Bitcoin Forum
June 22, 2021, 12:53:41 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Other / Politics & Society / Which tax is the least bad? on: March 23, 2014, 12:05:23 AM
Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Marketplace (Altcoins) / [WTB] 40 Namecoins, paying in Bitcoin [CLOSED] on: March 21, 2014, 06:17:02 PM
I'm looking to purchase 40 Namecoins. I will pay 15% over BTC-e's Bitcoin/Namecoin exchange rate, as established at the time of agreement.


 - You send coins first.
 - Escrow is acceptable. It must be a mutually agreed-upon agent, and you pay any fees.
 - Sending batches of 10 NMC at a time is fine too; the same price will be paid for each batch.
 - Transaction details (sending addresses, etc.) can be as public as you like.
 - No traders with: a scammer tag, negative trust, or under 150 posts, please.

I'm not looking to haggle over the price, nor am I in any particular rush. I just want to get this done as smoothly as possible.
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Name the 0.0001 BTC unit - Final Poll on: January 09, 2014, 06:11:46 AM
The last leg of the contest to propose a name for the 0.0001 BTC unit is now underway. Details follow...

Please read carefully:

The four highest-voted names from the prior poll are up for voting. You only get one vote, and again, your vote cannot be changed. At the end of the voting period, the highest-voted name will be declared the winner, and the submitter will be contacted to receive their 0.1 BTC prize.

In the interest of time, the voting period will be roughly 48 hours. The voting on this poll will be closed at 23:59:59 CST on Friday night, January 10.

It's otherwise pretty straightforward, but anyone interested can review the original thread and the first poll.

For those curious about each name's origins:

bip - This name stems from the financial term "basis point". With a bp being 1/100 of 1%, numerically it works out to the same fractional amount, even though it has a different meaning.

bit - The original monetary bit referred to an amount commonly used in the colonial U.S., specifically 12.5 cents (1/8 of a Spanish dollar from the era.)

finney - This name was suggested in honor of Hal Finney, whose noteworthiness with regards to his contributions to Bitcoin and cryptography in general can be explored in this thread (and is summarized in his wikipedia page.)

nakamoto - Obviously a complementary name to "satoshi."

With that, the final poll of this contest begins; vote away, and again, may the best name win!

Quote from: Credits
bip - arcke
bit - jakioflap
finney - bassclef
nakamoto - HairyMaclairy
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Name the 0.0001 BTC unit - 1st POLL on: January 06, 2014, 12:13:13 AM
The contest to propose a name for the 0.0001 BTC unit continues! Details below....

Please read carefully:

The name list in the poll is set in stone. The primary criteria that held sway was the number of recommendations (including duplicate or similar submissions) for each name, followed by terseness and marketability. That said, I thought some of the suggestions that didn't make the cut were pretty good, but these to some degree or another seemed to spark more interest from the community.

So... please go ahead and vote for whichever name you feel is "best", based on your own personal criteria/preferences/etc. You also get a second vote if you want to throw your weight behind another name in case your first choice doesn't get into the final four (I strongly recommend doing so.) Note that you will not be able to change your votes! Feel free to comment on the choices, or to make the case for one choice over others. As usual, please stay on topic, etc.

Voting will be closed and the thread locked at 23:59:59 CST (GMT-6) on Wednesday, January 8. Shortly thereafter the final poll presenting the final four names will be posted. The final four will be chosen from the highest-voted names that are not found to be obviously flawed (see first thread for examples.)

One final thought: keep in mind that a name for the unit wouldn't necessarily be used as-is; variations of it, or even abbreviations or prefixes derived from it could just as well take hold.

With that, we're off. May the best name win!

Quote from: Credits
bip - arcke
bit - jakioflap
bitdime - amincd
bitski - Bobsurplus
decimillibit - Lorum_Ipsum
finney - bassclef
littlebit - Steef
man/maan-satoshi - wjmilne
minicoin - gbianchi
nakamoto - HairyMaclairy
pbit - Glynn
sbit - arcke
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Contest to name the 0.0001 BTC unit (0.1 BTC prize!) on: January 03, 2014, 12:51:11 AM
As the title suggests, I think it would be better for the Bitcoin community that we skip the milliBitcoin step, and not use microBitcoins, but instead choose to use 0.0001 BTC as the next common denomination.

