 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
1
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Abe 0.7: Open Source Block Explorer Knockoff
|
on: September 08, 2013, 08:19:28 AM
|
|
Sorry if it's already been asked but I don't see it in the TODO.txt.
It would be great to be able to purge from the database the already spent transactions (after +6 confirmations or so).
This would reduce the database and would still be useful for those applications which only need to work with unspent and new transactions.
In the meantime would it be fine deleting those transactions directly on the database? (or would it break Abe?)
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Yet another Coin Control Release
|
on: July 15, 2013, 04:50:14 PM
|
new coins can only be used after several blocks or confirmations, like 144 or 150 or something, I forgot exactly.
120 with Bitcoin, 520 with PPCoin, etc. Where is this info? I can't seem to find it on the wiki. Maybe it's in the source code? Anyway, that just means you need to wait a little bit less than a day to use newly mined bitcoins, or about 20 hours. Here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules#.22tx.22_messagesRule 12. For each input, if the referenced output transaction is coinbase (i.e. only 1 input, with hash=0, n=-1), it must have at least COINBASE_MATURITY (100) confirmations; else reject this transaction.The bitcoin client might decide to wait longer, but below 100 confirmations the network would reject the transaction. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Which clients fully support P2SH and/or multisig ?
|
on: July 13, 2013, 08:44:38 AM
|
|
I tested some clients and web wallets to see if they were able to send bitcoins to a multisig address.
This were the results as of 21/06/2013:
Accepts a multisig address as destination (3...):
Bitcoin-qt
bitcoind
bitcoinspinner
bitcoinwallet.in
Coinbase
Electrum
inputs.io
Reports address as invalid or non-standard:
Android Wallet
Armory
Blockchain
Multibit
StrongCoin
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I don't use the Bitcoin-Qt client anymore due to lax security, can it be fixed?
|
on: May 20, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
|
The blockchain is just data. If doesn't recognize anything, it doesn't know anything. It isn't a program. It is just a list of transactions. I assume that you mean that you'll convince every user to run this new special wallet/client protocol so that they will refuse to recognize the new output as spendable until it has 144 confirmations if one or more of the inputs to the transaction were previously outputs sent to an address that started with d144? They would all refuse to relay transactions that attempt to spend the new output at the new address much like they refuse to relay transactions that spend "coinbase" outputs until they are sufficiently aged. If the majority of the clients knew and enforced this rule a block which included a transaction to spend those coins before 144 confirmations would be considered an invalid block and would be rejected. Just like trying to spend coins without the correct private key or doing a double spend, it breaks a rule so it's an invalid mined block. The only transaction allowed before those 144 confirmations would be a transaction where the amount where identical and the source and destination addresses where reversed (source -> destination and destination -> source). That would "unspend" the coins. So you are creating a situation where transactions are reversible for 144 blocks? So I can pay you for merchandise, and almost a day later I can send those bitcoins back to myself even though I don't know your private key? And this sounds like a good idea to you? If someone wanted to create havoc in bitcoin, they could create software that would watch the blockchain for transactions from addresses that start with d144, and 20 blocks later they could just randomly reverse some of them? They could essentially keep your bitcoins locked in your d144 address forever, because every time you try to spend them, they's just be reversed back? And if the transaction has 2 inputs, and only one of the inputs is from the d144 address? Then what happens to the bitcoins? I was not defending the idea, just pointing out that the blockchain is not just data, it's data and a majority of clients who enforce a set of rules. A rule to allow chargebacks for about 144 blocks is technically possible, I'm not saying it's a good idea or it can not be exploited by evil attackers, just that the bitcoin network has the capability to enforce those kind of rules if it must. |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I don't use the Bitcoin-Qt client anymore due to lax security, can it be fixed?
