 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
Can we ask technical questions about lightning network here?
If not, what board is best?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi people,
Without lies or FUD can I please get an honest comparison of IOTA vs Byteballs?
I have already bought some Byteballs and am interested if IOTA is also worth adding to my collection.
From what I can tell right now both are DAG currencies.
Are there any other differences?
How about developers? Is it just Tony with Byteball and CFB for IOTA? Anyone else joining either development yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happened to the scam coin XC?
I always suspected Dan Metcalf was a scammer, and once he cut of PoW with hardly any notice it was certain.
I always found it odd how it had this weird type of momentum for a while, I guess the followers were all sockpuppets.
I know it's old news, but I was just morbidly curious about its final resting place.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi People,
I think that we should have added to Bitcointalk a new top level topic called "Security"
My reasoning is as follows:
1 ) Security is one of the most pressing concerns for Bitcoin adoption.
2 ) Security is a large complex topic, for example, a subset of "Security" would be security for bitcoin services, security for home wallets, security for long term storage etc...
3 ) Instead of having this topic hidden under "development" or "projects" or something else, I think it's important enough to warrant it's own topic alongside "General"
4 ) I consider security to be one of the fundamental pillars of Bitcoin, it's arguably more important than the next exchange project...
5 ) I would like a central topic where people can post about the times they have been hacked, about the insecure exchanges, etc...
6 ) With a lot of people in one place concerning themselves with the topic of Bitcoin security, a lot of ideas might start to accumulate and more solutions found.
7 ) It would be a good place to direct people, so that "General" doesn't get clogged up with those that get hacked, and that the victims have somewhere to turn.
8 ) I originally had this idea because I was thinking that there should be a sticky in technical or general that asks the following:
-If you have been hacked, please present all the following information:
--What OS are you using?
--Do you have a virus scanner / firewall.
--Post a list of running applications from a task manager or process list.
--etc....
And then I thought, well this sort of in depth analysis of people having their Bitcoins stolen doesn't belong in General or even Technical, it really deserves it's own place in this forum.
Anyway, It might be a bad idea, if you think this idea is bad, let me know!
Vote away people.
(Of course votes don't guarantee anything, as it's up to the admin what they do with their website)
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Hey, did anything regarding accounts ever get added into bitcoin? Some sample pseudocode using the new Accounts based commands in 0.3.18.
print "send to " + getaccountaddress(username) + " to fund your account"
print "balance: " + getbalance(username, 0)
print "available balance: " + getbalance(username, 6)
// if you make a sale, move the money from their account to your "" account
if (move(username, "", amount, 6, "purchased item"))
SendTheGoods()
// withdrawal
sendfrom(username, bitcoinaddress, amount, 6, "withdrawal by user")
You can use listtransactions(username) to show them a list of their recent transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
The superior alternative cryptocurrency Monero has taken the alt world by storm and unfortunately for the average scamcoin, Monero is taking up all the space in the alt coin section.
This thread is for those of you that really hate Monero getting in the way of your latest scamcoin, so feel free to vent your frustration here!
|
|
|
|
Feel free to use this thread for wild speculation! |
|
|
|
So DarkCoin is based on CoinJoin, a technology developed for Bitcoin as a response to ZeroCoin/ZeroCash. So this alternative coin has taken CoinJoin and is now taking off as it's own CryptoCurrency. http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdfMany "speculators" believe that the Bitcoin core will never have CoinJoin implemented allowing for a huge chunk of the future market to be taken by this new coin. Why is that? Do the Bitcoin core developers have an aversion to this technology? I was very hopeful because of CoinJoin but it seems that it's now taboo in Bitcoin circles. We need this private transaction feature in the core client yesterday. I find it funny that all the cutting edge tech some Bitcoin developers are making (CoinJoin) are not going to be implemented into the core and are just left on a silver platter for our competitors. How does this make sense? Is there a technical reason that makes CoinJoin flawed? Or is it to appease uncle sam? |
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain the difference between Side chains and Tree chains like I am 5, or 2.
I understand that Side chains suffer from the fact that they need to be mined separately or via merged mining, but many attacks open up because of this.
In addition a 51% attack on bitcoin itself becomes more likely due to the huge financial incentive, where bitcoins in their pegged state can be completely stolen.