I believe this is a superior choice because:

1) It gives us more time before making another change than mBTC would

2) It removes the possibility of using common decimal prefixes (milli- and micro-) which, as bad as it may sound, would face resistance in the U.S.

3) It's compatible with a minimum transaction fee of 0.0001 BTC

4) New users would likely be happier with it than mBTC, as they'd get "more" for their money with a smaller denomination (ah, human psychology)

5) The values wouldn't be as large as with uBTC

6) It leaves us with a very manageable 4 decimal places

7) It reduces the transition to satoshis down to two equally-spaced steps, leaving only one familiar future change

To this end, I'm putting up a 1000-digibit (0.1 BTC) prize for whoever comes up with the "best" name for the 0.0001 BTC unit!

The Specifics (please read carefully:)

I.) I am seeking names in this thread, and comments on the submitted names. Submit as many as you like, but only your first 10 names will be eligible for the prize. Don't edit your posts containing your names until after I (or any mod who wants to) quote it, otherwise your names in that post are no longer eligible for the prize, even if one wins. First person to post a name in this thread gets credit for that name. Please stay on topic, etc. Modifications to these naming specifics will only be made if necessary in the obvious interest of fair play (controversy over two submissions, etc.) And, I'm claiming the name digibit primarily as an example, since I neither expect nor really want it to win.

Submissions made past January 11 January 4, 23:59:59 CST (UTC-6) will not earn the submitter the prize, and except due to some extraordinary circumstance will not be considered for the remainder of the contest.

EDIT: Yes, one person can have multiple names chosen for the polls.

II.) Shortly after the deadline, a new thread will be started; it will host a poll of the top twelve names. Comments and suggested modifications on the names will be sought in the thread, along with votes. The top twelve names will be selected for the poll from this thread, based on: apparent popularity in this thread, terseness (fewer syllables is generally better,) lack of obvious faults (a name that's offensive in German probably isn't going to make it,) reflection of related technical or liberty-oriented themes, ease of pronunciation, general marketability, and my own personal bias (I'll try to eliminate it, but let's be upfront: some bias will probably still slip through.) Until the next thread is posted, this contest may be cancelled due to lack of interest or other relevant circumstance. But once that next thread is posted, you can presume I'm 100% committed to giving someone the 0.1 BTC.

Voting and comments for the poll will be open until January 18 January 8, 23:59:59 CST.

III.) After the first poll, a poll of the final four will be posted. The final four will be names from the original list of twelve that are the most popular vote-wise, seemed to garner the most enthusiasm, and were not found to have any obvious faults. Note that any or all of the names may be modified slightly based on feedback from the community in the first poll. The final winner will be determined by voting, although if there is less than a (non-scientific) 3% difference between the top two names, and if there's strong, obvious rationale for the second over the first (for example, if by some miracle the second had already taken hold in mainstream publications,) then the second place vote-wise will be deemed the winning name.

Voting for the final poll will be open until January 25 January 11, 23:59:59 CST.

IV.) I have moved the 1000 digibits to the following address: 1NpTFdJg1kWUpvWaUBZBU3sfxKfXXZifDe

They will remain there until sent to the address specified by the winner. (The extra 1 digibit at the address is because I use Mycelium, and it's needed for the transaction fee.) The winner will be contacted and the prize sent ASAP after the end of the contest.

Final Comments

Obviously, there is (thankfully) no way to force acceptance of the 0.0001 BTC unit denomination, even with a marketable name. But my hope is that this contest will generate enough buzz and discussion around the idea (along with an adequate name!) that it will get bitcoin users to consider it, and to maybe persuade the community to head in that direction.

Good luck!
6  Other / Politics & Society / What's wrong with unequal wealth distribution? (Was: 2013-12-10 Bitcoin Proves.. on: December 13, 2013, 07:40:10 PM
It suggests that if everyone was dirt poor, but equally so, then that situation is preferable to some being dirt-poor and some being "filthy rich."