|
on: May 20, 2013, 02:24:03 AM
|
The blockchain is just data. If doesn't recognize anything, it doesn't know anything. It isn't a program. It is just a list of transactions. I assume that you mean that you'll convince every user to run this new special wallet/client protocol so that they will refuse to recognize the new output as spendable until it has 144 confirmations if one or more of the inputs to the transaction were previously outputs sent to an address that started with d144? They would all refuse to relay transactions that attempt to spend the new output at the new address much like they refuse to relay transactions that spend "coinbase" outputs until they are sufficiently aged. If the majority of the clients knew and enforced this rule a block which included a transaction to spend those coins before 144 confirmations would be considered an invalid block and would be rejected. Just like trying to spend coins without the correct private key or doing a double spend, it breaks a rule so it's an invalid mined block. The only transaction allowed before those 144 confirmations would be a transaction where the amount where identical and the source and destination addresses where reversed (source -> destination and destination -> source). That would "unspend" the coins. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [Proposal] .bit as a TLD?
|
on: April 20, 2013, 10:24:12 PM
|
|
If some company registered the .bit TLD it would be a bad for namecoin. One thing is to only be able to access the domains using certain conditions, but being unable to get to .bit domains from the ICANN could be a reason to not use namecoin.
I think the plan should be to get the TLD and use it as a proxy to connect the standard DNS and the namecoin DNS. An Ad could be added on top of every page that goes thru the proxy informing the user to install the namecoin client and the advantatges of doing so, or a Browser plugin of some sort. This would remove the Ad and add users to the network, so the no censorship would be in place.
Also the visibility of the .bit domain on standard registrars, and the requirement to create them or buy them on the namecoin network, would make people aware of it's existence and it's features.
The funding of course is a problem, and those proxies should also be maintained. But it could be solved using donations, the exchange to connect standard domain registrars with namecoin or even collecting the "coins" that right now are destroyed during transactions by design (sorry, I am really new at namecoin and I might be touching a nerve or saying something stupid).
I really think having the TLD would make the project really visible.
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Market is saying Tradehill is new leader
|
on: June 27, 2011, 09:57:13 PM
|
I am using the market to acquire BTC. How do I withdraw BTC from Tradehill?
Umm... click withdraw. Yes, but withdraw gives options for many currencies, but not bitcoins. That's fine if I want to exchange dollars for Euro, but not putting bitcoins in my wallet. If you can post a screenshot of withdrawing bitcoins from Tradehill I'd appreciate it. One of the currencies is "BTC". Click there. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: All this rage and BTC valuation is almost back where it was before the event.
|
on: June 20, 2011, 09:33:27 PM
|
+1 Vladimir
I predict there will be some chaos when Mt. Gox reopens, because a large fraction of all actively circulated bitcoins are caught up in their servers. However, the price is the price - the consensus of the markets that, at this point in time, 1 BTC is worth roughly $14 or $15, is in fact a consensus of users that this is the correct valuation. There's no reason why this evaluation would change depending on whether or not Mt. Gox is open - the only issue with the reopening is that the flood of liquidity could spook some traders for a day or two. But the fact that the price has held more or less steady through this crisis tells me that Bitcoin is more stable than even the optimists could have predicted.
Right now selling a little more than 1.000 coins worth it roughly $1.000 on TradeHill would half the price to $6.5 per bitcoin. I think TradeHill has too small volume to draw conclusions on it. When all Mt Gox users get their money back and their coins back we'll see how they react. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MtGox_client.exe
|
on: June 20, 2011, 01:47:07 PM
|
Anyone have this file, I wish to download it. Don't question my wanting, please if you have the file upload it to mediafire I wish to take a look at it.
Here you have it: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VWNREX2XIt's zipped with password: virus It's also renamed with extension .virus so no one can execute it by accident. I received it on my yahoo email account and as of right now it still let me download it without detecting it as a virus. I've posted it aswell  Oops, my fault. By the way, do you have any spare glasses ? ;-) |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: MtGox_client.exe
|
on: June 20, 2011, 01:08:34 PM
|
Anyone have this file, I wish to download it. Don't question my wanting, please if you have the file upload it to mediafire I wish to take a look at it.
Here you have it: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VWNREX2XIt's zipped with password: virus It's also renamed with extension .virus so no one can execute it by accident. I received it on my yahoo email account and as of right now it still let me download it without detecting it as a virus. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Newbie restrictions
|
on: June 14, 2011, 08:55:10 PM
|
|
Is this new ?
I made a reply into another forum some days ago without any restriction. Then I find myself locked into the newbies forum.
Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
