Well MtGox wasn't the only one to do it. 2609.36304319 BTC over the years due to this single malformed template isn't a small chunk of change. It just struck me as strange as these 23 outputs represents the majority of the "custom" scripts in the UTXO and they all are the same exact mistake.
They were all within a couple hours of each other AFAIK and all by MTGOX. Am I incorrect? That's all gox's coins. Their retard CEO admitted that. Google this forum should find that |
|
|
|
Whether it makes sense to buy btc today and wait for rise of the course? (maybe it will takes many years)
Like it was at the beginning of the bitcoin.
If you are talking about 2 years, then certainly yes |
|
|
|
They have all been sold for over $680 per coin.
and the money that will be wired back to the losers will most likely reach the exchanges within two weeks, either directly or indirectly.
Source for $680? Losers have paid only 200k for deposit (Losers of syndicate have to pay in full amount in advance) |
|
|
|
|
We know there is a number of losers in the auction. They all think they are outbid (i.e. someone offer higher price than them). Is it possible that the US gov actually has a hidden reserve price for these bitcoin, and some or even all bitcoin were not sold? This is possible according to the FAQ. I don't think it's likely and if this is true, it is extremely bullish.
|
|
|
|
these are special ones though. you can't just get these on an exchange bruh. PS i know that list was not real i don't care I'm having fun!. today a good day for bitcoin.
These coins may carry some historical premium but definitely not 50% |
|
|
|
hot off the price heres a list of the prices for each block so far.
1 - Pantera - $900
2 - SecondMarket - $750
3 - SecondMarket - $700
4 - DRW Trading Group - $700
5 - Coinbase - $685
6 - Rangeley Capital - $660
7 - SecondMarket - $651
8 - Coinbase - $640
9 - Matrix Capital Management - $601
Block 10 - Yelp - $626
Is this list real? Seems very unlikely that SecondMarket would enter a bid itself. Can people see why that would be a big ethical problem? no not real No one will bid at $900. That's nonsense |
|
|
|
ya sorry its 48,013 coin bid. so if what he is saying is the amount of btc bid on the amount for sale. 48013 / 30000 = 1.6 btc per 1 btc sold by the government. someone do the math i can't, how much of an increase by percent ?
They could bid 48013BTC @ $1/BTC, so that would be a decrease by 600-fold |
|
|
|
Silbert said this and ONLY this: Results of our US Marshals bitcoin syndicate:
Bidders - 42
Bids received - 186
BTC quantity bid - 48,013
Winners notifed by USMS on Mon Anything else is just BS |
|
|
|
Welcome newbie  |
|
|
|
Hello! Many are saying online wallets are bad but I think unlike others blockchain.info wallet is safer and better. But still there emerge a question, What if it get hacked?A simple answer is 'Cold Storage'. Now you can make a 'Cold Storage Address' or use current address as 'Cold Storage Address' using blockchain.info wallet. You can follow these easy steps for making your Blockchain.info wallet safe!  1: Make a new address if there is only 1 address in your wallet. 2: Go to 'Import/Export' tab and click 'I Understand' and then click 'Paper Wallet'. A pdf file downloads. This is NOT "cold storage". You do not understand the meaning of "cold storage". Please do not confuse the newbies. What you are describing is a "paper wallet". That is why blockchain.info calls it a "Paper Wallet". "Cold storage" is an address that is generated on a computer that has never been connected to the internet. What I meant is removing the private key but keeping track of our payments. In this way it is more safer when using blockchain.info wallet. Kindly, Muhammed Zakhir So please call a spade a spade. It is just "removing the private key", not cold storage |
|
|
|
|
1. An address generated on an online computer cannot be considered as a cold address
2. Excessively reusing an address is usually a bad idea
|
|
|
|
I think they are saying you could 'roll back' on your own node to a point where you did have coin age, and try to attack from that point.
But it's not clear how you would get very far because there would be a longer chain soon and your coin age would be used up fast.
