Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:40:41 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 113 »
181  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.6 avaiable on: January 26, 2014, 08:32:46 PM
2014-01-26 Update:

NFTF - version 0.8.6 released.

Fresh tag - nftf-v0.8.6 is avaiable for download.
https://github.com/ShadowOfHarbringer/bitcoin-nftf/tags

MASTER branch was updated to the last tag (0.8.6).
182  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.6 avaiable on: January 26, 2014, 03:23:25 PM
Transactions without the minimum fee will not be relayed. They will not be stored in the memory pools of miners. They will not be included in blocks. As they are ignored, a proper fee double-spend transaction will be included promptly.

The minimum fee rules have been simplified in 0.8.6, which is the network majority. A fee is no longer required just because any one output is smaller that 0.01 BTC (dust < 5.6mBTC invalid rule takes care of spam), but the minimum fee is now required for any transaction over 1kB in size. This is in addition to the requirement that input priority less than 57.6M (1 BTC, 144 blocks old; 0.01 BTC ~100 days old) include minimum fee.

The network is currently a hybrid of old rules and new rules, and some Bitcoins may also be altered from defaults by network members.

If users are inclined to throw caution to the wind and try this out, please back up your wallet.dat immediately before transmitting a transaction. It is much easier to restore a wallet backup than to repair your wallet to remove the will-never-confirm spent coin transaction.
Well, it would seem i have to retest my fork for these new conditions.
For now, i will keep updating. When majority is already using new rules, i will check if there is a point in continuing my fork.
183  Economy / Marketplace / Re: BitMarket.Eu has closed down. A new secure site Bitalo.com is coming soon. on: January 23, 2014, 10:56:43 PM
You will need to wait until they launch a new service, then they will be able to fuck up even more stuff.
Hahahahahaha Cheesy

Splendid post, milord !
184  Economy / Marketplace / Re: BitMarket.Eu has closed down. A new secure site Bitalo.com is coming soon. on: January 23, 2014, 10:55:09 PM
A quick reminder: This exchange was robbed and has closed shop permanently. This means it's all over and out. There is nothing to see here anymore.

nope. he lost 18kbtc because of gamble and later he maybe got robbed with much less btc.

Exactly.
I wonder how were this guys not marked as SCAMMERS in the first place.
185  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: sx command line utilities - Empower The Sysadmin With Bitcoin Tools on: January 16, 2014, 03:03:08 PM
btw sx supports new stealth address payments:

https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/Sx/Stealth

This page has invalid SSL certificate. Can you copy/paste the certificate fingerprint, so I can add it to permanent exceptions ?
186  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Almost human Season1 Episode7 1 bitcoin = 427,000 dollars on: January 10, 2014, 11:29:02 PM
Is Almost Human any good? I have never watched it.
One of the better SciFi shows running currently, actually.
The ratings (8.4) also confirm that.

However it is too close to reality for me, so i watch it lazily. But that's just me - I like SciFi Series which do not resemble current reality.
187  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.5 avaiable on: January 09, 2014, 03:16:39 PM
I don't have a citation for you. It was asked on this forum and I learned from that. nodes aren't fond of keeping around transactions that can't be mined because the fee is too small. The only reason it sticks around is because -qt keeps broadcasting it over and over again in vain. I can tell you that pywallet supports removing transactions from wallet.dat file for this very reason:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35214.0
What I am worried about is that the relaying nodes (not mining nodes) will keep broadcasting the transaction forever, and thus - it will be stuck in a limbo.

However you should be able to fix such transaction using Raw Transactions API by rebroadcasting it with a (larger) fee.

Somebody with greater knowledge of Bitcoin-QT code should step in here to clarify that.
188  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.5 avaiable on: January 09, 2014, 02:08:18 PM
If it does not allow you to send without fee, probably very high risk of losing the coins exists.

This worries me. Not because I think there is any chance of loosing coins but because you don't know that there is no chance of loosing coins. Spend transactions are either mined into a block or not. If they are not being mined you can just stop broadcasting that transaction and mining pools will eventually forget about it and you can send those coins with a fee. How exactly is there a risk of "loosing" coins, then?
Ask the core Bitcoin developers. The code which asks you for a fee in that case has not been changed in my fork.

This fork is merely 3 lines of code which turn off a single limitation which forces you to pay a fee even when it is not absolutely necessary. That is not rocket science.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I just said that there is never a risk of loosing your coins just because you didn't pay enough of a fee. You just remove the transaction using pywallet and wait for the mining pools to forget it. Then you can redo the transaction again with a fee.
This is not what i referred to.
I refrerred to the part of your answer which stated that "it worries you that i don't know that there is no chance of losing coins".

Sure I don't know, because I have not studied the Bitcoin-QT code in detail - I didn't need that in order to create my fork.

If they are not being mined you can just stop broadcasting that transaction and mining pools will eventually forget about it and you can send those coins with a fee
Are you sure about that ? Won't some other nodes keep relaying the transaction so it will be forever stuck in a limbo ?
Is there a time limit for how long a transaction can be kept in memory before it becomes obsolete & is removed ?

[Citation needed] Actually i would like to see a citation (or a snippet of code) for that. I don't have time to study the whole code.
189  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.5 avaiable on: January 09, 2014, 12:25:12 PM
If it does not allow you to send without fee, probably very high risk of losing the coins exists.

