I gotten mail messages about some kind of Rehabilitation submission deadline on March 30.

Is this anything that creditors have to worry about, or is it just a deadline for the bankruptcy lawyers? 

Well, thank god we have had our year of revenge.

After 8 years of jerkoffs making tulip comments and trying to change the subject of conversation, now I am the one who is finally trying to change the subject. I can't get every tom, dick and harry I run into to stop talking about it. I was recently at a conference and speakers were hijacking sessions to talk about Bitcoins. I mean, literally, the forum would be on world peace or something and the panelists are talking about Bitcoins (in a completely ignorant way of course).

It is sweet revenge to point out to these jokers: you know I was telling to learn about this stuff 5 years ago, Bob....

It's like they forget that you told them. Luckily they can't deny it because back in 2011, I gave everybody I knew a Casascius token. If they deny that I lectured them about it, I just say, "So, do you still have that Casascius token I gave you... ?"

It seems that when transactions occur the outputs only get smaller and are never aggregated. That can't end well.

For example, let's say that address A has an output with 1 BTC and address B has an output of 1.5 BTC and both send 0.5 BTC to address X. In this case X now has 2 unspent outputs of 0.5. They are not aggregated, but are treated separately. So, for example, if X wants to send 0.75 BTC to address Y, then output 1 might be sent to Y and also 0.25 of output 2, while 0.24 is sent to a change address and 0.01 is left as a fee. So, a total of 0.75 BTC is sent to Y, but it is still divided into 2 outputs. Also, the fee is problematical because they are relatively small. The miners collect thousands of small dollar fee outputs, but there is no way to aggregate them, so they are stuck with thousands of tiny little outputs.

This would suggest that eventually Bitcoin will experience a "dust death" because the outputs will just keep getting divided into smaller and smaller outputs until it becomes impractical to transact them. Is this correct?

The meddling nabobs who thunked up Segwitless have apparently given up on their nutty idea, as widely predicted.

This whole crazy "double" the block size thing is so pointless. Doubling the block size will not do anything. These crazies who think we need to keep increasing block size until transactions cost a penny each are just nuts. I think they know the whole idea is senseless, but they do it anyway just for publicity or notoriety.

Just to repeat for the record the basic facts: the Bitcoin network is not designed for credit card type transactions or volumes. It is designed to transfer relatively large amounts of money in a 10 minute window. That is what it does. It is not designed for retail purchases or transfers of small amounts of money. As the capitalization of the currency increases we can expect fees to keep going up as larger number of higher value transactions occur.

Now, if the clowns running core would just start using simple, reliable code written in C instead of junking the core up with object-oriented crap then we would really be in a happy place...

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus

I run a full node, selflessly helping the Bitcoin network verify and confirm transactions, unlike you selfish pricks who use my machine to confirm your transactions and give me nothing in return.

I was just thinking today how much money I would make if there was a verification fee. If people paid an average verification fee of $1 per transaction and there are about 2000 transactions in each block and one block is formed every ten minutes and there are about 10,000 full nodes such as myself sharing the fee, then I would have an income of:

$1 * 2000 * 6 * 24 / 10000 = $28.80 per day

So, that would pay for dinner every day at a restaurant.

I hope you all recognize the serious flaw in the current protocol that results in me not getting paid for dinner every day.

Fasten your seatbelts: Bitcoin volatility in for a wild ride
Stardate July 20. 2017

Day traders are salivating as Bitcoin spirals into insane volatility driven by Segwit speculation and tectonic changes in the virtual currency marketplace.

