 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
Never mind. I figured it out.
|
|
|
|
|
I generated a vanity address and used importprivkey to import it into my Bitcoin-Qt wallet. After the importprivkey command finished, the address appeared on the 'Addresses' tab. Later I closed my Bitcoin-Qt client and reopened it. Now the vanity address is list in the 'Receive' tab and not on 'Addresses' tab as before. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
...There is no problem with a pool having more than 50% of the hash power as long as they don't abuse that power.
Here's a thought experiment...How about have just one big pool and every miner is automatically a member of that pool. That pool would of course get every block award. The pool operator sends out the appropriate fractions of block award based on the hashing contribution of each miner. As long as the pool operator didn't abuse their power this would be the most fair system. Of course that degree of centralization would be ripe for abuse and corruption, if history is any guide. Even if the operator *wanted* to be fair others could find ways to coerce the operator to allocate shares unfairly and cook the books to hide it by manipulating the statistics showing how many miners there are and their relative hash power. It seems clear to me that having 1 pool with %100 of the hash power is bad. That raises the question: Is 2 pools split 80%/20% any better? How about 3 pools 60/35/5%? Actually, when bitcoin really hits the big time (e.g. $5000 per coin?) then I believe any sufficiently large pool operator becomes a target of the sorts of people who are good at forced manipulation (e.g. governments, criminal organizations). I think as long as people are in charge of operating mining pools there are opportunities for extortion, abuse, and corruption. |
|
|
|
|
[from Cointrace website]
>Funding is ended by the first issuance transaction.
I think I am missing something. How is this enforced if you are using standard clients? What if someone sends a funding transaction to the project address after the issuance transaction? Is it up to funders to make sure the issuance transaction has not yet occurred before they send a funding transaction? If so, then there is a race condition here. Funder could be sending a funding transaction at same time as the issuer sends the first issuance transaction.
Maybe it's not an issue. If additional funds are sent to the project address after the issuance transaction has occurred that's just more 'shares' that can be issued.
|
|
|
|
An enormous benefit will be the ability to see at extremely precise detail what is being bought and sold
I understand the utility of the scheme, but wouldn't some feel this information is a little too personal to embed into a public ledger? |
|
|
|
Thank you amincd for continuing to educate me!
As I understand, it can be determined who mined a block by the address used for the fee & reward payments,
The miner can use a different address for each reward payment so this won't allow others to link blocks created by a single party. Please excuse me, as I am slow sometimes, but I don't think I understand. Are you confirming that no two consecutive blocks can be mined by the same address? If not, would you mind expanding on that statement so that I can better understand why not? Are you also saying that multiple miner addresses can be used for 1 block? Is it different for rewards vs fees? I very much appreciate your patience and knowledge and thank you so very much in advance! Since he hasn't replied yet I will jump in. This is what I believe he was getting at...Just as a bitcoin user can have many addresses at which he can receive bitcoin transfers (speaking non-technically here), a miner could also have many addresses he can use to receive the block award (though I don't know how common this is). Because addresses are relatively cheap to create, a miner could easily specify a different 'reward address' for each block they generate. Because of that, there would be no way to know, simply from looking at the 'award address' value, that a particular block came from a particular miner (all the 'reward addresses' would be different). Some other method needs to be designed to indicate that a block came from a specific miner. |
|
|
|
Are blocks hashed only to slow verification thus reward release rates? If not, why?
No. The block hashes link the blocks together into a chain. The hash of the previous block is included in the data that forms the next block and therefore contributes to the hash of the next block. This, combined with the proof of work part of the algorithm, causes the chain of blocks to act as a kind of distributed time-stamping service that proves when (and that) each bitcoin transaction took place. See the 'Proof-of-Work' section of the Satoshi White Paper for more details. |
|
|
|
Basically, I am a newbie and my question maybe sounds silly.
But after learning the basic mechanism of Bitcoin, I can't stop thinking how wasteful the mining electricity power is and, is it an essential part of a cryptocurrency?
For now, all I can understand is that the minging system is designed for 2 purpose: distribute new created BTCs & maintain transactions.
Could there be another way of doing this without so much powerful computing force?
I can't figure it out but I am still hoping there will be someguy finding his muse in the future.
Or maybe mining is the only way and I am just babbling...lol.
If adding new blocks to the blockchain was cheap and easy then an attacker could add bogus, but valid looking blocks to the blockchain faster than the rest of the computers on the network and cause all kinds of problems. Adding blocks to the blockchain needs to be costly so that all the good computers combined together will always be more powerful than a single bad computer. However, the cost to add a block doesn't necessarily need to be paid with CPU cycles. That's just how bitcoin chose to do it. This technique is called 'Proof of Work'. The 'work' is the CPU cycles used to do a complex cryptographic algorithm. Whatever is used to pay the price to add blocks to blockchain, the cost to verify that the new block is valid needs to be very low as this is also necessary to thwart bad guys (and make for better user experience). These two requirements (high cost to add block, low cost to verify block) limit the kinds algorithms that can be used to add and verify blocks. Another algorithm to add blocks to blockchain is called 'Proof of Stake'. In that algorithm, the cost to add block to blockchain is that you need to make a portion of your coins un-spendable for a period of time. Once that holding period is over you are free to spend those coins. People that advocate this technique claim it uses less electricity. Maybe someday someone will come up with yet a third way to pay the cost of adding a block to the blockchain. |
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with 1% inflation.
Luckily it is only 1%, but why? The question is: why does there have to be any inflation? Bitcoin has inflation, too. Every time new bitcoins get mined the bitcoin economy experiences a bit of inflation. Of course, that inflation ends when all bitcoins have been mined. Additionally, the inflation is offset a little by lost coins. In the balance of things bitcoin is deflationary. A PoS system like peercoin contains inflation by design but not in a static 1% way. At first the inflation comes from both PoW coins and PoS coins coming into existence. As with bitcoin, the PoW inflation will end when all PoW coins are mined. However, unlike bitcoin, peercoin destroys coins with every transaction. They go poof and exit the system. This is done to offset the inflation caused by new PoS coins coming into existence. Interestingly, I believe if everyone spends there peercoins immediately the peercoin system can actually become deflationary because more coins will be destroyed during the transactions than are created by PoS work. Therefore, overall peercoin is not exactly 1% inflationary. The peercoin designers did not design peercoin as a micro-transaction system. They want it to be more like a savings account that earns interest. Therefore they reward people for saving their coins by allowing savers to mint new PoS coins. PoS minting also has other benefits as described here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake |
|
|
|
I am currently working on a tool for sending notifications for when a crypto coin has reached a certain price ( http://coinnotifier.com/). As I am currently adding market places, I was curious whether there is actual interest for such a tool. Therefore I hope to start a discussion on this forum. Others are also working on this idea too. Check out the Bitcoin Paranoid android app for one. It has over 10,000 downloads so far. For others just search 'bitcoin alert' in the Play Store. |
|
|
|
|
I have recently created an account with Coinbase and have had no problems so far. Not sure if anyone has mentioned it in this thread yet but an employee of Coinbase posted on reddit the other day that they are really swamped with all the new accounts created in the last few weeks and are working hard to get caught up.
|
|
|
|
|
