Bitcoin Forum
February 22, 2024, 11:52:35 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Any Bitcoiners want to get in touch on Google plus? on: August 03, 2011, 09:20:15 AM
Jashan Chittesh - Google Profile
https://profiles.google.com/u/0/115489765779427718058
2  Other / Off-topic / Re: A strike against PayPal has started - #OpPaypal on: July 28, 2011, 09:47:44 AM
#oppaypal is top in Twitter's trendlist in Germany. [EDIT: And second in Australia] This is big!

Now post #oppaypal and links to the best articles you can find about bitcoin with #oppaypal and #bitcoin on Twitter, Facebook ... whereever you can. Let's push this a little ;-)
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Googlebomb: Bitcoin on the Road to Mainstream on: July 08, 2011, 06:24:51 AM
Search terms are:
 1.  is bitcoin unstoppable
 2.  bitcoin better than USD
 3.  bitcoin scam

It seems like this worked pretty well for 1 and 2 but not so great for 3. But IMHO, 3 would be the most important.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MASSIVE BOTNET - powered by bitcoin? on: June 30, 2011, 07:45:47 AM
BITCOIN IS A VIRUS?

Didn't you know? It's a wetware virus! Once you get in touch with it, it's in your brains and takes hold, making sure your attention is constantly on forum.bitcoin.org and bitcoincharts.com.

The good news: Eventually, it'll make you insanely rich. Always, inevitably and for certain ;-)
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Trading so slow and flat = boredom on: June 29, 2011, 08:47:30 AM
Seriously, if it's just going to hang out at 17.0 all day, I can find better things to speculate with.  Roll Eyes

I really hope that's what a lot of the people speculating with Bitcoins think. I'm sorry this is spoiling the fun for you - but people speculating like crazy with Bitcoins is spoiling the fun for the people actually using Bitcoins and that's the people who actually give Bitcoin true value. Driving them away is one of the things you can do to assure that Bitcoin will eventually die.

So less people speculating with Bitcoins won't hurt the Bitcoin economy. Quite the contrary.

It'll become fun for you again when the dollar dies and everyone tries to escape to Bitcoin. Let's hope this happens when Bitcoin is already more or less well established. The wise thin
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is there a way to track how many people use Bitcoin? on: June 28, 2011, 03:56:01 PM
One thing we know for sure is that there were around 60,000 people trading on Mt.Gox. No wait - 60,000 *accounts* on Mt.Gox. So, my guess is "anything between 50,000 and 100,000". But that's kind of a wild guess.

Would be nice to have a way to really track the number but that's probably hard given the peer-to-peer-nature of Bitcoin.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Local Coin - The solution to an internetless world. on: June 28, 2011, 03:53:33 PM
IMHO, what you need to establish these days are two things:

a) A way to pay globally on the Internet. Bitcoin. Solved.

b) A local network of people that you trust and which can provide all the local services / stuff you need. In particular food.

I don't see Bitcoin particularly useful for local trades. Of course, it can be used - but it's not really what I'd want to use it for. There's networks for b) emerging in most places and there's nothing keeping you from creating one of your own. When things go well, it will have been a nice experience ... if things go really really bad (and it's not unlikely that bad stuff is going to happen in many locations), it'll be very helpful. Well, not in all cases ... I just thought of Fukushima as an example of how things can go "really really bad" - unfortunately, in that case your local network will be kind of useless because you have to change location. However, if there's a total financial collapse, or electricity breaks down on a large scale where you live, that kind of network *will* be helpful.

If you've done your homework with b), an "internetless world" will be inconvenient but you'll easily survive. If you haven't ... you're taking a risk ;-)
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Subscriptions / recurring payments / standing orders on: June 28, 2011, 05:48:11 AM
And one person with an interest in getting them into the chain is better than 1,000 people with no such interest.

So, what would be needed is that the merchant "client" recognizes those timed transaction, stores them and retransmits them when the time is due, right? How can this be achieved?

You can cancel it at any time.

Is there a mechanism that assures that when I cancel the timed transaction, and the merchant has stored it and retransmits it, it's still cancelled?
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Subscriptions / recurring payments / standing orders on: June 27, 2011, 11:36:03 AM
Ah, cool - I wasn't aware this already exists. So, probably 3rd party services aren't even needed - awesome, that simplifies things.

