox. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the great link Atruk! Now this is also a more interesting bet and I'm not so sure which side I'm on either. I might throw a couple of BTC towards true, although sadly I cannot benefit from "insider trading"-like information =p. Honestly I think the BFL bet's probably one of the least interesting bets on the site. I'm throwing some coin on Pope bets. |
|
|
|
Well, i guess i'll just have to start over, because i'm perpetually stuck at 9223 blocks remaining. goodbye, .002 BTC...
Fire up MultiBit and post an Address. I'll cover your loss this time. wow, thanks a lot! 16UywcYyhHWRtQtijS2qmi13BCdSFUQVrb. it's still pretty crazy that lost btc are pretty much lost forever. That was very generous of Atruk, but if you check my post it should describe how to retrieve your BTC, although if you do recover it you should probably send it back to Atruk =p. I don't mind spreading the wealth as long as people are civil about things. I just hate to see people discouraged because there aren't very many (or any) good writeups that go over each client's pros and cons. |
|
|
|
In case you do not aware, checkpoints ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp) are currently applied to Satoshi client. This means no matter how much hashing power one has, he will create a hard fork by trying to replace blocks before the last checkpoint. Therefore, bitcoin is never a pure PoW network. Currently, checkpoints are implemented for about every thousands of blocks, and it is solely determined by the devs. So theoretically, the devs could hardcode every single new blocks as checkpoints, making themselves as the central bitcoin clearinghouse, working like SolidCoin. My proposal is just trying to decentralise the process of checkpointing. If 6 blocks is considered too short, we may make it every 100 blocks, but definitely not thousands of blocks. 100 blocks checkpoint is not too bad, at least I am sure that the 10 million USD worth of BTC that I received in the morning will become completely non-chargebackable in the evening. I don't mind checkpoints as they are implemented. I worry about the ripple validation model because chain splits aren't actually that uncommon for a block or two, so as unlikely as a six block split is the six block split would be a concern in the validation model if there is a split vote between the two forked chains. There's also the more practical matter of just how much data is going to be added to the block chain if numerous parties from three distinct classes are signing every block once it reaches a depth of six. Trusting the core devs as they develop the software now is easy, because everything they commit is open. Expanding the circle of people to trust with such an intimate part of the software seems potentially messy. What happens if a number of your Elite validators just stop validating. Pirate and many of his pass through operators had great OTC ratings before the world burned and fools lost their money. You introduce a potential vulnerability that can come through a shortage of signatures on top of the one from a potential drop in hashing power. That and the only proof of stake systems at the moment (PPCoin, Novacoin), seem to have implementations that aren't all that vetted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