This worries me. Not because I think there is any chance of loosing coins but because you don't know that there is no chance of loosing coins. Spend transactions are either mined into a block or not. If they are not being mined you can just stop broadcasting that transaction and mining pools will eventually forget about it and you can send those coins with a fee. How exactly is there a risk of "loosing" coins, then?
Ask the core Bitcoin developers. The code which asks you for a fee in that case has not been changed in my fork.

This fork is merely 3 lines of code which turn off a single limitation which forces you to pay a fee even when it is not absolutely necessary. That is not rocket science.
190  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2014-01-05] Facebook starts testing Bitcoin payments on Advertising Platform on: January 05, 2014, 11:50:56 PM
TO THE SUN !
191  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world on: January 05, 2014, 11:07:50 AM
Is Blockchain.info's Shared Send part of their closed source stuff?

Is it implemented along these guidelines?
I join the question.
192  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 12-31-13 Bitcoin Lemonaid stand on: January 02, 2014, 08:40:17 AM
Well, not really super "press worthy" but the papers publish almost anything these days so it was worth a share to show just how far bitcoin has reached. These girls are going to grow up to do great things for sure. I tried to scan the QR code but the photo distorted it or my QR scanner app sucks, can anyone work their magic and get the address for me? i have to send them something for their creative efforts. it was really inspiring to see this.

http://imgur.com/Fbn1DeU,kAsDjz9#1
Please format the date accordingly, non-americans can't read shit like "12-31-13".

PS.
When are you Americans going to adopt proper metric, weight & date/time systems like rest of the goddamn civilized world ?
193  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.5 avaiable on: December 31, 2013, 11:26:54 AM
yep! it works for me for 0.01 BTC without fee but takes for 2 hours approx. for confirmation. But good at all. Thanks for developer!
Yep, it takes longer but it works. That is the exact reason I've built this fork - because i think that the default algo sucks donkey's balls as it requires fee for coins that could be easily sent without.
194  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin network cost is OK now, but may soon be hugely wasteful on: December 27, 2013, 11:22:40 AM
You've all heard the environmental/waste argument "the Bitcoin network uses too much computing power."

Right now I don't think this is a good argument. We're not spending that many resources mining if you make the comparison with the cost of securing banks and credit cards. However, if bitcoins jump in price like a lot of us hope they will, this will be a legitimate problem.
Actually, it will never be a problem because modern computing technology is still extremely inefficient and there are no signs that it will improve anytime soon.
Most of the power (I don't remember exact numbers, but it is at least 75% or more) that CPUs/ASICs use is still wasted as heat.

So we can use the heat produced by CPUs, GPUs and ASICs to heat our buildings.

Problem solved. NEXT, PLEASE !
195  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Infected USB Drive Meets Windows Guest Account on: December 26, 2013, 10:37:01 AM
Fortunately Microsoft has disabled the Autorun feature for USB drives some time ago.
If you only want to copy the wallet file then everything should be ok, no matter what account you use.

If you need to run a program that's on the USB drive then a restricted account wouldn't help much.
Either you can't run any program there, not even malware.
Or you can run all programs on the USB drive, including malware.
Either way, you would be screwed.
With a restricted account the infection could only spread to files the account has write rights to.

Wow that's awesome.

So I can drag and drop wallet data files into and out of the USB drive and have no problems?

Also it's not possible for a virus to sneak in if I don't see the file in the USB?
Just use a Linux LiveCD to access the USB stick, and be done with it.

Next !
196  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [UPDATE] Bitcoin client soft-fork "No Forced TX Fee" v0.8.5 avaiable on: December 22, 2013, 08:23:07 PM
Ok so I finally successfully built the windows version, but for some reason it is still requiring a fee. I have tried both 5.3.1 and 6.0rc4 and command line version without success. I checked the source I have and it does have your wallet modification. Would there be a reason why it wouldn't let me send fee-less? I am using gitian to build it.
There can be multiple reasons. Like:
- You have received money from a lot of inputs
- The coins do not have enough confirmations

FYI, this fork does not remove fees completely, it only relaxes the fee requirement algorithm. If it does not allow you to send without fee, probably very high risk of losing the coins exists. You can still send them using RAW transactions API, but i wouldn't go for it if I was you.

Also, recheck 3 times if you are using binary built from my code. You may be using other binary.
197  Other / Off-topic / Re: Alert: Bad news, from sources! 嚇人的話 <---Proof on: December 18, 2013, 10:06:38 AM
Why is this thread in "Bitcoin -> Bitcoin" instead of in "Speculation" or "Bullshit" sections ?
198  Other / Off-topic / Re: This Just In: Chinese President Rumored to be replacing Yuan with Bitcoin on: December 17, 2013, 04:02:20 PM
I have a secret source who has a friend who knows the President of China.

He is rumored to have said, during a secret circlejerk, that they will be making Bitcoin the official currency of China.

Hmmm...


199  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New paper: Accelerating Bitcoin's Trasaction Processing on: December 10, 2013, 02:26:19 PM
* ShadowOfHarbringer is watching this.
200  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ultimate blockchain compression w/ trust-free lite nodes on: December 06, 2013, 10:52:55 AM
I wonder isnt it possible to copy the up-to-date blockchain in the configuration folder and paste it to another computer.
Yep, already done. Several times.

But (obviously) stop Bitcoin client first.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 113 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!