http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2333/is-there-a-remote-bitcoin-api-that-doesnt-require-anything-to-be-stored-locallyLet me repeat the content of the question here for the click-lazy: What I imagine is a trusted server (say run by Mt. Gox or some other exchange), that exposes a simple medium/low level API (let's say in JSON): getTransaction(fromAddress) getTxDetails() executeTransaction() ... I know BitcoinJ does't store the whole blockchain, but it does store and update the headers. The method I seek will save me the hassle of managing any local data except the actual keys/addresses. I would not have to give this transaction my private key, but rather use some sort of Offline Transaction equivalent. Is there something close to this? Is somebody building this? (If not, someone should!)
|
|
|
|
1. Create a deterministic wallet. 2. Choose a unique username, or email address ... or whatever unique identifier you want. 3. Get an initial small amount of BTC into it (e.g. buy them) 4. Use some of this BTC to write an encrypted version of the wallet into the blockchain (using a messaging service). 5. Delete unencrypted wallet. From this moment onward, all you need to access your wallet is an internet connection, the bitcoin client, and your username + password. Was this idea discussed? It would be sweet to have this wrapped in a standard bitcoin client ... no more need to back anything up. |
|
|
|
|
If:
- You're impressed with the core Bitcoin concepts, but not necessarily the current implementation
- You think Bitcoin or Bitcoin inspired technology will revolutionize money as a know it in the next 5-10 years
- You have some money to invest but
- You're weary of Bitcoin because of various reasons (fear of market manipulation, hacks, or other crypto-currencies making BTC invalid)
Then ... why not short banking?
Bitcoin and Bitcoin-like currencies make several markets much weaker, if not obsolete. You could sell short or buy CALL options on some stocks of banks, payment processors or other financial services of the type that will get hurt if Bitcoin succeeds. Hold the short for 5-10 years, and you should profit, without risking the oh-so-scary Bitcoin.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking about building a distributed GLBSE (if enough developers join in - I don't have the time to do this alone). I think an implementation could be built on top of Bitcoin & Namecoin, instead of a separate blockchain. So, imagine this: To register a new asset, you buy a long Namecoin address that is the signature on a contract (published into the bitcoin blockchain itself as a text message). You might want to have 1,000,000 different stocks of this asset, that will each require a Namecoin address in order to be uniquely transferable (let's not worry about stock splits for the moment). Currently, this might be very expensive, since each Namecoin registration costs a given amount of money, and 1M of them will cost a lot. Is there a feasible way to change the Namecoin protocol such that long addresses/names will cost less to register? This seems fair to me, since there a lot more long addresses, so the "inherent value" of a long address is smaller than a short one (compare the "abc.com" domain to "21z980347sd9fhase43wsadf.com") Would anyone even consider making such a change in Namecoin? Would this cause an influx of spam in the Namecoin blockchain? There would be a minimal fee for an address, of course, it would just be lower than the current fee (which is what btw?) The reason I think this should be implemented on top of current chains is that they already have a large hash rate, and any new chain we start will be prone to 51% attacks until merged mining is introduced ... which won't be for some time. If this can be reasonably implemented on top of existing chains, we benefit from all the existing hash power from day 1. |
|
|
|
|
Litecoin looks like the alt-coin with the most chance of indeed being "Silver to Bitcoin's Gold".
So ... what do you think its price will be five years from now?
Personally, I like the 0.01 BTC figure. I think it has a strong psychological anchor.
Remember, there will eventually be 4 times more LTC than BTC, so I wouldn't bet it being more than 0.25 BTC in any case ... and since it will be a bit hard sell Litecoin's existence to the general populace, I'm sticking to the psychological anchor of 0.01 BTC.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
I've tried to contact him a few times over the last month over some GLBSE issues, no response.
His last forum post was over a month ago.
He is usually more responsive than that.