I never spoked about equal distribution, but showing that equal distribution would eliminate all poors should make clear that a more equal distribution would eliminate povertry also:

let's asume that:
the most rich man (1 person, on top) gains 10x the income as the poor (which are 10 people)

left side: 10 poor people out of 55
right side (would be socialism; once again: I'm not defending socialism): 55 happy people gaining 3.6x above povertry

now imagine the real piramid where the top gain 1000-100.000 times the value of the poor;
and than imagine if there was a rule that rich only can gain 20 times as much as the poor. should be clear now that noone would be poor anymore

I understand what you're saying.

But are we discussing distribution of wealth, or eliminating poverty? Because it sounds like you're saying the problem with unequal distributions of wealth is that "it causes poverty." (Or perhaps more accurately, that "eliminating unequal distributions of wealth can eliminate poverty.")

If the idea is that poverty can be eliminated by distributing wealth more equally, that's simply not true. True, for the moments that everyone has their state-mandated paycheck (or bill) in hand, there is equal distribution. Yes, there are societies where wealth is more equally distributed, and in many (not by any means all) of those societies there is very little poverty.

But as I pointed out, that does not mean that it was a forced (or even voluntary) redistribution of the wealth that is the cause of the lack of poverty. Rather, wealth inequality develops over time as the natural result of numerous benign and unavoidable causes--although it can also be increased by malicious forces, which shouldn't be tolerated. If a society happens to have both low poverty and more-equal wealth distributions, then those could simply have a common cause, or even be unrelated, depending on the situation.

Here's the point that I was getting at: if the poorest people in a society have adequate wealth to take care of the basics, then why does it matter if there are a few billionaires or even trillionaires around, provided they aren't causing the poorer folk to remain poorer?

If you only advocate a more equal distribution of wealth as a solution to poverty, then the issue that's really at hand is poverty, right? And if that can be fixed without worrying about wealth redistribution, then there's no need to be concerned with unequal distribution... or is there some other issue besides poverty that unequal distribution causes concern over?
7  Other / Meta / Tracking pixels (split from Mike Hearn's blacklist thread) on: November 15, 2013, 05:13:53 PM
Again you are giving the foundation too much power.

Mod Edit Note: Shove your tracking pixel up your ass, BCB. Cheers, Raoul Duke

Well, ain't that nice. Tracking pixels... noting every IP address that views his post.

Why am I not too surprised?  Roll Eyes
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / So... anyone used those Canadian ATMs? on: November 05, 2013, 11:56:12 PM
I've seen video of one being used, and it looks very slick. But I'd like to hear an actual report on it from a forum member. Anyone?
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / For Crypto Experts: Removing random numbers from the mix? on: October 28, 2013, 10:47:02 PM
Arstechnica had an interesting article, a basic primer on ECC.

In the comments, someone made a statement that I found surprising, considering it seems like a no-brainer.

Quote from: makomk
The ECDSA digital signature has a drawback compared to RSA in that it requires a good source of entropy. Without proper randomness, the private key could be revealed.

Interestingly enough, this doesn't have to be the case. While traditional ECDSA does rely on a good source of randomness it's possible to modify it so that signing is entirely deterministic, yet it's still secure and the resulting signatures are still accepted by all existing ECDSA implementation. Loosely speaking, the trick is to hash the private key and the message hash being signed together with something like SHA-256 and use the result as k instead of a random value (I'm omitting some important details).

This is generally believed secure because it's unlikely two distinct signatures will have the same k, and it shouldn't be possible for an attacker to use the way k is generated to guess it unless they already know the target's private key anyway.

Is this possible to implement into Bitcoin? Would it work? Can we actually leave behind reliance on random numbers, and by relying more on fewer algorithms (SHA-256 in particular here) reduce potential problem spots?... or is there some problem with this method that the poster wasn't aware of?
10  Bitcoin / Project Development / A Way to Have a Decentralized Exchange.... Doable *Right Now* on: October 29, 2012, 04:48:57 AM
I've been coding again lately, and have a number of new bitcoin-related project ideas buzzing around in my head. But it seems like now may be a good time to try to raise discussion, yet again, on the idea of the decentralized bitcoin exchange.

