|
Isn't this basically a pyramid scheme? After you run out of depositors, the whole thing collapses because there is not constant money flow to continue to pay out the older depositors.
|
|
|
|
|
not possible. many people have tried to come up with solutions to prevent people from stealing bitcoin, but it is not possible. How exactly would you be able to link a private key to a person digitally? It cannot be done. Instead of focusing on making it impossible to spend Bitcoin from stolen private keys, you should focus on making it impossible to steal them in the first place. That is much easier to do.
|
|
|
|
|
If you record the transaction id at purchase, then you will know which addresses sent the Bitcoin to pay for it. To prove that the person really did buy something, then you can ask them to sign a message with one of those addresses to prove themselves. The only problem is with exchange wallets like coinbase which don't give users control of the private keys so they can't sign anything.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for insightful post. Clearly to compete with the likes of visa etc then block size needs to be increased to process more tps? If so, what's the disadvantage to larger block size? Slower confirmations? I'm surprised satoshi wrote nothing on upscaling this. He might have however I'm not aware of his writings.
When Satoshi lowered the max block size to 1MB network conditions were different; and, it was intended only as a temporary measure. Then he vanished with an estimated 1 million bitcoins. If he were around today, he would simply raise the limit to 8MB. The reason this has not been done is mainly because some of the core developers have conflicts of interests involving outside paid projects. You are not him, you are not them. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. Even if Satoshi wanted to raise the limit, he may not be able to, he doesn't have dictatorial powers. I do agree that the 1MB was not intended to be permanent. It was set in place to prevent spam and DoS attacks. |
|
|
|
|
The vast majority of cloud mining sites are scams. The only legitimate ones I know of are hashnest and bit-x. Even legitimate cloud mining is unprofitable due to the fees that they charge which is why they make money.
|
|
|
|
It's just a forum that mirrors the sections of Bitcointalk. So we have a number of people from Bitcointalk that registered on a forum that mimicks this one, so it probably won't last for long. Most of them probably registered just so they can take the username they use here.
A few also used usernames of trusted members here, for scamming purposes. Hopefully the forum won't last long. I'm pretty sure that several trusted members have actually registered there. I suppose that any trade done with anyone who claims is a trusted member here should always have a signed message from them that proves their identity. I know that most escrows use pgp signed messages to prove their identity, and I think they will do the same on that forum as well. |
|
|
|
|
You can't remove them from Show new Replies to your posts without deleting the posts. The watchlist however can be edited. In the watchlist, there is an option to edit it. Click that and then check all of the ones you want removed. Then click remove checked and all of those will be removed.
|
|
|
|
The merchant, in this case, is hoping to just use an Android smartphone/tablet with say the Bitcoin Wallet ap installed to accept bitcoin payments. At the end of the day (or week) the merchant would use a Philippines bitcoin exchange to convert the received bitcoin into PHP and have it deposited directly into his bank account. Initially, bitcoin sales are likely to be only one or two a month so capital outlay has to be kept very low. I can not see him investing even one centavo in anything more complicated. From the replies that I have received in this thread, it looks like my response to the merchant's "double spend" concerns will be: There is a very slight risk of a double spend, however you have a greater risk of one of your staff giving free food/coffee to their friend than you have of experiencing a double spend.
A double spend generally requires a customer to spend the exact same amount of bitcoin again within seconds of the first transaction and that second transaction must be confirmed on the blockchain ledger before the first transaction. None of this is easy to do in the current environment. I need to keep my response fairly simple. Would this response be reasonable? A made a correction to that (bolded) |
|
|
|
Something is not clear to me. It's an address you used to have control over, but the coins are moving?
At first I thought this was a long lost address on a site you don't remember which nobody aside from you should be able to access.
The address he sent it to was a deposit address for a site that probably no longer exists. The site was most likely a ponzi site, where the owner has already run away with the coins. Since he doesn't control the private keys, whoever does can now take all of that Bitcoin. OP, you probably aren't getting those bitcoins back. Contact their support. If they are a decent company, they should reimburse you the lost bitcoin since the mistake was on their end, not yours. |
|
|
|
Sorry forgot to mention ideally it would be a multi-sig wallet so bitcoin core wont work for what I want to do right?
It will. Bitcoin Core has the capability to do multisig through the RPC daemon, not the GUI. |
|
|
|
|
You can use the Bitcoin Core RPC-API. Just have your python script send several HTTP Post requests to the local Bitcoin daemon and you can do everything through that.
|
|
|
|
I am writing an android app for this forum (thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1195830.0) and part of the app is actually creating and editing posts. Since bitcointalk doesn't have any api that I can use for posting, the app must scrape the forum pages and send the proper requests in order to do anything. However, I can't seem to figure out how the actual posting mechanism works. I have looked at page source, and I found that clicking the post button submits the form for the post and it has an attribute onclick="return submitThisOnce(this)" which I think is the function that actually does the posting. But my problem is that I can't actually figure out what that is doing, and thus I can't figure out what my app should be doing in order to submit a post. |
|
|
|
If mining on 1024 diff and a 30m diff hash is found, does submitting this yield 1024 shares or 30m shares?
That yields one share. IIRC each submission that is valid under the pool difficulty counts as 1 share. Thus, it doesn't matter whether that submission is 30m diff or 1024, it just shows that you are doing work and eventually at some point someone will find a hash that is both under the pool diff and the network diff thus solving a block. That submission still only counts as one share. Here is an example: person A has been mining for a long time and has submitted 5 million shares. person B just started mining and has submitted one share, which happened to be of a higher difficulty and is the one that found the block. Does person B get paid more than person A because he actually found the block? No, he did less work, and is paid accordingly. His one submissions isn't worth more, and he doesn't get more shares because of the high difficulty of that submission. |
|
|
|
Is there any ETA yet for the release of your App in the market? Will this be free or it needs to be purchased instead?
No ETA yet. The app will be free. |
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been asked, but any plans on an iOS version?
Already been asked, but I will answer again. No, there are no plans for an ios version. I currently am not capable (I neither have the knowledge, money, nor a mac) of writing ios apps. |
|
|
|
|
Check the list of wallets on Bitcoin.org, but don't use any web wallets. Most web wallets (like coinbase) don't give you control of the private keys so you don't actually have control of the Bitcoin. Even though blockchain.info doesn't have control of your private keys, their service generally sucks and they have had many mistakes and mishaps that really shouldn't have happened.
I would recommend using Electrum if you are ok with less security and using SPV. This is if you want to trade security for speed.
If you want something secure, use Bitcoin Armory. I find it to be easy to use and quite secure, the only issue is that it takes ages to load.
For a lot of security, use a hardware wallet like a trezor.
You can (and should) keep some bitcoin in cold storage on a paper wallet which is the most secure option.
|
|
|
|
Nice Idea but i would like to point out something that i noticed from screenshots.. The login page is custom build and many people (including me) can't just trust some page and enter the login information..I know you have provided the source code but still i advice you to alteast make users login directly to original page at bitcointalk.org in your app and then redirect them to your custom app pages for other purposes..This will make your app look more awesome and genuine  I know that is a concern, which is why I made it open source. Even so, logging into the original page on bitcointalk probably won't work too well and it would still have the same issues with logging in through the login firm in the app. After all, it would still go through the app and that opens it up to attack by the coder. What I will be trying to do is actually deterministic builds, just like what bitcoin core does. That way you can verify that the binary was built from the source I punished. Unfortunately there is no easy way to do deterministic builds for Android yet, but I will be working on that. The guardian project (Android tor apps) managed to do it so I will try to mimic them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