Does the Tree chain solve these issues?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a library I can use to export bitcoin core keys from without having to download the blockchain.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you add 40 bytes of data into the blockchain?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a sidechain with the following four properties:
1 - Faster confirmations (1 minute to 30 seconds perhaps?)
2 - Higher ratio of coins for the common man (1 bitcoin becomes 10,000 CommonCoins?) that can be converted back into bitcoin (obviously you'd need to save up to 10,000 for the 2 way peg.)
3 - The sidechain has checkpoints (Every bitcoin block forces a checkpoint for the sidechain for more security.)
4 - CommonCoin pruning. After perhaps 1000 blocks all transactions that are now longer needed (Because a certain amount of CommonCoin has been pegged back into bitcoin) are deleted fully to make the sidechain very efficient.
Are these possible? And regardless to whether they are possible, would they be worth it? I really think we need 1 and 2 for bitcoin to compete with creditcard point of sale, although 3 and 4 might not actually make the sidechain better as it's just my ramblings.
|
|
|
|
Hey, The chat with Ken has caused much speculation. I have pulled some of the main useful bits of information and added them to my moderated 'knowledge' thread, but people want to dicuss this IRC chat so I decided to move that conversation here. IRC Chat 8th December with Ken: http://pastebin.com/rYFm41U5My Moderated thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=361930.0Begin conversation:
Dec 08 03:42:57 <AMC-CEO> No, nothing to do with them, he had a number of shares of ActiveMining that we have attached with a lien. Dec 08 03:43:08 <zefyr0s> ahh that works Dec 08 03:43:26 <AMC-CEO> So, we got luckly. Dec 08 03:43:53 <[8]> Seems fair enough. Dec 08 03:45:45 <AMC-CEO> So, we will sell them to cover the 106 plus legal fees. Dec 08 03:46:27 <chairforce1> sell the shares? Dec 08 03:46:42 <AMC-CEO> Yes Dec 08 03:47:13 <chairforce1> well this is putting a lot of faith in having enough volume to carry out that trade Dec 08 03:47:20 <zefyr0s> err that's a bunch of shares Dec 08 03:47:43 <AMC-CEO> Not all at once.  looooo *Dec 08 04:02:26 <AMC-CEO> As, I said above, I can only release certain information in our Announcement thread, due to SEC reg. Ken can't talk about chips because da SEC The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares  (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. Have to agree with that. Was it AcTM's money on there or is Ken doing this to make up for money he lost? I doubt he'll put up a sell wall at the start of trading though. From my understanding he will let the buyers/sellers determine the price and go from there. The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. Have to agree with that. Was it AcTM's money on there or is Ken doing this to make up for money he lost? I doubt he'll put up a sell wall at the start of trading though. From my understanding he will let the buyers/sellers determine the price and go from there. It's ActM's according to the Nov 30th Announcement: Bitfunder/WeExchange Problems:
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be. This 106 BTC has been deducted from our liquid cash position above.
The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. Have to agree with that. Was it AcTM's money on there or is Ken doing this to make up for money he lost? I doubt he'll put up a sell wall at the start of trading though. From my understanding he will let the buyers/sellers determine the price and go from there. It's ActM's according to the Nov 30th Announcement: Bitfunder/WeExchange Problems:
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be. This 106 BTC has been deducted from our liquid cash position above.