Don't groan. We all want this, we just don't quite know how to do it, right? My inspiration for a way to possibly do this came from Bitcoin itself, both in how it does away with the idea of "backing" a currency, and just makes it all digital; and in how Satoshi didn't fret over the downsides to a solution to the double-spend problem (public blockchain, etc.) He just implemented it and let it go.

So first: how about doing away with the idea of an exchange having to be Bitcoins-for-some-tangible-good? I think the decentralized exchange can work, if it's designed to exchange bitcoins for information, and information only.

Now, this information would just be a kilobyte or so of arbitrary data. It could be a link to an ebook, a short snippet of sound, the combination to a locker containing a pot of gold, or the private key to a stash of Namecoins. But if the payload is simply a chunk of data, and the system only concentrates on that (and includes a public record of what kind of data was exchanged, and for how many bitcoins, to help set prices,) then I think it's quite feasible. True, it may not result in the sort of sit-and-your-desk-and-play-the-market-from-anywhere-on-the-planet exchange we'd like. But it would help person A exchange his bitcoins for something common of value with others, and is a start.

Here's a rough outline of one way to possibly implement this. Feel free to smooth out the kinks, as I'm still not fully educated on whether ECC keypairs can do this, plus just in looking it over I think there are a number of redundant steps.

  • Buyer of bitcoins creates a public bid, describing the data payload he's offering (could be anything, but the software would likely encourage and readily support certain common sorts of payloads.)
  • Seller sees bid, agrees to the transaction, and initiates it with the seller. From here on out, most of the process could be automated.
  • Seller creates 2 private keys as the first step in a protected exchange.
  • Buyer creates a private key.
  • Seller sends the public key derived from his first private key to the buyer.
  • Buyer simultaneously sends the public key derived from his private key to the seller (it shouldn't matter if the actions aren't truly simultaneous, as neither party can harm the other at this point.)
  • Seller uses buyer's public key to encrypt his second private key and sends it to the buyer.
  • Buyer multiplies the seller's first public key (given at the start), the seller's second public key (which he derives himself), and his own private key to for a new public key we'll call "k". He does not have a way to get the private key for this public key. He encrypts it with the seller's first public key and sends "k" to the seller.
  • Seller decrypts the message using his first private key to get the new public key "k". He takes the public keys of his two private keys, and multiplies them with the buyer's public key to verify that "k" is indeed the mutually-created new key. He sends his bitcoins to the bitcoin address produced by "k".
  • Buyer sees that the address produced by "k" receives the bitcoins. After 6 (or fewer) confirmations, he encrypts his data payload with the seller's first public key and sends it to the seller.
  • Seller uses his first public key to decrypt the data payload, and verifies it gets him whatever goods/services/info it's supposed to. He now has no incentive to cheat the buyer, since he can no longer access the bitcoins (and if this is automated, he likely wouldn't even think to.)
  • Seller then encrypts his first private key with the buyer's public key and sends it to the buyer.
  • The buyer now has all three private keys, and the seller does not. The buyer can now move the funds from "k" to another bitcoin address. He has his bitcoins. Seller has his info, confirmed to provide whatever was intended. Everyone wins.

Comments? Opinions? Snide remarks?
11  Economy / Goods / [WTS] Beautiful Authentic Hand-Crafted Stained Glass Pieces on: July 10, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
I'm attempting to sell several works for a friend who creates stained glass art. Each is a beautiful hand-crafted piece, quality work that is well worth the price. Any of them would make a special, cherished gift for a loved one, or a wonderful display for any home. All prices include well-packaged shipping to anywhere in the continental U.S. and tracking.

For a few BTC extra, I'm willing to use BitMit and their escrow system. Otherwise, I'll exchange personal information (including phone number) for anyone who wants to purchase a piece. Just send a PM and we'll work out the details.

The entire album of images of the 4 pieces for sale can be viewed here:

EDIT: It's been asked if the artist does custom pieces, and the answer is Yes! Post or PM to hash out the details and receive contact info.
12  Economy / Marketplace / Any interest in buying single silver U.S. dimes with BTC? on: April 22, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
Well, I'm thinking of selling some silver dimes, and wondering if there would be interest on this forum in buying them.

