[Please dont make a blocksize or Gavinista debate out of this]

i am wondering what people think about classic/xt like forks for changes made to the protocl.
Please dont make a blocksize or Gavinista debate out of this

personally i think its a good idea. but i would like to see some dev-support for it (eg make sure any transaction happens in all forks until one clearly wins - even if that means that coinbase tx are unspent for a while; this could be fixed by using merged mining).

for me bitcoin should be decentralized. this includes development.
IMHO to allow and support forks like this seem to be the only way to avoid dev-centralization

yes, they may cause some market-confusion. but IMHO (again) this could be fixed by tools.

what do you think?

Hi,

most indicators (eg Pivot Points, EMA, SAR and so on) work on candles.
but when to close a daily or hourly candle on a 24h market?

atm i often the current time as my closing (and working backwards from that) but IMHO thats not right (and esp for Pivot Points it seems a little dangerous).

Any suggestions?

do you take anything out of Spoetnik mouth serious?

please ignore my username or sig while answering. i am really interested in valid feedback...

edit: added [POLL] to thread title

hi,

just had a small idea: what if bitcoin shops had this feature: buy this item if its cheaper than XBTC?
this would include BTC/USD conversation and product price changes.

the customer could deposit the money (and maybe withdraw it in case that after some time when his target isnt reached he doesnt want it anymore)

IMHO this should enable shops to plan better which should lead to cheaper prices (well at least for big shops. not sure if there are any atm)

please share your opinions ;-)

Use TPM to store Private Keys and sign transactions

is this possible?

i have found instructions for using the TPM for securing SSH connections. i plan to get a new pc so i am curious if there is any benefit for buying an additional tpm module (ofc it must be owned by me and its a must that it doesnt contain any other keys)

using tpm to secure ssh:
https://blog.habets.se/2013/11/TPM-chip-protecting-SSH-keys---properly

i imagine that the security of my privkey would be comparable to trezor (except that i dont have a trusted way to review the recipients address and amount) is this true? or did i miss something...

i am unsure about that.

the (only) problem i see is, that if someone wants to scam a specific person he might to able to buy (or bribe) a person who is on the trust list of his target.
not sure how big the problem is though: the scammer has to be aware that its possible that those people know each other.

what do you think?

at least he can remember some parts of it:

PW{bitcoin|bitcoin-wallet|bitcoin-core-wallet|bitcoin-kern-wallet|bitcoin-core|wallet|bitcoin-kern|bank|geld}123!

variants of "bitcoin" i have tested: bitcoin, BitCoin, Bitcoin

i have written a very small (and ugly) nodejs script which tries this permutations:
 - first letter as uppercase (and camel e.g. Bitcoin-Core-Wallet and BitcoinCoreWallet)
 - with removed '-'s
 - leet-replacements

(all recursive) any other ideas or common mistypes i could check?

it only contains about 1btc - but for him thats much.

regards

my agenda: i believe that sound money is important to make this world a better place for everybody.

my definition of sound money:
 - fixed supply / rules known by all participants
 - no interest
 - small or no inflation
 - unregulated cheap transactions around the world to anyone
 - fungibility (i think(!) this goes hand-in-hand with anonymity - but mixers seem to work well enough)
 - anonymous
 - everybody can participate
 - trustless (means: i only need to trust mathematics and nothing else)

^ that is what get me to btc in the first place and i still believe in it.

what's your agenda? why are you here?

i know this sounds ridiculous, but let me explain why i think it may be useful.

i am nearly convinced now that a big block size together with 1BLT is a threat for bitcoin as miners dont have any incentive to make smaller blocks.

so i am thinking about ways to incentive them.

an easy solution could be that a block needs to be transmitted in full to be accepted - the question is, if this is enforceable between miners (sadly i think it isnt).


btw... not heard much about headers first. is the following scenario possible?

miner A mines a block with a few transactions he has crafted himself.
he published a double-spent-attempting transactions shortly before he found the block.

miner B receives the second transaction from miner A
miner B receives the new block header and starts mining
 - as he does not have the first transaction he tries to include the second one

^ this should raise miner-B's orphan rate.

an easy way to mitigate this would be to mine empty blocks until you have all transactions from the previous block. but this would lead to more empty blocks - raising the blocksize-scarcity even more

i am a little lost right now...