921
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the CIA
|
on: August 08, 2012, 10:25:11 AM
|
ok so just 1 yes/no question: Is it possible that Gavin gave the CIA a method to shutdown Bitcoin?
There is no easy method of shutting down Bitcoin. This thread is going nuts...
|
|
|
923
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Patching The Bitcoin Client To Make It More Anonymous
|
on: July 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
|
Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF... P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7. Am I wrong ? No (...) BTW, You just did a double-negative answer which could be understood by me as "yes you are right" (Just fooling around here, don't mind me)
|
|
|
924
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Patching The Bitcoin Client To Make It More Anonymous
|
on: July 07, 2012, 09:14:12 PM
|
Strange things are happening to this useful patch. Author and followers abandon support for it constantly. More than a year has passed, but there is nothing about it in official client, even "experimental" and "for advanced use only". WTF... P.S. Just my 0.02 btc, nevermind Actually i remember reading somewhere that this will be implemented in 0.7. Am I wrong ?
|
|
|
925
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Timekoin
|
on: June 28, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
|
No offense, but a trained monkey could write an OT client.
I'm writing one. WOW, there are monkeys on the interwebz ! I always suspected so, but never had any proof ! (Not that i have anything against monkeys, they are great animals)
|
|
|
931
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Biggest Scam Ever!!
|
on: June 16, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
|
They do not want you to understand how the system works because if everybody does understand, nobody will let it happen.
I will just leave this here: It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
934
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [FRESH] [CRIT FIX] Bitcoin fork "No Forced TX Fee" 0.6.0rc4, v0.5.4rc1 avaiable
|
on: May 09, 2012, 07:28:38 PM
|
It is quite safe for everyday usage, if you keep certain rules (eg. not resending money which don't have enough confirmations yet). Sending money which have at least 7 confirmations should be 100% safe, always.
Please do not tell people that it is 100% safe. This is not true and the whole concept of thinking users can tell which money they're resending is wrongheaded, the client has free run to pick from whatever inputs it wants in the wallet. I have helped users unstick their wallets several times as a result of this patch. I've cautioned you about this in the past— and you responded by pointing out that you were direct about the risks and consequences. Now you violate that by claiming that it's 100% safe. This is a misunderstanding. I said: Sending money which have at least 7 confirmations should be 100% safe, always
I i wanted to say that I am certain that it is 100% safe, i would say that "IT IS 100% SAFE" or "I AM CERTAIN THAT IT IS 100% SAFE". If that is not clear enough, i don't know what is.
|
|
|
938
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [FRESH] [CRIT FIX] Bitcoin fork "No Forced TX Fee" 0.6.0rc4, v0.5.4rc1 avaiable
|
on: April 26, 2012, 07:48:21 AM
|
Edit: Never mind it does work. I was just testing a wallet that only had .00051 in it and it refused to send anything without a fee, but if I used a wallet with more in it then it works.
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.
Hmmm... this is indeed peculiar. However, there can be reasons it won't let you send without fee. For example, i believe the algorithm (in my fork and in official client) doesn't allow sending very small amounts, or amounts that does not have enough confirmations. I have not removed all safeguards against sending money without fee, just some of them. If you want to make sure it works as it should, you can build 0.3.21 version of the mainline client and compare the functioning of that with NFTF. If it is the same, then it works. Unfortunately, i dont't have time to test it now, because I am going on holidays. When I am back (about 8 april), I am going to test it thoroughly.
|
|
|
940
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What to do when MTGOX gets shut down ? Are we ready for coincalypse ?
|
on: April 25, 2012, 08:00:15 AM
|
I am aware of the network effect. My question was rather rethorical. What I am actually asking is: "what have we done do diminish MtGox influence ?". . . It is quite obvious that in (maximum) few years some of world's Governments are going to start perceiving Bitcoin as a threat. ... Government will try to stop Bitcoin, that is only a matter of time. We kind of already know that is going to happen since the beginnings, so why so many people are still using MtGox ?
Bitcoin is no threat to anything other than itself, and that damage is so extensive at this point I doubt it will ever be a successful above ground payment system. It has perhaps been a useful prototype for the payment system(s) that will instantly dwarf it there is actually a market for such things. There is a bitcoin "underground economy" that is likely to persist amongst aficionados. For that matter I think you can still actually do things with Linden dollars ( Second Life ), but if you think bitcoin isn't fully surrounded and contained, I can only say sorry you got to the party so late. You are actually trying to start discussion about whether Bitcoin is/will be successful and whether it is a good currency. But this is a matter for another discussion.
|
|
|
|