I'd be selling them at a constant price, 1 silver dime for 1 bitcoin, shipping included, until I ran out, regardless of price fluctuations. Admittedly, this is currently a pretty high price, but the intent (besides selling out of about 50 dimes) would be to give people with just 1 or 2 bitcoins something tangible to easily spend it on.

I notice that sells old silver coinage, and at prices closer to spot (currently $2.28 for a silver dime,) but you have to buy $1 face value--10 dimes, or some other coin combination--at a current cost of about 5.5btc, and I'm not sure what they charge for shipping. In that light, I really don't think buying 1 or 2 dimes for 1btc each is unreasonable.

So... is there interest? If so I'll probably run with this. (Newbies who haven't been whitelisted can feel free to PM me if they like the idea. To some extent, this is intended for those who are new to bitcoin or just don't have much, and want to buy something small and tangible with it to try it out.)
13  Other / Politics & Society / Moral Culpability for Actions on: February 21, 2012, 03:31:24 AM
For this hypothetical, let us presume that you have a child, around 6 years of age.


You and your child are walking on the sidewalk right past a playground. Near the sidewalk are a group of children around your child's age. Their backs are turned to you, as they are all apparently fascinated by something on the ground in front of them.

Your child creeps up behind the group, and looks back to confirm that you're watching. When inches away from the group, he yells, "Run, there's a dog!"

Screams come from some of the kids as they run forward. In the commotion, a little girl is bumped by a larger child, subsequently falls, and skins her knee. She starts to cry. Your child is rolling on the ground laughing.

Simple question: Is your child at all morally culpable for the little girl being hurt?

(It may make a difference if you stop to consider if you would attempt to correct the child's behavior in such a scenario.)

If you aren't sure, or think it primarily depends on other factors, then there is no need to vote, as only "Yes" and "No" are options, and your vote can't be changed afterwards.

Comments and/or explanations encouraged, regardless of your vote (or non-vote.) Also, if you vote "No" but would still attempt to correct the child's behavior, a brief explanation of your thinking would probably be helpful to the discussion.
14  Economy / Economics / Gold hits $1600 USD on: July 18, 2011, 11:48:57 AM
Choke on that, Bernanke!  Grin

Prices just keep going up, up, up across the board. But no worries, everyone... after all, inflation is supposed to be good for us!  Roll Eyes
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / The Bitcoin Black Hole on: June 23, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
So, I've been reading some threads, and thinking about unrecoverable bitcoins. It lead me to a thought, which leads me to a question for the bitcoin community:

Is it possible to publicly create a bitcoin address, such that neither the participants to the creation, nor the observers, have (nor can deduce) the private key that would match the address?

Anyone can just create a new wallet, copy the first address, trash the wallet, then send bitcoins to the address. Burn your money if you wish, ho-hum. But a public address like that, known by all to be an unrecoverable pit... this actually has a use or two.

16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Threatened Over My Bitcoin Ad on: June 08, 2011, 05:22:32 PM

I find out about bitcoins, and am naturally excited, seeing its potential. I invest in some, and decide one of the big things that is (for now) holding it back is a lack of ready liquidity. Lots of people are reluctant to invest, thinking they'll be "stuck" with them, and those who want them may not have ready access.

I place an ad on craigslist, offering to buy and/or sell, for a small fee.

Within hours I get this email:

> You do understand that the bitcoin program is in fact not legal in this state. There is a 2007 law that outlawed virtual currency in KY. It falls under the tax codes. It is punishable by 1-5years and a min fine of 50k. You will remove this ad. If you fail to do so your account will be turned over to kirs. I will email from other accounts asking for info to get your address unles your dumb enough to reply. The facebook account and ad have 24h to be closed.
> I hate tax dodgers like you..
> Sent from my iPad 2

Now, obviously I'm not taking anything down. I'm just floored by the level of hostility some folks have toward bitcoins. I'm sure the Silk Road stories aren't helping any, but still... wow.  Shocked
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!