I think you have set the description of that address to the value you wanted signed (most likely accidentally).
You can change it to whatever you like.
Where? But ALL payments that I receive are like that, even the new ones I receive >.> Select the receiving address in Multibit and you should see a field called "Label". Verify the label is blank. You might have mistakenly put a label which is visible on all transactions being done from/to this address.  |
|
|
|
It was a good read, thanks! NEOS will be turning a year old soon, yay! You said it right, how time flies! Thanks for continuously being on your toe for the development, the future definitely looks bright! |
|
|
|
What are you thinking about now? I would hate to be in your shoes at least when I purchased my share in Bitcoin they were below the current price but I do regret not selling at least 25% at $1000 now.
I bought a single Bitcoin at $1000+ level, but I kept accumulating what I could during the gradual price decline. All that time I knew about the risks involved if the price continued to decline (and also the 'opportunities' involved if the price shot back up). And I invested only what I could afford to lose. So there is really no reason to complain or whine about it, I just chose to play a gamble and I was always ready to take a hit. So no surprizes here. I never sold any BTC and I still have all I bought ever. I still don't see the point in selling nw, especially when my buying price was higher than current price. If I sell now, I am certainly making a loss. - And I invested only what I could lose, so no worries. If I HODL now and if there is any chance the price will shoot back up, I am making no loss, so no worries. JUST HODL AND BE HAPPY. |
|
|
|
I've been involved with bitcoin for 18 months & posting on here for nearly a year, I'm a Senior Member & this is the 1st time I've ever been into this thread. Jeez, I've been missing out haha, always one to enjoy seeing what crazy stuff I could buy with bitcoin, this thread is defo going on my watch list. If I get the balls to do it I might buy some of the crazy stuff people recommend here, not a goat though  It is a lovely goat. Look at the horns! |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I signed my first message 1 week ago in Multibit and now ALL payments that I receive, the respective description turns into the message I signed... Anyone can help me out with this?
What do you mean by 'respective description'? Can you post a screenshot? (You can hide certain things if you don't want to share them, just show us how the 'description' looks like in wallet) |
|
|
|
You will need a billion years to mine single satoshi with this Yep, going by the calculations showcased in the article, it will take about 40,000 times the current age of the universe to find a block!  But it was purely for experimental reasons and it was a cool idea  |
|
|
|
|
I was using the command-line wallet until now. I have just downloaded the GUI wallet, which gave me a new address. Now:
1. How do I transfer my address from command-line wallet to GUI wallet?
2. Does the new wallet even support multiple addresses?
3. If not, what is the solution for me so that I can keep both of my addresses?
|
|
|
|
How is the development going without the core developer? What are you talking about? The core devs at Doge are solid keeping the code up to date than most coins. He's probably talking about the dogecoin founder Jackson Palmer leaving. There are plenty of core devs still working on dogecoin though, so his fears are unjustified. Yes, that's what i was talking about. About the founder. I didn't know there was a whole team of coders working on it. Good going, keep it up! |
|
|
|
Carra told me in PM that ndnhc will return this coming week. Looking at the post just above you, it doesn't look like ndnhc will return. Even if he does, the community will never accept him as the campaign manager now. |
|
|
|
Interestingly, after you started this thread, the user 'question 2' edited his post you quoted above and modified the BTC address. The address quoted in the post above is: 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97Yy1XAuEBut if you look at the post in question now, the address is: 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97YyIXAuENotice that he has changed "1" to "I" He edited his post around 4 hours after you posted this thread. He probably noticed he was caught and tried to create a defence by editing the post but failed badly. |
|
|
|
Why? Just Why? People get such wacky ideas sometimes. It is a tremendous amount of fun to see, but who would come up with an idea like that lol.
The title of this thread isn't very accurate. The article described is one guy that tried to implement the SHA256 function on a computer that's well over 50 years old. He talks about the difficulties he ran into and the incredible slowness. He wasn't trying to suggest that it made sense, any more than a "old car" guy tries to suggest that a car from the 1960"s compare favorably to a car today. I expect that his motivations were similar to that of the "old car guy" (IMHO). I found it very entertaining. Exactly. The guy who carried out this experiment has also put a disclaimer at the end: "I would like to be clear that I am not actually mining real Bitcoin on the IBM 1401the Computer History Museum would probably disapprove of that. As I showed above, there's no way you could make money off mining on the IBM 1401. I did, however, really implement and run the SHA-256 algorithm on the IBM 1401, showing that mining is possible in theory. And if you're wondering how I found a successful hash, I simply used a block that had already been mined: block #286819." |
|
|
|
I wonder how much coin they made back then...
From the article: "To summarize, to mine a block at current difficulty, the IBM 1401 would take about 5x10^14 years (about 40,000 times the current age of the universe)." |
|
|
|
There was an email on the 24th of May, 2015.
I certainly did not get it, and I asked a few people from whom nobody got it either. It might be an issue with certain email providers, because most of the users received the email fine. I also received it with no problem. Here's the full text of the email: from: noreply@bitcointalk.org
to: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
date: 25 May 2015 at 20:41
subject: Bitcoin Forum: Password change required
mailed-by: bitcointalk.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----
Hash: SHA256
You are receiving this message because your email address is associated
with an account on bitcointalk.org. I regret to have to inform you that
some information about your account was obtained by an attacker who
successfully compromised the bitcointalk.org server. The following
information about your account was likely leaked:
- Email address
- Password hash
- Last-used IP address and registration IP address
- Secret question and a basic (not brute-force-resistant) hash of your
secret answer
- Various settings
You should immediately change your forum password and delete or change
your secret question. To do this, log into the forum, click "profile",
and then go to "account related settings".
