Of course
It makes them spit the load faster

Load = money, of course


I asked 1 NUG, he sent me 1 NUG. Where's the problem?

You don't need me for this, bro

That's the problem, sometimes people use double-spend even for unconfirmed transactions. That's exactly what I'm talking about here: I'm asking what word to use to describe the situation where there are two unconfirmed transactions using the same input.

For example, this guy made a transaction that doesn't get accepted in the blockchain and need to pay a specific address with the same input before tomorrow.
The new tx he will made is what I'd like to name.


Indeed, I wasn't thinking about this feature, I just meant broadcasting a transaction that uses the same input than another unconfirmed transaction


PS: I'm very aware that my english is far from perfect and that this makes such technical talks difficult. Sorry for that!

Not sure how this could happen, but never trust your clipboard. It could lead to bad things in Bitcoin

I'm not talking about these (which deserve their names) but rather about things like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232979.0 or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231309.0 (ie rebroadcasting the same tx with more fees for example, nothing malicious)

That's also not the kind of double-spending I had in mind but it's a good precision to add for this kind!

1.
According to Wikipedia:

2.
Bitcoin people sometimes use "double-spending" to talk about the fact of broadcasting two (or more) transactions that use the same input with only one being accepted in the blockchain

Obviously 1. != 2. so I think we should use another word for describing 2.
I've never seen anybody using another word, did you?

What dependencies are you talking about?
Could you post the tx you'd like to broadcast?

I never go on a date with broke guys anyway

Thank you anonymous friend for this nugget: http://altcha.in/address/NgAKAr3Vw9she1o6g1kZCoQENhuNbjiFn8
I swear to GOD that I will use it to do great things

The latter
What you wrote is n and is the upper limit
p is just the prims number you use when doing EC operations

By the way its not really an upper limit: n+1 is a pretty valid private key, it's just that it's equal to 1 (as n+1 mod n == 1 mod n)

Seems totally legit

Congratulations for posting the only technical post.
ECDSA is indeed enough. If an EC becomes broken, Bitcoin won't be the first target.

Can someone send me 1 NUG? The sooner the better!
Thanks a lot holy brothers
NgAKAr3Vw9she1o6g1kZCoQENhuNbjiFn8

ecdsa not being installed is not an issue
The mandatory option missing means you didn't tell pywallet what to do
If you want the web interface, you must do If you want to recover wallets (impossible with the web interface), you must do The exact syntax is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.msg2794856#msg2794856


I confirm it will recover them, if they still are physically present on your disk
As I wrote above, the syntax is
This will create a huge wallet.dat in c:\recoveredwalletsfolder
It will contain all the keys it could find on your disk, whatever the altcoin you were using them with

clicked

Yes, surely because of the proxies that should be banned because of other people

I think virwox allows buying lindens with Bitcoin

I'm wondering if many bitcoiners are Second Life players
I may develop start developping things between those two worlds if people are interested