That is like saying you can't 51% attack a PoW network because the main chain is growing. Yeah if you have less computing power than the "good guys" you can't but what if you have more? With more than half of the network computing power you will eventually build the longest chain. With a PoS you will eventually build the longest chain if you have more than half of the network stake. True. In both cases a majority ownership either in stake or hashing power would make an attack possible. But how does that make PoS inferior ? The attack has no cost or risk. Very simplified example: The network stake is 2M xCoins. I acquired 1.1M xCoins as of block 1,000. I sell you 1.1 M xCoins for $$$$$$$ and the transfer is recorded in block 1,001. I now no longer have any xCoins (effective block 1,001+), I have no cost as I received $$$$$$ in return for the 1.1M xCoins. I start building an attack chain as of block 1,000 double spending my transfer. Eventually even if the main chain has a head start, my attack chain will be longer. This is no different than a 51% attack on a PoW based network however my attack has no cost and no risk. I already sold the coins. I am merely using my history of prior ownership to attack the network. Compare that to PoW. I build a hashing farm with 51% of network capacity. If I attack with it then the attack has cost and risk. The farm wasn't free, I may not succeed in which case I would lose all the legit blocks I could build. If I sell the hashing farm I can't engage in an attack based on the history that at one point in the past I had more hashing power than the rest of the network. Both are vulnerable to a 51% attack however PoS allows the attacker to exploit the history (your security mechanism is recorded in the very thing you are attempting to secure) to attack without cost or risk. What if a PoS/PoW hybrid system? Let say PoS and PoW blocks have to occur alternatively? |
|
|
|
一直有个疑问，当时使用qt钱包发送比特币后，由于给的手续费极低，就一直无法确认。
然后我直接恢复发送比特币前的wallet.dat文件，发送的的比特币居然又回到账户余额且可用了？
任何沒有確認的交易, 和不存在其實是差不多. 就像你簽發了支票, 一天沒拿到銀行兌現, 你的賬戶餘額都不會減少. Bitcoin qt 會即時顯示餘額減少, 只是為了避免用戶無意中雙花. Bitcoin qt有一個memory pool, 負責記著沒有確認的交易. Memory pool 只是一個暫存系統, 只要你清空了memory pool, Bitcoin-qt就會不會知道你曾經發出過的這個交易, 而讓你再一次使用這個bitcoin. 如果你在blockchain.info看, 這可能會顯示為一個雙花的嘗試 |
|
|
|
如何能在一筆交易中發送BTC到很多個地址?
幾乎所有客戶端都可以輕易做到吧, 這也要問? 不是每个人都是技术能手，俗话说隔行如隔山。 德国有句谚语: '' 没有愚蠢的问题，只有愚蠢的回答'' 。 他的問題也不是一個好問題, 最少也要說明是用什麼客戶端吧? |
|
|
|
|
The problem of "brainwallet" is the use of weak passpharse. No matter what algorithm you use, people could generate a rainbow table and wait for a hit. A very complex algorithm may slow this process down, but it could be cracked eventually for weak passpharses
|
|
|
|
如何能在一筆交易中發送BTC到很多個地址?
幾乎所有客戶端都可以輕易做到吧, 這也要問? |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that this transaction sent 25BTC back to the same public key. Is it a handcrafted transaction?
|
|
|
|
The fixation on Satoshi makes me a little sad. Bitcoin was created to create a system of money without trust and central control— all the salient features are in the system, not in the motivations or non-public activities of its creator... so this kind of research is just valuable as a historical novelty, not in any practical way.
Making Bitcoin available was a gift to the world, but we seem to be repaying it with a not stop effort at violating the privacy of someone who clearly prefers it, plus these analysis are seldom very accurate— in most cases it may just as well be someone else... and then some other poor slub gets accused erroneously of being Satoshi, and potentially endangered when mentally ill people make assumptions about the returns on kidnapping. ::sigh::
I'd be less disappointed if the focus were just on early transactions, which are somewhat interesting on their own merits without the unnecessary game of pin the transaction on the person game. Something wrong with the forum software - it dropped the part where you say, "I am 100% sure satoshi was/is not a bad actor". If there is a non-zero chance that satoshi was/is a bad actor, then investigations into satoshi are justifiable - because unlike Henry Ford and the Model T, satoshi may know something/have something about bitcoin that I might be better off knowing about. Looking at the code is one way to do it. Looking at founder actions and coin sources/destinations is another. There are steps the founder can take in private to direct/quell the inquiry - contribute to a charity, send to a known bad address, and other things that people without my name can envision. Bitcoin is open source. Intention of the creator is irrelevant |
|
|
|
Still nothing? It's amazing that noone is buying Bitcoins. All have lost interest?
Just updated. Still accumulating, albeit slowly |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