Are there any other fields currently not exposed that one should be aware of? Is there documentation available or does one have to read the source code to get that kind of information? Would that be: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification ? So that would be lock_time there, right?
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So, how many of you were hoping the price would fall off a cliff? on: June 27, 2011, 11:30:11 AM
I think what happened shows a couple of things:

a) Waiting this long was wise (even though they probably didn't do it intentionally ;-) )

b) Bitcoin is more stable than many people believe it is

c) Bitcoin successfully dealt with the first really severe attack

So it's all good news! ;-) Right on!!!
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Shift the decimal point over? on: June 27, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Bitcoin it is a currency anti inflation, and it is best to reflect that fact.

That's why I believe it is important to make that change as soon as possible. Currently, there's only around 60.000 people trading with Bitcoin at Mt.Gox. That's almost nothing compared to what it will very likely be in 3 months, 6 months, 12 months. So, while such a change already is kind of painful, the longer we wait, the more painful it become.

Mathematically, it may not make a difference - but what matters is the difference in perception: No one wants to work with a currency where you have to do transactions like 0.0001 BTC sent over. That simply doesn't work. However, sending around 100 uBTC seems reasonable. The way I see it, Bitcoin is especially interesting for microtransactions - and for that specific use case, the current way the decimal is handled is just wrong.

Of course, that kind of change must be communicated wisely ...
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Subscriptions / recurring payments / standing orders on: June 26, 2011, 01:11:30 PM
There may be more pressing issues right now, like wallet encryption and backup - but one issue I feel is a major limitation for quite a few use cases is that currently, there's no way of doing automatic recurring payments, e.g. for subscriptions.

Use case (this is just one example): A subscription based game service (multiplayer game). Players subscribe to the service and agree to do recurring payments. With the current client, I don't see a way to do this in any way that's convenient for the player. And when it's not convenient for the endusers, it will simply not be done. Other businesses that could benefit from such a feature would be magazines; for-pay online services (news services, professional networks etc.); support contracts and so on.

So, IMHO, as payments can only really be done from the client, the client needs some sort of subscription / recurring payment management. Basically, all it has to do is check whether there are any open recurring payments and if so, send them out. In case the client wasn't run for a longer while and it missed payments, the system might warn the user. The receiver would need to check if the subscription is still valid by checking whether or not the payment arrived in due time. So, the client would be responsible for sending it timely (one part of the "official protocol" could be: "subscriptions are cancelled by not paying in time"; and previous subscriptions could be resumed by paying again).

If you only switch your computer on every 3 days, you might want to send the payments 3 days early so you don't accidentally cancel one of your subscriptions. If you're away for a month, you might decide to do any upcoming payments for that time period immediately (which means that the receivers must be able to handle multiple simultaneous incoming payments; in other words: when I have a monthly subscription, and I get two payments one would be used for the current month, and the other one for the next).

Still, the greatest limitation of such a system is obviously that it only works when the user starts the client. So it should probably also be available for mobile, and ideally sync between different clients. It should be possible to prevent double-spending via the ordinary P2P-protocol (get the latest transactions from the blockchain, check if the necessary transaction was already done, if not, do it now). There's a little risk for simultaneous transactions - but that can be minimized by properly timing the different clients (e.g. have one client set to 8am, the other to 8pm, so there's 12 hours for the payment of the first client to distribute the transaction).

There might be optional 3rd party services that do the automated payments for you when you're offline (or even in general, if you so wish). Those could charge a little fee on top of the actual subscription rate. It should probably be a hard rule that each subscription *must* have its own receiving address (I think synching payments by receiving address is the most straightforward to implement). Using such a third party service, you could make sure that your local client sends the payment a day early; so usually the service would recognize it's already paid for and not do the transaction (which would save you the transaction fees). Only when your local client misses, it would kick in.

What might be really nice with such a system implemented directly into the client is that you have one central place where you store all the subscriptions you have. And unless you use a 3rd party service, your local computer is the only place where all your subscriptions are stored. Obviously, the client should provide some data with the subscription, like "Website of service provider", maybe even "terms and conditions that apply to the subscription", contact details. Basically, everything that's relevant to the subscription or pointers to that.