If you used the same password on bitcointalk.org as on other sites, then
you should also immediately change your password on those other sites.
Also, if you had a secret question set, then you should assume that the
attacker now knows the answer to your secret question.
Your password was salted and hashed using sha256crypt with 7500 rounds.
This will slow down anyone trying to recover your password, but it will
not completely prevent it unless your password was extremely strong.
While nothing can ever be ruled out in these sorts of situations, I do
not believe that the attacker was able to collect any forum personal
messages.
I apologize for the inconvenience and for any trouble that this may cause.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF4EAREIAAYFAlVhiGIACgkQxlVWk9q1keeUmgEAhGi8pTghxISo1feeXkUMhW3a
uKxLeOOkTQR5Zh7aGKoBAMEvYsGEBGt3hzInIh+k43XJjGYywSiPAal1KI7Arfs0
=bvuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Someone Tried to Mine Bitcoin on a 1960s Punchcard ComputerIt long ago stopped being profitable (or even feasible) to mine Bitcoin on consumer-level hardware. So why not try it out on a computer primarily used by forward-thinking universities—an IBM mainframe that runs on assembly punchcards from the 1960s—to see whether or not it can compete with today's dedicated mining machines? Ken Shirriff, a computer engineer, blogger, and retro hardware enthusiast, decided to find out. It ended as you might expect. The Computer History Museum's mainframe was indeed able to solve Bitcoin hashes—a series of math problems that are used to verify other users' Bitcoin transactions—but it did so at impossibly slow rates. "While modern hardware can compute billions of hashes per second, the 1401 takes 80 seconds to compute a single hash," Shirriff wrote. "It would take more than the lifetime of the universe to successfully mine a block." It looks like the IBM 1401 would be slightly more efficient than mining Bitcoin by hand. In practical terms, none of those mining techniques make any damn sense.  Source:http://motherboard.vice.com/read/someone-tried-to-mine-bitcoin-on-a-1960s-punchcard-computerhttp://www.righto.com/2015/05/bitcoin-mining-on-55-year-old-ibm-1401.html
|
|
|
|
How do I get hotmail to accept the mail from bitcointalk?
I am not using Hotmail, but are you receiving forum emails in 'Junk' folder or you're not receiving them at all? If you're receiving them in Junk, it should be very easy to just mark them as 'Not Junk'. If you're not receiving them altogether, you should find out if Hotmail allows 'white-listing' specific domains or email addresses, like MZ suggested above. |
|
|
|
2. Some wallets, e.g. Electrum, do not consider an address as "used" until it is associated with a transaction with a certain number of confirmations. If a wallet user asks for a new receive address, they will be presented with the same address as previously displayed until it is considered "used" by the above criterion. (In the Electrum case, they can manually choose an address which they believe has not yet been given out, but they must keep track of this themselves.)
Isn't this the case with every Bitcoin wallet out there? You misunderstand what I was trying to say (or rather I wasn't being very clear). When you hit the "give me a new receive address" button, some wallets will [try to *] always generate a new address. Other wallets will choose a currently unused address, although it may be an address that's been displayed to the user previously. Electrum is of the latter type—it's easy to mistakenly give the same address to multiple people as long as the address has no current transactions associated with it. [....] Ahh! I understand your pint of view now! And yes, your concern is very understandable, makes sense. I would also like a wallet to give me a completely new address instead of pulling out an already generated address that is not currently being used. |
|
|
|
2. Some wallets, e.g. Electrum, do not consider an address as "used" until it is associated with a transaction with a certain number of confirmations. If a wallet user asks for a new receive address, they will be presented with the same address as previously displayed until it is considered "used" by the above criterion. (In the Electrum case, they can manually choose an address which they believe has not yet been given out, but they must keep track of this themselves.)
Isn't this the case with every Bitcoin wallet out there? I mean, which wallet keeps track of the already generated addresses? If they could, how will the concept of a completely secure cold storage work? And aren't the chances of generating same address twice so low you can just not bother about it? Math:
7 billion people generating 1 million addresses per second for 100 years yields:
7×109×106×3600×24×365×100 = 2.20752×10²⁵ addresses generated
There are 2160 (1.46×10⁴⁸) possible addresses, so the chance of one of the ~2×10²⁵ addresses being one of the 1.46*1048 addresses is 1 in 6.6×10²².
The chance of winning the Powerball jackpot once is 1 in 175 million. Winning twice is 175M2: (175×106)2 = 1 in 3.0625×10¹⁶.
So it's more likely to win the Poweball jackpot twice, than it is for 7 billion PCs, each generating 1 million addresses per second for 100 years to generate the same address.Source:http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/215gsv/can_two_people_accidentally_generate_the_same/ |
|
|
|
|
Although there is less and less activity from forum members on this thread for past several weeks, the development seems to be happening consistently with newer features introduced at regular intervals.
Good going, devs. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
