So obvious that whatsapp is only coming up with encryption because other really encrypted app provide better security.

I would not trust them. Knowing that all the pictures sent are stored on their servers. Surely that won't change.

*lach* Ja ich kann mir vorstellen dass das heftig zuschlägt. Allerdings vermute ich dass Unterhaltszahlungen doch bei den meisten Menschen eher selten der größte Posten ist. Zeugt aber immerhin von einem guten Einkommen bei dir.

Yes of course via XCP. The issuer is pleased to have this solution now where he can send the bitcoins to the shareholders. And it means less stress to us pushing him.

I'm not sure if there is a way to take out the bitcoins from cryptostock from accounts that have email confirmation enabled.

It's not that purse can offer that. You have to put the shipping costs and fees in the wishlist you add in purse. You can try to include smaller shipping costs but at the end it all depends on the user that buys your order. Purse doesn't decide anything there.

Thank you for your answer sturle...

I think satoshi someday mentioned that mining will be done by corporations at the end. It might be that he did not anticipate this becoming true that fast.

Wouldn't that somewhat kill the purpose of the escrow or how can he negotiate in case of a dispute.

Besides that... creating vanity addresses and building addresse with part keys might be some level of experience that not many traders can follow.

Ich denke in Ostdeutschland ist die Wohnsituation an vielen Orten immer noch so dass die Mieten sehr niedrig sind weil junge Leute einfach nach Westdeutschland ziehen wegen der Arbeitssituation. Manche Wohnungen werden auch kostenlos vergeben wenn die Mieter dafür sorgen dass die Wohnungen erhalten bleiben. Muss nicht wirklich spassig sein dort Vermieter zu sein.

Allerdings könnte jemand der sein Geld online verdient, also nicht an einen Ort gebunden ist, schon darüber nachdenken. Miete ist ja momentan so ziemlich der größte Brocken in den Ausgaben der Menschen.

Ich sehe schon dass es Sinn macht dass ein Mörder zahlt. Allerdings stellt man sich da vor dass es jemand ist der reumütig ist und dann auch 100k von seinem Lohn abdrücken will weil er sich schuldig fühlt. Sicher, bei manchen könnte man sich fragen ob das funktionieren würde.

Nur... wie viel muss er abgeben? So viel dass der Druck unerträglich wird? Mehr als Alg2 Niveau für ihn am Ende? Das würde sich wie permanente Unterdrückung anfühlen. Also was tun? Fußfesseln damit er nicht abhaut? Wer will ihn beschäftigen? Soweit ich weiß arbeiten die Leute im Knast eher auf dem Preisniveau von Behindertenwerkstätten. Also wenig Geld... sehr wenig.

Ich schätze einfach dass die Folgen einfach absolut unabsehbar sind. Der Vorstandschef bringt jemand um... kein Problem, in ein paar Jahren hat er seine paar 100T abgedrückt. Stört ihn nicht mal bei seinem Verdienst. Praktisch legalisierter Mord. Oder maximal ein paar Jahre?

Oh ich weiß nicht. Den Mordparagraphen sollte man sicher bearbeiten. Aber das Einsperren ist für mich weniger Strafe als Schutz der Gesellschaft und das sollte natürlich mit Beobachtung passieren. Ich vermute einfach mal dass die Wenigsten sich dafür interessieren würde sich quasi zum Profimörder im Knast weiterbilden zu lassen.

I think if the reason behind killing is religion then there is something really faulty. That goes for all religions, suicide sects and other things like that.

I know christians were quite murderous in the religious wars in the middle age, muslim countries were developed farther then christian ones. Now we have some kind of opposite direction.

I don't think that the US fights as christians. George Bush only used this "God told me to attack the iraq" as a stupid reason, maybe he could draw in some radical christions.

And yes, there are powers, mostly out for money and power, that try to use local groups and such to reach their targets.

I doubt though that ISIS is somehow guided by another power. I think they are independent.

Hi guys, just to confirm the validity of the address and the jd-uid:


And proof that Iam the real one, with an old address of mine:

The issuer wanted to send on friday and today we have a small div again. 150% of the last one. I will see what the issuer says about the height of the div, I mean regarding the last months that went by and future monthly divs.

