|
22
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: What's the best api to use for bitcoin payment project
|
on: June 09, 2016, 01:26:40 PM
|
Hi, I want my users to deposit btc funds into their accounts on my website, am exploring 2 ways to do it: - Embedding bitcoind into my server: most trustable, but needs 80Gb Disk and 2G of ram for it, and python libs are complex/undocumented
- Relying on blockchain.info wallet api: simple and quick time-to-market, but they are slow at reponding to my request for an api key access
What do you think guys ? You could run a pruning node and not need the whole 80 GB of disk space, supposing that you don't care about having record of Satoshi giving Hal his first Bitcoins, and just want generate and monitor new addresses on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
24
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Halvings
|
on: May 30, 2016, 06:18:11 PM
|
Lost coins is unquantifiable. What if we start basing assumptions on what coins we think are "lost" only to later find out those coins weren't lost after all?
In my opinion it doesn't take rocket science to know that the supply is shrinking faster than most people expect. Lost coins is a very frequent thing, sometimes it happens in big amounts. You can go on Reddit and you can read how a bunch of idiots that don't take the required security measures are always losing coins. Now, add in all the unreported coin losing and you will see how people losing coins forever is a very frequent thing. This + halving = the total supply is shrinking fast and Bitcoin will continue getting rarer and more valued. Lost coins are far different than stolen coins. Lost coins are coins whose private key is lost, and therefore unspendable, not just under someone else's control. And it's pretty much impossible to demonstrate a lost key is actually lost. I could say "hey I lost my key and deleted my wallet.dat and 10,000 btc were lost", but woe to whoever revalues Bitcoin on that assumption, as I could have just been making that up to attempt to distort the price. So no. Unless coins are sent to a burn address, it's dangerous to assume any coins that someone says are lost actually are. Surely there's some, but how do we actually evaluate any of those claims? |
|
|
|
|
25
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: What's the best api to use for bitcoin payment project
|
on: May 30, 2016, 02:26:33 PM
|
|
I have similar idea, collect payments (or at least, monitor bitcoin addresses to check if they've received payment), and am downloading the blockchain as we speak. No offense to the guys at blockchain.info, they did great work originally (or maybe because there weren't any other options back then), but there have been enough lapses with them and other services... seems much more straight forward to simply check the payment status yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Halvings
|
on: May 30, 2016, 02:21:31 PM
|
isn't the point of fee to keep the network alive? we have enough time to build the value, so by the time fee will be crucial for mining, they would have a very high value, and miners would keep mining without problem
Fees would/should keep it alive in the long term. But without starting a flame war, most of the hopes for scaling involve off-chain scaling, which effectively removes those transactions from the population that miners could hope to eventually collect fees on. |
|
|
|
|
27
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Halvings
|
on: May 29, 2016, 06:55:48 PM
|
|
Lost coins is unquantifiable. What if we start basing assumptions on what coins we think are "lost" only to later find out those coins weren't lost after all?
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: More Signatures with Repeated Nonces.
|
on: April 10, 2016, 12:48:17 AM
|
|
I would have thought that among all the other noise that an RNG should be using to seed itself, one of those inputs would be tied to the date and time? So that even if you had cloned a VM, and started it a few days late, it would have new seed data to generate randoms from than the original before it was cloned?
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Getting closer to Halving but .. no increase ?
|
on: March 23, 2016, 07:46:09 PM
|
Is it normal ? I wasn't here when the old halving block rewards happened before so I'm not sure how things work exactly but logically ... should we see a price increase (at least little bit) since we are getting closer and closer ?
There is no "normal". One halving has occurred so far. The price reacted long after. Was it because of the halving? Was it because of the sustained attention that Bitcoin was getting due to Ross Ulbrichts arrest? Or was it because of shenanigans at Mark Karpeles's exchange, a bot running rampant, trading coins that didn't actually exist? So, no there's no reason to think that it's a given that the price should increase, just wishful thinking on everyone's behalf. |
|
|
|
|
30
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 2MB Pros and Cons
|
on: March 10, 2016, 04:45:41 PM
|
|
Pro:
Makes sustained spam attacks much more costly to accomplish.
(Basically, doubles the cost of an attack, or limits its duration to 1/2 as long)
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
Economy / Services / Re: Decode this url For 1$ in BTC
|
on: March 10, 2016, 04:42:30 PM
|
|
It's encrypted. No way for any of us to know - the urls referenced could indeed be decoded to valid URL's, or they could decode to ID's or keys for the server to look up from its database. So, unless the developer sucks, we really oughtn't be able to find out.
Maybe you could visit a couple, so that we can see what the decoded text is, and try to determine if it's something thats' encoded or being looked up.
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal!
|
on: February 04, 2016, 07:04:35 PM
|
This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.
These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made. Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 1750 - 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. Unnecessary as it, can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that. I would love to know the validation time of a 24 GB block on the latest CPU's. 
What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN are almost equally as secure, cheaper and the network being decentralized as well? Why can't people differentiate between scaling Bitcoin to handle current transaction loads and future loads? We don't have to worry about how long a 24 GB block will take to verify on current CPU's because today's CPUs will never see such a block. It's like Adams IEEE interview where he talk about the downside of 1gb blocks, despite the fact that such blocks are nowhere on alternative roadmap for years.... Decades, even |
|
|
|
|
37
|
Economy / Services / Re: i need someone hack my wallet. 3000$ prize
|
on: December 22, 2015, 12:08:15 PM
|
Interesting, are you willing to escrow the $3000 USD prize for to a trusted escrow while the boys in this forum try to hack your wallet?
Why should he need to escrow anything? If someone gets into his wallet for him, it's on them to return the coins to him. They could just as easily keep all the coins, but instead are being trusted to keep $3000 worth and return the rest to OP. Doesn't seem like there's any need to escrow anything. |
|
|
|
|
38
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Why do withdrawals take so long from exchanges?
|
on: December 22, 2015, 12:04:09 PM
|
|
Exchanges have been hosed in the past; many are remiss to fully automate withdrawals, lest something go wrong and they find out all their coins have disappeared. Plus, fee-wise, it's more efficient to batch withdrawals together in as big of transactions as possible.
If you need your coins to be spendable at a moments notice, you ought to keep them in a wallet you control, not in someone else's hands.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