Thank you Good news everyone! Another reason why Ken can't provide info: Dec 08 04:13:24 <Kleeck> It seems that once you're shipping miners the information is public - so why not control the flow of information by releasing your own perfomance video/announcement? Dec 08 04:13:55 <AMC-CEO> Well, it takes a lot of time, I am going to be very busy, do some programming in the next few weeks.  *The entire thing is pretty lulzy, here's the pastebin link: http://pastebin.com/rYFm41U5**Dec 08 04:15:10 <AMC-CEO> I know, but do remember when we had one and a board, what did they do. Dec 08 04:15:25 <Kleeck> Not get much information from you, if I recall. Dec 08 04:15:31 <Kleeck> And then get frustrated and leave. Dec 08 04:16:03 <AMC-CEO> I trusted them, so now it takes a lot more for me to trust someone. We will get one when the time is right. ***Dec 08 04:19:38 <AMC-CEO> I am not ignore shareholders, you have to understand that in our internet world information travels fast to our competition and vendors and customers. ****Dec 08 04:20:30 <AMC-CEO> Just talked to eASIC on Friday and they are getting a lot of emails from Investors, which is buging them. *****Dec 08 04:24:38 <AMC-CEO> Investors want to know every detail. Dec 08 04:24:47 <Kleeck> We aren't asking for every detail. Dec 08 04:24:48 <zefyr0s> would be happy with some Dec 08 04:25:06 <AMC-CEO> I gave you some and you are still not happy. Lol, please read the whole thing -- i just realized i'm posting the entire thing in small chunks The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. Have to agree with that. Was it AcTM's money on there or is Ken doing this to make up for money he lost? I doubt he'll put up a sell wall at the start of trading though. From my understanding he will let the buyers/sellers determine the price and go from there. Yes if they are sold it will be supported by buyers, but at least it gives some kind of leverage before they are actually sold (that would mean all hope to see those 106 BTC is lost). The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Not to the shareholders trying to unload their shares (Those shares have to be sold) I'm not even sure it was ActM or Ken's coin. Have to agree with that. Was it AcTM's money on there or is Ken doing this to make up for money he lost? I doubt he'll put up a sell wall at the start of trading though. From my understanding he will let the buyers/sellers determine the price and go from there. Yes if they are sold it will be supported by buyers, but at least it gives some kind of leverage before they are actually sold (that would mean all hope to see those 106 BTC is lost). Why would you think it gives leverage? Depending upon how many shares are involved Ukyo is likely to be very pleased with swapping worthless stock for 106 BTC.
Feel free to continue the discussion about the chat here: |
|
|
|
Please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=361930.msg7133625#msg7133625 for latest information.ActiveMining is currently under investigation from Missouri Securities Division.Until the investigation concludes; 99% of trading and all dividends are suspended.
Please do not be offended if I delete your post!!! Most of the deleted posts are simply me consolidating information to make the thread have a higher signal:noise ratio!This thread is not a replacement for any other ActiveMining thread, but rather a gathering of information. Feel free to post information or even ask questions. Questions that have no answer will be considered information because a negative can still tell a story. Because I want the thread to be very high density in information, I may delete valid posts and consolidate the information on the front page. I will leave long discussions alone as long as they are making decent progress in developing an idea and it would be difficult for me to take that discussion and summarize the facts. See my "Notes" post below to see opinions on the information. Please note that some information is speculation and other information is confirmed by Ken. If it's confirmed by Ken I will quote the appropriate post.
What is the expected timeline for chips?Based on Ken's responses in the thread, the current estimate is around January. I want the whole month of December and January. When can we expect trading to begin on CryptoTrade?This estimate was made on the 8/9th December 2013: The security is ready but the time consuming part is Ken setting up the process where we can claim shares and this being loaded into accounts on the CryptoTrade platform. My own estimate is within the next 10 days. When can we expect dividend payouts to resume?This estimate was made on the 8/9th December 2013:Once all the shares are allocated on CryptoTrade dividend payments should resume. One unknown is what happens if there are lots of unallocated shares for a long time? I assume Ken will hold back the dividend for those shares until the shareholders go through the process, and this should not affect us. Therefore we might get the dividend in the first week once we trade. What 'product' was sent out to the customer?This estimate was made on the 8/9th December 2013:Due to the fact that the large manual payments have stopped being added into the mining address we can assume the shipped product was infact a miner using the eASIC chips. However nothing can be confirmed until a customer receives this product and posts a tear down analysis on the forum. Another possibility:Just going to make a little prediction here - the products which shipped were probably Fast-Hash-80's which are the avalon clones.
Has Ken got a solution to the funds being held/lost by Ukyo?We believe Ken will seize Ukyo's shares in ActiveMining as an exchange for the lost funds. The fact that he can seize Ukyo's shares is actually good news.
Bitfunder/WeExchange Problems:
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be. This 106 BTC has been deducted from our liquid cash position above.