Is it only me or are all electrum servers way behind in blocks? I noticed the past couple of days that I get told someone sent already though when I check then I see nothing in electrum but on the blockchain there are already, maybe, 2 hours of confirmations.

Only as info, is work done on the performance of the electrum servers?

That is true for you gladly. But you should know quite well what fills up the animal shelters. It is because people are different than you. Many dogs are left alone on the speed track or other places shortly after christmas. People simply have no image of what it means to have a dog. They lose interest, they did not think things through and would like to abandon it like a toy.

Since you are a friend of animals I would have awaited you see the signs or risk the OP is spreading in his post. You surely want that the dog gets a good home. And OP does not sound really suited yet.

Well I might be wrong and she only wrote things the wrong way.

Queenvio



Der Mnemonic Code ist die Folge von Wörtern die Electrum als Seed benutzt. Mit dem Seed sind normale Electrumwallets dann deterministisch und wenn das beim Public Key eines Electrum Multisig wallets auch wirkt dann ist das gut. Ich dachte bisher es wäre mit Electrum nicht möglich den gleichen pubkey noch mal zu benutzen da man den bei der Erstellung ja nicht verändern kann. Hätte auch gleich an den Seed denken können.

---

mezzomix


Das ist bei Electrum kein Problem da alle drei Beteiligten alle drei Pubkeys haben und bekommen. Die daraus erzeugten Adressen sind in allen drei Wallets dann gleich. Damit ist klar dass die Adresse stimmt.

Lauda



Well, you really are onesided. The thing you claim an error on the classic side is... of course, fully normal on the core side.


And you spoke about the importance of having to refer to worst case scenarious. It amazes me more and more how onesided you can watch at things.

You even seem to advertise LN again only after pushing away potential future risks as hyperbolic and so on. Well, it seems I will stop answering you in this thread too. It simply leads to nothing.


What did I say? I'm amazed.

Anyway... you are a true believer and being that it is as hard as with discussing with islamists, hardcore christians or antigermans.

Good luck again...

---

sturle



So they really keep it? They don't hold it as escrow? Well, that is a unique business model when the money is not given to authorities or something. I did not know that company is on such a low level.


But how high is the amount of transactions per block in average that belongs to coinbase? Is it a really big chunk at all? Well, sure they could change it and it might be true that classic developers would do what they want when they pay them. Though corruption like that could easily happen on the core side too, I think. The community would stand against though, I guess.

I'm not sure but I think the usefullness of segwit is accepted more and more. I mean segwit will have a positive effect all the time, even when blocks are higher. Segwit is able to raise the blocksize space on an prozentual level. Which is worth much and way far in the future. Well, of course segwit has to show that the predictions of it's usefullness is true. There are opinions that the target levels are way overexxagerated. At least segwit will come too slow to prevent the blocks being full. Adoption will probably happen too slow.


Hm, that certainly is an advantage though I thought that is already possible now. I did not realize till now that no sidechains exist yet. I thought it should be no problem since there are altcoins that are bound to the bitcoins blockchain security so holding bitcoins in escrow and releasing them to another user after the altcoins were moved did not sound impossible to me. Guess I was wrong then.


Hearn was someone who should have gone since a long time. His intentions did not look pure when one saw what he wanted to implement. I already got the idea he might work for an agency because of his stupid suggestions. Disabling tor, I think tainting coins was from him too.

Anyway, he was not the best example and when Andresen works for coinbase then I see the conflict of interest you refer to.

Well, we might see. If classic agrees to segwit then the theory could break. There should be no real reason against it except maybe gavin's ego. At the moment both sides look not fully convincing for me.


I think if LN gets reality and really would be used a lot while 1mb blocks are still held then it would be obvious that the transactions on LN, merged into one big bitcoin transaction, could have a higher value. Paying $1 on the bitcoin network for one transaction would be expensive. Paying $2 on the bitcoin network for 10 transactions on LN would be cheap. But still those transactions will get the priority, they are more value for the miners and could, if the amount of those transactions rise, push out normal bitcoin users because their fees would be too low and the higher fees would be too expensive.