While having the currency itself decentralized, it's certainly much more customer friendly when we have all our subscriptions managed in one place (this is also one of the key selling factors for Apple's App Store subscriptions ... but they take 30%, and they all your subscriptions on their servers ... that's the problem when 3rd parties are involved; in the Bitcoin approach, 3rd parties would be completely optional). If there's 3rd party providers handling the payment of the subscriptions for you (as outlined above), there could be a protocol with which you can connect your client to your service provider, decide which subscription they should do, over which time that should work and transfer both the subscriptions and a few BTC so they can be paid for (and the subscriptions could automatically be sent with the "1-day delay" so things work smoothly without having to think of too much complex stuff ;-) ).

My feeling is that this can really be done in a way that makes it very easy and safe for the user, even though there might be quite a bit of complexity going on in the background.

So when this is done right, it could be one more step in Bitcoin taking over the world. While it's obviously possible to implement that as an extension, my feeling is that it would be wise to have this as a part of the "main package" because that way, a standard could be created that other implementations can follow. Ideally, if you change clients, your subscriptions would still work on the new client. IMHO, aside from some other, smaller usability issues and some pressing security issues, that's one "big thing" that could help Bitcoin become interesting for the masses.

There already are subscription services by Apple, and I think something similar is also available for Android (any PayPal also has it), and as a developer I can say: This is really great, I'd love to use it - BUT: I really don't want a 3rd party to take 30% ... and I think there's quite a few developers out there feeling that way, too. If Bitcoin could provide an alternative that just works - OMG, that would rock (admittedly, quite a bit of the infrastructure that Apple / Google are providing would have to be done by the developers in the Bitcoin approach; but saving 30% would probably be worth it in many cases ... even if you'd have to add the "Apple way" as an option to comply with their terms in their world)! ;-)

What do you think?
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Shift the decimal point over? on: June 26, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
Agreed.
Any change in the definition of a bitcoin would be suicide.

Repeat after me: There will never be more than 21 million Bitcoins. Ever.

Think about it: 21 million Bitcoins for a global currency?

I might be repeating myself ... but: That might work for the currency of a little city - but for a global scale, it will be by far too little. Ok, they can be divided - but only geeks will work with 0.00001 Bitcoin amounts. Again: That'll work just fine for a niche currency (the currency that only mathematicians use) - but it won't work when Bitcoin scales up to where it will be really disruptive.

So I'd say: Let's switch it over as soon as possible. Let's do it in a way that doesn't scare people away (see link to other thread posted above - by doing it with a couple of steps over a longer period of time it should be easy enough; and that is "as soon as possible" - sooner would in fact very likely be a problem).

Then, we'll have 21 trillion Bitcoins. Sounds much more reasonable to me. That 21 million thing really is a bug (see a few pages above ;-) ).

Let's fix it :-)
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Shift the decimal point over? on: June 25, 2011, 08:51:15 PM
I really liked the solution proposed in:

Solution: How to shift the decimal
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13495.0

Maybe replace uBTC with UBC for now ... eventually (when no one really uses BTC anymore because it's too annoying), we can switch over and make UBC the new BTC and the transition will be complete without anyone being confused. It just takes a little time and patience but it will fix the worst problem Bitcoin currently has (well, except for that it doesn't properly support subscriptions ;-) ).
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A question to all speculators - What if Bitcoins' price just flatline? on: June 24, 2011, 03:38:10 PM
Well, it may flatline for a little while ... eventually, the dollar will crash - and then Bitcoin will rise. Personally, I think it will rise earlier than that. But that's just ... um ... speculation ;-)
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Visa and Banks After BTC on: June 23, 2011, 07:23:00 AM
in fact, it was my first thought that perhaps a bank was behind the hack.   why would an individual take the time and effort to squash the price to zero?  why wouldn't he just steal the bitcoin from an unlimited withdrawal acct before anyone would notice?

no, the intent of the hack was to drive the price down and destroy confidence.

Agreed. Named + verified sources or not - some things are just too obvious. Why would any hacker try to destroy Bitcoin? Why would any criminal try to destroy Bitcoin? Why would any greedy person try to destroy Bitcoin (except for: when they know they can make more money if Bitcoin wasn't there)? Driving the Bitcoin price to $0.01 only makes sense for one very specific rationale: Destroy the market, destroy trust in Bitcoin. So far, it seemingly wasn't too successful.

