Yes, send you a mail.


Yes, Galaxy S2 :-/

Tried it with official 3.19 and works like a charm 

Mobile (offline) scans QR from tablet (online) and sends per Bluetooth, nice! Two questions:

1. After sending, the mobile said that bluetooth transmission was rejected, although successful.
2. Does the 'scan QR' button activate the camera in a different way? Seemed to have no autofocus, while "Barcode Scanner" activates it.

Peter

I managed somehow, and I think it was unavailable because I used Chrome with AdBlock extension. Try with AdBlock disabled, and also be sure that the port they are using is not blocked by a firewall.

rM9eTxkYN4Dip3WqKkiFisdMZtZX9P8ETB

Same problem here - the button stays greyed out!

So if I go there every day I will be rich! LOL

LOL, you could be right! I was once on that page, but I totally forgot about it, as it was like I said a week ago. And I actually don't remember that it was with my tablet's address! Haha, ok thanks, miracle solved!

@Mike Hearn: Yes, I sent little play money to it and made a satoshi-dice transfer, too. I got the 0.00005 back from them as normal, the strange transaction now happened a week or so after!

I installed just for fun the Android Bitcoin Wallet of Andreas Schildbach on my tablet. Out of the blue I received 0.00000003 BTC from an unknown address.

I checked the transaction: https://blockchain.info/de/tx/3bdcbd4468f3676132371bb025aaca28b00703bffff2130996b7d277e0d301d8

That are many outputs!! Hundrets? So I'm not alone, and that address has more of this weird transactions.

I have no idea what is the background of this is, or if he is simply mistaken, or is it a joke? Does anybody have a similar experience?

Indeed, there are a lot of projects around dealing with this topic. They look very promising! Especially Freenet looks like what I had in my head, and this project is already over 12 years old!

I like the idea of the liquid market, but even beside Bitcoin, in my head it is not clear how 'accounting' of blocks can be done if it's truly P2P.

I mean if you just have 3 PCs synching each other while you made sure that always at least one is online. No money is needed for this scenario. The reference-counter of a block would be 3, but there is no central authority to count it. Other scenario: a public file (doesn't even need encryption) with high demand doesn't need to be duplicated in the network to the same amount. 4-5 duplicates would be enough to ensure reliability against data loss. So there seems to be a "user-counter" and a "storage-reference-counter". Don't know how the projects solve this though.

Money for storage sounds reasonable, but in detail? Should the download of data be payed? Then the holder of the data plays the 'game' of holding the data in the hope the owner will request it or throw away the blocks to make space for something else. The owner has to hope somebody still has the blocks. If it's important data and only one 'holder' has it....the price could be high!

I would prefer that providing storage would be payed, which is probably a function of size and time. Or even including transfer, so bandwith could be in the formula, too. But sounds already complicated.

Just an idea, tell me if it's old or nonsense

There are lots of cloud storages around, Dropbox, Google Drive etc. Also Bitcoin-payed like CrownCloud or Wuala. But Wuala is different, it is encrypting the data at client side (SpiderOak too, don't want to advertise). Still with their user-side encryption, they can de-duplicate the data. I found that really cool, let's imagine:

Imagine a "real" cloud storage, I mean a P2P network like eDonkey or BitTorrent. Your data is somewhere in the community, but it's safely encrypted! And a guy having loads of space, why should he share his drive with the network? Because he could get Bitcoins for it! On the contrary, someone wanting to store even more in the cloud than on the device could pay for it.

Technically I would split files into 4k chunks if it doesn't influence cryptography too badly, but deduplication would be better (lets say you changed few bytes in a 1gb file). The hash of it (MD5 or SHA1) gives the password for a symmetric encryption. The checksum of the encrypted blob again is used as an id to ask the network for data. Same data gets encrypted same way, thus deduplication possible. A "file" is basically the list of blob-ids and their passwords, symmetrically encrypted with your private global password.

I don't know yet how Bitcoin comes now into place. A payment to somebody to download some of the blobs sounds like spamming the blockchain with way too many transactions. Maybe a kind of pool would help?

Well but maybe there is just no market for a Open Source P2P storage, as the commercial ones are too many and too cheap..

I just ran into
http://www.bitcoinexchanges.net/

Well...strange site, two of three exchanges they link are not working (TradeHill and Bitcoin7.com) and MtGox is highly warned against! Somebody tried bad publicity, hum?

Unter dem Link erreicht man doch nur n Hotel?! *gg*

Sorry to start such big discussion

IMHO a 51% attack is definitely a disaster for bitcoin, but I understand now that a 'freeze' is fatal because it would stop economy because no transaction is possible. Good that people already have concepts how we could defend this attack.

But wait, having 51% of the hashing power means having very good chances to solve blocks, right? But isn't it still possible for the rest of the world, to have a lucky block solved with transactions in 49% of the time? Sorry for the newbie question. Or could empty blocks be ignored? But probably the latency problem is what I'm missing out, an attacker could hold back a long chain and then release it. Even when the rest of the world has mined normal blocks with transactions, the longest chain wins.

What about making reaching the 51% as hard as possible? The mining pools which don't have a central server sound interesting. Maybe best would be if pools would not be necessary as everybody who decides to mine gets a small share (although I have no idea how this could work).

In fact, when you think about it: mining is increasing your chance of solving a block, meaning that more blocks are solved, meaning the difficulty will rise, because the total number of blocks (/h) should be constant. So you mine to increase your percentage of the world hashing power. Sounds like 'arms race'. Although I think this 'proof of work' is really brilliant, I'm just thinking: is there a way to amend it that way that the most important thing is archived: the network power/control is distributed among different real persons in meatspace as equal as possible?

Ah, so what you say is when you have 51% you could freeze the blockchain, but not when you have less power. I thought it is an attack below the 51% power threshold.

I agree, it's not worth implementing a block tree instead of chain for a 51% attack. If someone has actually that power, freezing the chain is the smallest problem. People could stand up and donate their CPU power all around the world to make Bitcoin running again, because this would reduce the attackers relative power.

When looking at the surface of the discussion of an "unfreezable blockchain":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57647.0

I wonder what the problem actually is. I could not find this information easily, maybe somebody points me to it.

A block-tree instead of blockchain should be resistant to "freezing", but has other effects. But what means "freezing"? I mean if you have 51% of hash-power you can do a lot, including double-spending attacks. Assuming you have less, the blockchain is the central tool to bring transactions in an order to eliminate double spending. How can this chain be frozen?

But then, is sipa.be not collecting too much data to simplify again with averages?

I mean the difficulty is constant for a time frame, what varies is the number of blocks. The figure blocks/hour is about 6, so still too small. Blocks/day should be around 144, a better number to track. Maybe already combined with the current difficulty it would give one figure (in GHash/s or so) per day, much smaller database!

This link should have access rights:

https://plus.google.com/photos/115763701591296543469/albums/5696306392265807393?authkey=CNPNk4eo3qGTrwE

It's coming back!

Certificate error here:
https://plus.google.com/photos/115763701591296543469/albums/5696306392265807393

(How can I attach something here??)

Sorry for maybe newbie question, but where does the network hash rate figures come from?

I like the graphs like here: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/

I do understand that clients accept block according to the difficulty which in turn is adjusted so that it's difficult enough to get blocks every 10 min.

I don't see how the current network hash rate can be determined down to the hour, I mean do nodes/miners report if or how fast they are mining? Or does sipa.be just plot the amount of found blocks per hour? But this would take already the difficulty into account, making it hard to tell the actual Ghash/s.