Has there been any recent life signs?
|
|
|
|
I started this page on the wiki that lists business/organizations that have existed before Bitcoin, and have added some form of support for Bitcoin donations/purchases. Can you help me update it? (Note, the wiki is quite slow nowadays, but it does respond eventually ... hopefully it will be fixed soon) |
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I don't expect this to be really useful, or ever be implemented - it's just presented here as a fun idea. CaptchaCoin is a new alt chain that would be made of CAPTCHAs as the proof of work, instead of CPU or GPU work - it's human work. It would have a blockchain of CAPTCHAs, each depending on the previous one in some way (weak point - I have no idea how to automatically generated CAPTCHAs that depend on the previous one in a similar fashion to the blockchain technology ... no idea if it's possible). While CAPTCHAs can be solved by computers today, I assume it's still relatively a lot of work, and humans might do a better job at solving them (otherwise, why do they still exist if computers solved them easier than humans would ?) The benefit to users is that instead of having to solve CAPTCHAs when trying to use a service, I can pre-solve a set of CAPTCHA beforehand and thus acquire me some CaptchaCoin, and pay with the CaptchaCoin for registering to the service (automatically, via a browser plugin), thus proving that I did solve them in the past. If I sit around and solve 20 CAPTCHAs now, I will save me the little annoyance whenever I register to a website. I think a CaptchaCoin would have to be destroyed when registering to a new service like Namecoins are destroyed when registering a name. Of course, I could also buy CaptchaCoin with Bitcoin, paying someone else to do the hard work of solving CAPTCHAs. This is not a novelty - today, botnets pay to have CAPTCHAs solved ... the only difference is that with CaptchaCoin, regular users will be able to do the same as well. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Where can I see a difficulty graph of Litecoin?
|
|
|
|
I never mined before, let alone participated in a pool. Can anyone explain how to configure my miner to connect to a Litecoin pool? (I think there's one pool already) This pool is of course at risk of being DDOSes, so I ask also for instructions on how to setup the miner to solo if the pool is DDOSed/compromised. |
|
|
|
|
I saw it on the Tenebrix thread, but didn't find windows binaries.
I'm mining Litecoin of course, I assume the same miner works for both.
If I need to configure it somehow, can someone please explain how?
|
|
|
|
|
To get optimal performance, should one turn hyperthreading on or off?
One advantage of HT is that if I want to not run all my cores, because I'm using the computer, and I don't trust that putting the process on "Low Priority" is good enough, then with HT I can mine with 7/8 "cores", while without it I have to choose between 3/4 and 4/4.
Raw performance wise, how does HT affect mining speed?
LiteCoin is right around the corner.
|
|
|
|
"PLEASE STAND BY..."
"ATTENTION: PREPARING TO START MINER"
"TO GRACIOUSLY TERMINATE MINER, PRESS Ctrl + C while this window is selected
"then type "y" and press enter"
"ATTENTION: MINER WILL NOW START"
[2011-10-11 21:23:12] HTTP request failed: couldn't connect to host
[2011-10-11 21:23:12] json_rpc_call failed, retry after 30 seconds
I'm getting this error consistently now, the miner just won't start. What's wrong? How can I diagnose? For comparison, mining Litecoin on testnet works perfectly. |
|
|
|
It's been more than a day since a crypto currency was announced, so I thought to start a new one! ... Just kidding, this thread is a (bad) joke that refers to this one. |
|
|
|
|
I like how the 0.4 wallet has encryption requirements to send funds. How about multi-level encryption?
Let me explain: Currently I have two wallets:
1. A savings wallet, with a "big pile", for which I will only enter the decrypting password on a totally secure linux computer than has only Bitcoin installed
2. A spending wallet, with a "smaller pile" that I use on my day-to-day Windows machine.
Having to maintain two wallets is a pain, specifically because the savings wallet cannot be accesses (except read-only) on my main machine.
What I propose is having multi-level privilage system within the protocol itself, that would help me define a set of rules such as the following:
1. One master password is required to change the ruleset. I will only ever enter this password on a secure computer. With this password, I can define things like "minimum amount of coins that must remain in this wallet", or "maximum Bitcoin sent from this address per period of 100 blocks".
2. Another password, that will let me transact, but only within the ruleset defined with the master password. I will feel safe enough to use this password on my insecure machine, because even if I happen to have a trojan, I cannot spend more than 50 BTC per week, and I'll always have at least 200 BTC in my wallet (if those are the rules I defined with the master password). These guarantees are protocol-level, and cannot be circumvented by hackers.
3. Another read-only password that must be entered just to open the wallet and read its contents. Why not.
I think this could be implemented, and would greatly increase the security/convenience tradeoff of using Bitcoin.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