The really bad news: Given the markets are open to everyone - what keeps them from gradually buying up significant amounts of Bitcoins so they can "play" with the markets whenever they want to? Early adopters owning a significant part of the available Bitcoins could be trouble in theory - but given that they are early adopters and most likely in it because they like Bitcoin and believe in Bitcoin, it's unlikely that this would be a real problem. Banks buying up significant parts, however, would certainly be a severe problem. And at the moment, I can't think of anything that would keep them from doing that. If I was a bank, it would be what I would be doing.

So, everyone: Buy Bitcoin so the banks can't. And don't sell (buy stuff or ... um ... donate to me instead ;-) ) ... we just need to outnumber them in due time!
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What have you purchased with Bitcoin? on: June 23, 2011, 07:03:58 AM
I have purchased USD$ with bitcoin.  I cannot find anything else worthwhile to spend bitcoins on.
This. I made a send BTC button in my browser extension. Few people seem to need it.

Such an extension might actually be useful. But seriously: How can you expect anybody to trust a browser extension that is developed by someone who uses stolen email lists to spam people to use this? No one likes spammers. No one likes people using stuff that was stolen. And no sane person will trust someone like that:

Dear valued bitcoin user,

This e-mail informs about Bitcoin Tool, an opensource
Javascript browser extension for Firefox, Chrome,
and Internet Explorer.

Bitcoin Tool recognizes plain text bitcoin addresses
on every website, and:
* links addresses to blockexplorer.com, to examine BTC sent,
received and number of transactions, with one click
* adds a Select button for easier copy-paste
* adds a Send BTC button (requires bitcoin_httpd)

Already over 120 installs.

The download website with the instalation guide:
userscripts.org/scripts/show/104381

Best regards and good luck in future experiences with bitcoin


==============================================
Click to unsubscribe:
http://userscripts.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=...

Bitcoin Tool
15 Lois Ln.
Greenwood, WV 26415

I hope actually someone in the US will sue you for sending them unsolicited mail to a mail address that was stolen via the Mt.Gox hack (and in general, I'm not a fan of "everyone sues everyone") ... but spammers just deserve any trouble the legal system can give them.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i just made a BIG mistake on: June 17, 2011, 02:15:03 PM
I'm afraid that answers some of the suggestions:

And i deleted it with linux shred, so it really is gone.

If you had just "deleted" it, it would be kind of like putting it into a really huge, ugly, dirty trashcan. In that case, you could dig into that trashcan and maybe recover it. But my understanding is that you've literally burned it.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i just made a BIG mistake on: June 17, 2011, 02:10:43 PM
the wallet.dat file that has the address i sent the btc to, is gone.
...
of course, the file from whence the btc were sent is still very much here on my box right now. But the bitcoin gui is showing an ominous unconfirmed debit.

So, what you basically did is this:

You have Wallet A and Wallet B (think of physical wallets). Wallet B is a new wallet you just bought. It's empty. Then you take some dollar notes from Wallet A (which is full of dollar notes) and put it to Wallet B ("the address I sent the BTC to" = "Wallet B"). So the dollar notes were in Wallet B. Then you took Wallet B and burnt it to ashes.

If you had a backup of Wallet B (done magically with some molecule duplication technology), you'd have Wallet B1 and B2, both providing access to the Bitcoins you sent to Wallet B. Then when you burn B1, it's not a big deal - you still got B2.

In any case: Since you took the Bitcoins / dollar notes out of Wallet A, they're no longer there. So, if you completely emptied Wallet A, you could safely delete / burn Wallet A (however, if anyone ever sends you BTC to an address from Wallet A, those will be lost forever because no one can send them anywhere anymore).
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i just made a BIG mistake on: June 17, 2011, 02:04:35 PM
hello, i was experimenting with moving a little btc money around from one address to another. After doing this i deleted one of the wallet.dat files. Ten minutes later, i moved all my bitcoins to one of my addresses. The trouble is, the wallet with that address was the one i deleted. And i deleted it with linux shred, so it really is gone. Are my btc lost?

Very likely. Sorry to hear that, hope you didn't burn too many Bitoins. But it's kind of like having paper-cash, moving it around different wallets and then throwing one of those wallets into fire.

The difference is that physical wallets are really hard to back up (I'm not aware of any technology that successfully does this). Digital wallets are really easy to back up. One just has to think of it.

That said ... it will be great once the Bitcoin client has some mechanisms for backups / encryption built in.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!