Private client brokers are sprouting like mushrooms. Many existing services like BTCBOX are creating large client services, hinting that Bitcoin is going bigtime. Meanwhile, as the thieving latte fatboy pled innocent as his futile criminal trial opened in Tokyo, Japanese retailers and all major Japanese exchanges are planning to suspend services during the August 1 signalling milestone. John McAfee, the well known security researcher has promised to eat his own dick if Bitcoin does not go above $500,000. I guess we know what his recent investments have been. In an effort to save McAfee's dick, Richard Branson announced "I think Bitcoin is working" in an interview. Insiders are predicting the August 1 doomsday will be a non-event, while naysayers are having a field day with $100 million in losses to Ethereum holders due to client protocol bugs. Meanwhile, anybody with any money left in Venezuela is feverishly trying to figure out what a "wallet" is before their last Bolivar is gone. I guess that's what they get for accepting money named after a Communist revolutionary. Meanwhile, in the land of nabobs, where currency manipulation is a blood sport, the government has unexpectedly announced that their crazy speeches about making Bitcoin illegal were premature, so they will "regulate" it after all. Good luck with that, BJP. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, Falcon, a private bank, became the first to be government approved to manage bitcoin assets, thereby potentially opening the door to billions in parity between the legendary alpine gold Franc and the NEW KID ON THE BLOCK--all carefully monitored by the gnomes of Zurich, of course. Meanwhile, in South Korea, ATMs now allow withdrawals in cash out of Bitcoin accounts. Meanwhile, in the cradle of Bitcoin a "magistrate judge", whatever the hell that is, scolded the IRS for trying to seize the records of every account in Coinbase, and gas stations in Miami now allow you to buy bitcoins at special automated kiosks. You just put your raw cocaine in a cup in the machine and it gives back a receipt with the public and private key of a newly-created bitcoin address. Meanwhile, US retailers are experiencing shortages of high-end graphics cards. Trying to buy a Nvidia Tesla? No can do. Distributors are saying only that there are "production hiccups", but the word on the street is that--you guessed it--the AntPool guys are buying them up.

The next 30 days are going to be crazy, fasten your seat belts.

It amazes me that people are willing to buy into centralized systems like Ethereum, but then again Bernard Madoff had $64.8 billion in entrusted funds, too, so I guess it is no surprise.

Anyway, today core devs at the company that promotes and controls Ethereum stole $76 million in coins using a vulnerability in the protocol.

They claimed this was done to prevent the coins from being stolen by "bad" hackers, as opposed to themselves, the "good" hackers. They promise to "return" the coins even though they have no idea who they stole the coins from. Yeah, right.

So, this is the new MO of the Ethereum company: write buggy software, then steal your customers' funds to protect them from your buggy software. Nice logic.   Welcome to the Russian way of doing things where they "protect" your stuff by stealing it. Yeah, we got to take all your money to keep it safe, comrade.

We get a steady stream of my-transaction-is-still-not-confirmed posts cluttering up this forum.

These posts are of two basic types:

(1) I am PISSED OFF that I PAID a $20 transaction fee to transfer $4.39 so I could buy a mochachino and it STILL ISN'T CONFIRMED....  Oh wait, it just confirmed, never mind.

(2) BITCOIN SUX big time because I tried to use it and IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!!! BROKEN!!!! THIS IS USELESS!!!!! What's a "transaction fee" btw?

Can we please get some kind of moderator intervention to automatically or semi-automatically delete this crap off the forum, or at least move it to a special "Transaction Complaints" forum (LOL I wonder who will read that?)?

Thank you.

If you have a machine you can spare, please run a full node. The more nodes there are, the stronger the network is. Also, if you run a full node you can potentially mine your node for information of various kinds. You can tell if you have a full node by giving the following command:

Code:

bitcoin-cli getinfo

If the "connections" field is greater than 8, then you are running a full node, congratulations!

You can find information on how to run a full node on bitcoin.org here:

https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node

I don't really get the most recent Mt. Gox bankruptcy report which said that the liabilities of the company are 263,532,461,014,618 yen.

That is 263 trillion yen.

Since there is about 100 yen to the dollar, that would be 2.6 trillion dollars.

Mt. Gox was big, but not that big. What am I missing here? They using "micro yen" or something?

Dear Roger,

Please sell your fucking coins and GTFO so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Sincerely,

The Bitcoin Community   

I have a full node and it crashed due to an apparent disk read error.

"ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error - CAutoFile::read: fread failed" etc.

What is the proper way to recover from such an error and get the node running again?

Do the miners control the network or the nodes?

I always thought the nodes controlled the network. The nodes decide which transactions enter the pool, and in fact I thought that the nodes decide whether blocks are valid as well, so even if the miners do something crazy isn't it the nodes that are the ultimate deciders?

I thought that the miners are relatively irrelevant compared to the nodes because even if a miner has 1000x the hashing power of everybody else, if the nodes blackball the blocks from that miner then the miner will be ignored, so all their hashing power is useless. Even if you compute a block first, if the nodes reject your block then you control nothing, at least that is what I thought. No?

Trying to soft fork Bitcoin with "segregated witness" is a stupid idea that solves nothing and just creates a lot of unnecessary uncertainty.

Seriously, the sum total objective of this chaos is to increase the effective size of a block by 4x or whatever? That solves NOTHING. Making incremental increases to the block size is not a solution to the scaling problem. Hello??? Anybody home???? We have tumblers, spammers, people encoding porn into the block chain, and an endless stream of other worthless transactions. Trying to accommodate all those crazies by increasing the block size is NOT a solution. I have news for you: spammers do not have to limit themselves to increasing the number of transactions they can do by four measly times. They can multiply their transactions by 10x or 100x or 1000x or whatever crazy multiple they want. I can sit at my computer and send a billion transactions into the pool if I want to spend my afternoon doing that. Segregated witlessness is not going to solve that problem. It will only increase the complexity and uncertainty of the protocol while raising the specter of a soft fork hell.

We do not need to try increase the block size. We only need to prioritize which transactions get into a block.

The design of Bitcoin already has a mechanism to prioritize transactions and that mechanism is the fee. That mechanism works. Let it do its job.

In the bitcoin core, the critical secp256k1.c file is marked as executable (see https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/master/src/secp256k1.c)

Is this just a screw up or is there a valid reason for this?

The change appears to have been made by Peter Dettman. (see https://github.com/peterdettman/secp256k1/commit/0f9e69db555ea35b90f49fa48925c366261452ec)

[by]

In the bitcoin core file key.h there is a typo:

//! Check whether the 32-byte array pointed to be vch is valid keydata.
     bool static Check(const unsigned char* vch);

The comment should read:

//! Check whether the 32-byte array pointed to by vch is valid keydata.

I am not registered so I cannot submit bugs. Maybe somebody who works with the code base can fix it.

The addons for a bitcoin ticker in Firefox seem to be outdated.

I used to use the bitcoin.co site, but the Javascript on that site is so gnarly that it is messing up my browser, so I will not use that anymore.

What are my options for getting a live price?

When I issue the following command:

Code:

bitcoin-cli getnewaddress

sure enough, an address is returned. But where is the private key? In order to transmit coins out of that address I will need a private key.

I have bitcoind version 120100 on my Debian machine, which was less than year out of date. Recently, I turned it on again and it started syncing and appeared to be doing so from the beginning, starting at block 1. After nearly 4 days it is at 372 K out of 452 K blocks and slowing down.

(1) I thought it was supposed to sync starting where it left off, not at Block 1 ?

(2) Should I upgrade to 13 ? My concern is that if I upgrade, it is going to want to download the whole goddamn block chain again which could take 2 weeks. I need to do some BTC transactions, so I need it working.

(3) If I upgrade, is there any way to start where I am (block 372 K) and not have to start at the beginning? What is the procedure? There are two programs bitcoind and bitcoin-cli in /usr/local/bin/bitcoin. Can I just turn it off, replace these two files, then turn it on again, or is it more complicated than that? I assume it must be because there is a /usr/local/bin/bitcoin-qt directory and I guess the junk in there needs to all be updated too somehow.

Thanks for any assistance.

Has anybody gotten any of their settlement money from the Mt. Gox bankruptcy?

If so, did you use the cash or bitcoin (Kraken) option?