|
Update: Node hosting now available in 8 regions.
|
|
|
|
I'll create you a coin for only 20 BTC  |
|
|
|
Im pretty sure Second Life Lindens and Cryptopias PED's are still in full function.
Not for much longer. Voxelus won't be the only VR app. Fungibility is important. And there is an economy-of-scale with one ecosystem in terms of building all the performance, scaling, anonymity and other features needed in a real-time, virtual currency. Lindens aren't going anywhere anytime soon. The only people left playing Second Life are those that treat the game as their actual life. |
|
|
|
Had a good laugh at this bit. Voxelus allows the 2.5 billion people in the world who have no bank account but have a mobile phone, to create, buy and sell virtual reality content, and it’s just as easy for people in developed countries as well. Implying that those people are capable of creating/using such content...  assuming the team can deliver on their promises. Pretty big assumption given the usual trend of developers jumping ship after collecting IPO money. What's this even based off of? Bitcoin, cryptonote, NXT, or something original? |
|
|
|
|
Right, the problem here is the encrypted wallet. You'll have to import all your keys manually.
First off, take the wallet out of the new dreamcoin folder (so that a new one will be created when you launch the client).
Then, launch the old wallet. Open the debug console and do listunspent. It should show a bunch of addresses. Do
dumpprivkey ADDRESS for each address to get it's private key. In the new client, do importprivkey PRIVATEKEY for each private key.
|
|
|
|
|
Mining is not wasted energy.
|
|
|
|
Pricing reduced across the board (about -30%) in accordance with BTC's recent run-up in value.  New altcoins starting at just 0.15 BTC |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Provably_Unspendable.2FPrunable_OutputsProvably Unspendable/Prunable Outputs
The standard way to mark a transaction as provably unspendable is with a scriptPubKey of the following form:
scriptPubKey: OP_RETURN {zero or more ops}
OP_RETURN immediately marks the script as invalid, guaranteeing that no scriptSig exists that could possibly spend that output. Thus the output can be immediately pruned from the UTXO set even if it has not been spent. eb31ca1a4cbd97c2770983164d7560d2d03276ae1aee26f12d7c2c6424252f29 is an example: it has a single output of zero value, thus giving the full 0.125BTC fee to the miner who mined the transaction without adding an entry to the UTXO set. You can also use OP_RETURN to add data to a transaction without the data ever appearing in the UTXO set, as seen in 1a2e22a717d626fc5db363582007c46924ae6b28319f07cb1b907776bd8293fc; P2Pool does this with the share chain hash txout in the coinbase of blocks it creates. Different usecase indeed! Could counterparty have used OP_RETURN transactions to bootstrap their network? The answer is no, and that's why they used a burn address. https://blockchain.info/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr?offset=450&filter=0Just one of many examples. |
|
|
|
Again, completely different use case. Your knowledge of all this seems cursory at best though, so I forgive you. PS: "highly unlikely to be spent" is probably more misleading than "provably unspendable" in this case because it's incredibly hard for most people to grasp how tiny 1 / 2^128 is. For most people, "highly unlikely" would mean winning the lottery or something similar. |
|
|
|
Nobody claims that Bitcoin addresses are provably unspendable, except for people posting these burn addresses, I don't understand why.
Why not just claim that it's highly unlikely someone will ever spend the funds?
I'm pointing out an error in your title, you should thank me.
Because "addresses that are highly unlikely to ever be spent" sounds a lot clunkier than "provably unspendable addresses" and is totally unnecessary given the impossibility of those addresses ever becoming spendable. There is a clarifying statement within my post, which you clearly did not bother to read: In other words, the chance of anyone guessing the private key to spend the burnt coin at that address is the same as the chance of guessing any private key for any other bitcoin address: practically zero. |
|
|
|
Completely different use case that provides a better solution.
Semantics matter, it's not provable. In fact, quite the opposite for someone with a QC.
Actually, since there has never been a transaction from any of these addresses, the public key has not been exposed to the network, which makes them safe from QC attacks. Anyway, you're grasping at straws if that's your best reason as to why these addresses are a bad idea. Bitcoin would likely die on the spot if QC attacks ever become a thing, so how does it even matter? TIL I learned that 'highly unlikely' = 'provably impossible' By this logic, bitcoin addresses are unsafe because there's a 'highly unlikely' chance that someone could guess your privkey. |
|
|
|
Why not use OP_RETURN, which is provably unspendable?
Please stop saying things are provable which aren't at all.
Completely different use case. But you're right, let me modify my post to say that there is a 1 / 2^128 chance that these address are spendable. It's so infinitesimally low that it effectively does not matter, but please, continue to argue semantics. |
|
|
|
|
Coin has been a scam since day 1... No idea why people are still invested in this. Greed blinds, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Site redesign is live. Let me know what you think and you might get something...  |
|
|
|
|
Weekly special: 10% off paper wallet generator with code paper10
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