Please note that if the shares are sold off too low or too fast we may never get that 106 Bitcoin back. What is intellihash?Possibilities:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3906441#msg3906441This was deleted from the thread: IntelliHash
I can't see how intellihash could possibly work... the only thing it possibly could be is an over-clocking utility. It cannot change a chip (Ken said it would work on avalons too), it cannot fake proof-of-work (and if it can, bitcoin is broken), so the only option is an over-clocking utility. Which would be coherent with the 20% increase quoted, as that would be about the max you could reliably overclock.
TLDR; IntelliHash is, in my judgement, an overclocking utility. Perhaps this is on the right track?
TimelineI've brought this timeline over from the other thread as I think it may be useful to keep a copy here. The dates in bold are confirmed by announcements, while the others are projected from estimated timelines in the prospectus. - 26th July [source] - Ken estimates two weeks for NRE to be paid (during visit to eASIC)
- 3rd August [source] - Ken returns from his trip to eASIC and the Engineering firm
- 4th August [source] - Ken posts to say he is busy working on eASIC deal
- (sometime before August 28th) [used for guesstimates below] - NRE Funds paid
- 28th August [source] - Ken confirms NRE funds were converted 'some time ago'
- 4th September [source] - eASIC issue press release
- 12th September [source] - Avalon refund confirmed as having been received
- 1st November [original guesstimate] - Chip samples delivered in 9 weeks;
- 30th October [source] - Ken announces gradual hashrate increase including 'other resources' [source]
- 25th November [original guesstimate] - Low-volume chip production starting in 12 weeks, using an e-beam process;
- 30th November [source] - Ken announces delays due to further R&D and upcoming Intellihash(tm) technology
- 12th December [source] - Weekly announcement states "we are continuing to bring in all the parts for mass production of our miners"
- 18th December [source] - Weekly announcement states "working with eASIC and our engineers to get our chip and boards in full production"
- 25th December [source] - Weekly announcement states "working on assembling [for] when our boards and chips arrive"
- 24th December - 9th January [original guesstimate] - Normal volume chip production starting in 16-18 weeks.
- 1st January [source] - Weekly announcement states "The new year looks bright ... as we continue to assemble our miners for quick delivery"
- 9th January [source] - Weekly announcement states "engineers are still designing our board ... hired ... competent RTL design team to make sure ... Low-Power and ... most speed from the chip"
- 15th January [source] - Weekly announcement states "in San Jose working with our partners ... The RTL problem has been solved ..."
- 27th February - 10th March - assuming an 8 week delay (from Jan 9) or 12 week delay (from Nov 30), chips may be forthcoming at this point in time
* Note: As of 30th November, probable delays have been introduced into the timeline. (I will be trying to keep this updated as more facts are revealed. In an effort to keep this thread tidy, please PM me with any suggestions.)
|
|
|
|
I am trying to build a simple Bitcoin price model in matlab. I have a starting price, around $10 beginning of this year and want to model the values if the price ends up at $10,000 at the end of 2014. I believe that a linear progression is inaccurate ($5,000 end of this year) and want to run a for loop (in weeks) progressing the price each week using a logarithmic increase. How would I set up a logarithmic "for loop"? This works for linear increase but does not represent reality at all: startPrice = 10;
endPrice = 10000;
years = 2;
days = years * ( 365 );
price = startPrice;
week = 0;
difference = (startPrice - endPrice) / days;
for day=1:days
price = price - difference;
if mod(day, 7) == 0
week = week + 1;
fprintf('Week %3i | Price: %4.2f\n',week, price)
end
end
Also, if you think a logarithmic model is inaccurate please explain why. |
|
|
|
Ripple is now open source: https://ripple.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3718&p=18013Conveniently released around the same time as a new scaremongering campaign against bitcoin:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=344522.0Much like Mercedes was probably a Ripple shill talking down Bitcoin, it would not surprise me if all this news is a coordinated attack on Bitcoin. But of course, XRP is "not" a currency and in "no" way competes with Bitcoin. If you believe that then you have already failed to protect Bitcoin. Google will move to integrate Ripple into Gmail and spread its adoption. EDIT: Ok it was released a month ago, my bad. But still... I really think we have to watch these guys, Google has been pushing blacklists and other things through Mike to worsen Bitcoin and they also invest in Ripple. |
|
|
|
|