This only under the premise that the fees on the bitcoin blockchain will rise that high that business models come up that say "bitcoin fee too high? Buy and hold your bitcoins on LN only. Never deal with the bitcoin blockchain. And safe a lot of money." Which would mean we have a somewhat centralized service. Which might be used because it is cheap and could be safer than nowadays exchanges. This company could offer to send the bitcoins anywhere you want. Through payment channels to known services and sites or to other users using the same or a similar service. Transactions into the bitcoin network would still be expensive.

At the end this scenario would mean that the free and anonymous money would not be for the average or poor man. It would be too expensive. Instead we would have companies on LN that could not offer any anonymity. Which would be no problem for most users since they do not do anything wrong. Which sounds like a bank. And the free internet money was taken away from the average people. Free the people from the banks power would have been a failed attempt.


But blocks were never as full as now. We did already raise the size of the blocks, not by changing the limit but because the amount of transactions grew. Iam not aware that we lost half of the nodes from the time where the blocks were only half as full until now.

There was a drop in full nodes. I think that might be normal after implementing the ability to host a normal node that does not store the full blockchain. People decided to safe on that point. If this development stops, then the blocksize is raised then another drop might happen. Though that would be only ideological since the blocks wouldn't be suddenly double that full. After that happened, when the average block size is double from now, then someone could say something about the effect on nodes.

Besides that. I think in the last years alot of bitcoiners left bitcoin. Disappointed about the price development. That might have lead to the node development too.

So there should be many things to consider.


Yeah, I think when segwit enables sidechains then that would be a great thing. Besides having to run another wallet. But it still would mean freedom.

Besides, wouldn't there be explorers about the connection from bitcoin to sidechain address as well as explorer about the sidechain transactions? Those infos should all be public, isn't it?


The hope of satoshi was to complement block halving with rising fees and that should only be achieved by rising the amount of transactions, as far as I know. So something in the plan already went wrong then.

I agree with the sidechain, that's a good thing. But demand going down for bitcoin sound sad. Bitcoin becoming too expensive to use so that demand even drops is not a nice vision.


Didn't know till now. I thought it will be a network that practically will eat bitcoin to use it as their backend database.

Well, let's see how usefull it will become.


Ok. Well, might be that uploading via disk would be the same for the vps's bandwith usage than downloading the blocks from the network. For the person installing it it would mean less work because the node would handle it on his own. Not using the installers home internet bandwith too.


You already got me doubting gavin. I think bigger blocks surely is not every nice thing that could get implemented. If I would create an alternative then I would try to add as many usefull features as possible. Well, he might not want it because supporters fear segwit partly and such.


I meant past hard forks were no problem though maybe people now learnt to doubt everything what the core devs do.

I feel dumb to say that but I really don't have a clue what it's purpose can be. Or what can be reached with it. What the advantage against multisig would be, for example. The things to do sound similar time intensive like multisig. Three parties involved, all three parties have to do something. And would it cost something to mine for such vanity keys or is it practically free now?

Sorry Lauda but it doesn't work to discuss on that level. I come up with arguments and you answer with nothing more than "No, I'm right". No need to go into details since... you are right by default.

Good luck with that attitude.

Also soweit wir geschaut hatten scheint Electrum wirklich trotzdem noch die Einfachste Möglichkeit zu sein weil da immer noch das Meiste automatisiert wird. Mehr als bei anderen Möglichkeiten die noch weniger für Noobs geeignet sind.

Aber hat jetzt schon mal jemand getestet ob man den Mnemonic Code dafür benutzen kann um den gleichen Pubkey wieder zu benutzen? Das wäre zumindest wichtig wenn man in Betracht ziehen würde Escrow auf automatisierten Seiten anzubieten. Die benutzen immer den selben Pubkey des Escrow.

Obwohl das natürlich immer wie ein Risiko klingt da man nie wirklich voll ausschließen kann dass der Webseitencode nicht irgendwann vom Besitzer oder einem Hacker geändert wird. Weshalb es Sinn machen würde jeden Deal manuell einzuleiten oder zumindest eine Warnung vor jedem Deal anzubieten.

How do you determine when a breakout is broken and not only tested? Which timeframe candle do you look at. And what resistance and support level types?

Though that can't be done when someone is asking inside an otherwise legit thread. The post would be reported and deleted probably. Though maybe the moderator added a notice about why it was moved.