Latest posts of: Aleš Janda

Show Posts
Pages: [1]

Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Bitnotes: paper notes backed by bitcoins

on: October 15, 2016, 04:37:06 PM

Partially off-topic: I was asked for ensuring OP's identity. So yes, I know OP in person. I know him as honest and very active in local (Czech) community. As he is developing this project quite long time, I know this project as well in detail. So it's real Maybe I seem quite as newbie but I'm just no very active on Bitcointalk but very active in Bitcoin (also check my register date).

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Where is witness part in SegWit transaction?

on: May 12, 2016, 08:30:05 AM

That is the thing! Thank you! I created address by standard way, then in console Code: addwitnessaddress ADDRESS creates new witness address from it. And transaction from has "txinwitness" part and so on. Another good tool with examples is https://blockchainprogramming.azurewebsites.net/checktx Thank you again.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Where is witness part in SegWit transaction?

on: May 11, 2016, 02:44:38 PM

Hi, I'm trying to understand how SegWit transaction looks like. In article Segregated Witness, Part 1 on BitcoinMagazine.com is written Quote from the perspective of Bitcoin nodes that don't use Segregated Witness (lets call them “old nodes”), some newly created outputs might soon use a strange type of scriptPubKeys. Strange, because these scriptPubKeys can hardly be considered a lock at all. Commonly referred to as an “Anyone can spend,” these scriptPubKeys basically proclaim they don't require a signature. Additionally, they will include some meaningless text. (embolden by me) So I tried to send some segnet bitcoin from faucet to my address. The transaction outputs look like Code: "outputs": [ { ... "script_pub_key": { "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 b94d3e2318aa7265f5c75be6275c5af35a3751bf OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG", ... }, ... }, { ... "script_pub_key": { "asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 b5255516286472ed5b15833da1d9ea97c8d3f05c OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG", ... }, ... } ], This looks like standard transaction to me. When I pick random transaction from current blockchain, let's say https://blockchain.info/tx/a569b7a41c9a2567b4a4bad4ed59f5e846cc30d652b448ff6430018fe0bf3128, I see: Code: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 ed1fd913ec4f7f1b5699fc77ca9dc9604a840600 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG on output, so the same format. Also when I get transaction from segwit in hexadecimal and try to decode it in current Bitcoin version, it is the same (except the addresses because address version). Please, can someone enlighten me what is different on SegWit? Where I can see the witness part? I'm definitely missing something… Thanks a lot

Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Linking addresses to wallets?

on: March 17, 2015, 11:13:58 PM

Don't you mean my WalletExplorer.com? www.walletexplorer.com

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who has the voting right? miners or the pool

on: February 02, 2014, 04:55:50 PM

Pool owners have voting rights. They make decisions, miners only sign it. But it´s democracy - when miner don´t agree with pool´s decisions, he can simply mine at another pool. Or he can mine itself. Or he can create own pool, take people with the same opinions and they mine themselves. However, there are very few things what pools can change, i.e. only if some transaction will be in this block or not.

Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Get list of all addresses with a balance over x?

on: January 18, 2014, 08:49:45 PM

Quote from: cp1 on January 08, 2014, 10:08:12 PM Of course it's small, I'm just curious. There's what, 1e48 possible addresses, and something like 100e6 transactions, but how many of those were to unique addresses? Do we have 1/1e40 of addresses used, or is it smaller? Definitelly smaller. We have 2e7 used addressed now, so total space is ~ 5e40 times larger.

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is safe running bitcoins with the same wallet on more computers simultaneously?

on: November 28, 2010, 10:14:30 PM

Ok, thank you very much. It's a pity but I savvy it. Linked services I'll try. So thanks again.

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is safe running bitcoins with the same wallet on more computers simultaneously?

on: November 28, 2010, 08:11:08 PM

Thank you very much for your reply. If more instances of running program with the same wallet isn't possible, I think it should be documented. But OK, so I can other scenario: I have 2 computers, one at home, one at work. I'm running bitcoin at home, then I shut it down, go to work, start running bitcoin there, with the same wallet. Then shut down, go to home, start bitcoin at home and so on. BUT: I don't synchronize files (~/.bitcoin). So I don't run more instances of the same wallet but I don't synchronize current state. It's this possible? Will be synchronized sent and received payments or are there other problems? Or rather I should use two different wallets, one at home and one at work? Thanks

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Is safe running bitcoins with the same wallet on more computers simultaneously?

on: November 28, 2010, 01:44:12 PM

Hi, I would like to use bitcoins but I'm using more than one computer. Can I use just one wallet on all computers (by copying settings)? Or it isn't possible? What happened if someone send me money and bitcoin client run on more computers? What happened if I send money to anyone from one of clients? Will it be synchronized automatically? Maybe it's a simple quetsion but I didn't find answer to this. Thanks.

Pages: [1]