I've tried disabling the firewall and checked the router which has no restrictions. Any other ideas?
Did you try the telnet suggestion? That will tell you if the problem is there is no path for the client to get an outgoing connection or if instead the client simply isn't trying to do so. One other point I forgot to mention is that the wallet is encrypted and currently locked. Do I need to unlock it somehow to allow it to resynch with the blockchain?
The wallet being encrypted will not stop anything as far as connecting or synching. The only actions that require the wallet pass phrase are to get a new address or to spend. |
|
|
|
It favors small, old ones to minimize fees and to consolidate the dust in your wallet.
The coin selection is "fee blind", meaning it is not choosing the coins that results in the lowest amount of fees. It also does not try to consolidate dust. The reference client uses a heuristic subset-sum knapsack solver to try to minimize transaction size. It is fee blind, though it is run multiple times excluding less confirmed coins which may sometimes help avoid fees if there are many larger inputs available and minimizing sizes helps with fees (but does not guarantee low fees). Minimizing the current transaction size also does nothing to reduce the amount of data a pruning bitcoin node needs to keep around, in fact it usually does the opposite. - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/coin_selection |
|
|
|
I was wondering how bitcoin clients (and bitcoin-qt in particular) select inputs for transactions. Are they selected by age (oldest/newest first), to minimize the number of inputs, to minimize the change output, or some other criteria?
Just curious.
The algorithm for the client generally aims to come up with the combination of coins that results in the least amount of change. There are some factors also taking into account. If the coins haven't confirmed yet, they will not be automatically chosen. But after a short while, the age of the coins is no longer a factor. Use the oldest first might give away information and thus take from Bitcoin's privacy, so the "minimize change" is essentially the only goal when choosing which coins to spend. |
|
|
|
Should the instructions really be to "replace" your old backups? Instead you might want to describe how no prior backups will have the new encrypted keys and thus it is recommended to make new backups now. Or something to that effect. |
|
|
|
it is very easy to increase the key pool from 100 keys to 10000 keys. Adding 2 or 0 zeros in the source code will solve 99% of the problem
As has been described, a larger key pool wouldn't have solved the problem described where enabling wallet key encryption flushes the entire pool, but if you want to the key pool can size be controlled with a config setting: -keypool=<n> Set key pool size to <n> (default: 100) - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin |
|
|
|
I can verify that the BitAddress.org website has been updated and returns the same HTML from the latest commit (804d08cec0ee2e217515abe8eb762b99129003ca) in github: - https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.orgTo confirm this I first check the sha1sum hash of the html returned by a request to http://bitaddress.org: $ wget --quiet -O - http://bitaddress.org|sha1sum 46215e8a2f026b784f29ea86c00c866e634a22fa - Then from my bitaddress.org repo: $ git pull $ git rev-list --max-count=1 HEAD 804d08cec0ee2e217515abe8eb762b99129003ca $ sha1sum bitaddress.org.html 46215e8a2f026b784f29ea86c00c866e634a22fa bitaddress.org.html |
|
|
|
Do you know where one can get a count of those those that report in BTCs?
I'm actually hard pressed to think of a single one that doesn't. |
|
|
|
Personally, I think we'll see a 10 or 20 times increase in difficulty once asics saturate the market... which probably won't make gpu mining die entirely, Sure, there will always be people willing to mine at a loss (which might occur when they don't run the calculations and realize it is long past time to power down, or because they think they are "helping bitcoin" or for whatever reason.) with the price increase expected to go along with the halving
[Edit: Perhaps] we're already at the expected price increase (from $5ish to $12ish) It could nearly double, yes, and that would mean GPUs are just as profitable then as today when the block reward drops (presuming difficulty doesn't change. That's a big if). |
|
|
|
I am unsure about giving out contact information when completing transactions via money gram or at a bank -- is that a valid concern? Cash deposits at a bank do not require that you provide any info. There have been isolated incidents where the teller asks for account info presuming the depositor has an account with the bank, but that isn't a requirement and they have no need to ask. As far as MoneyGram asking they are probably wanting that in case you need to request a refund. There may be creative ways to fulfill their request without revealing your identity. Anyway, blockchain has an option to deposit using SMS. I know it's a more expensive fee, but I feel like it's more anonymous than trying to make a cash deposit at a CVS or bank branch. Especially since you could presumably use a pre-paid phone that's funded with a pre-paid credit card? I thought that was carrier billing not credit card / prepaid card. It also is limited as to where that is available. In the U.S., there are now several cash deposit methods that have no fee and require no fee. - http://www.BitFloor.com (Deposit cash at Chase or Wells Fargo) - http://www.BitMe.com (Deposit cash at Chase) Bitcoins Direct accepts cash deposits at B of A, Wells Fargo and PNC Bank (minimum $500). |
|
|
|
My idea - freeze it. Sort out things.
That punishes the innocent (those who are owed coins from their winning bets). That would be, in my opnion, unacceptable for Bets Of Bitcoin to do. I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.
Then talk to NCKRAZZE about getting your funds back. |
|
|
|
A bet was placed with fraudful acquired bitcoins
So you are asking Bets Of Bitcoin to determine the source for the coins from the large bet (or bets) made on the "disagree" side of that bet? I mean I didn't investigate the situation but felt somehow save to side with the agree position given 300:0 in the bet at that time.
Exactly the problem. If the outcome on the bet statement ends favoring those that bet "Agree", then freezing the 300 BTC is taking that amount not from the scammer that placed the losing bet but from those who placed bets that ultimately ended up winners. And as giszmo describes, wagers on that bet statement might not even have been made without the bet being so lopsided as it was. Would that mean that bets of bitcoin should freeze bets in the future in case they might come from shady business? I did not have to register with my real name and wonder how they should enforce such checks. That would be quite impossible to determine, right? I hope there is not even a hint of applying "taint" here. Bitcoins are fungible, whether or not they come from funds that were obtained from a scam. |
|
|
|
Once it gets to this new number, how often would it increase from there?
My guess ... it will grow pretty close to around however much ASICs are purchased from each day's mining proceeds. Using this calculation: - 25 BTC/Block X 144 Blocks/Day X Current BTC/USD at the time. So if there is a BTC/USD of $15, that means about $50K USD goes to miners. So if 1 Thash/s costs $30K, then expect mining to increase over the long run at about 1.67 Thash/s per day. |
|
|
|
they hoped, that they get the block reward for that.
seems they did not really read the protocol.
Seems you are mistaken. Well I was wondering how long it would take for people to notice. It's me
And no I am not putting lots of hashing power to the network, notice that it just says "relayed by" and not "mined by". I'm performing some measurements, paper is due in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
There was a suggestion for being able to "add" fees to an existing tx to ensure it does get processed but I am not sure whether this idea has been looked into in detail yet.
There is the feature where the recipient can then spend the yet unconfirmed funds and pay a fee that will incent the miner to include both transactions to earn the fee. CreateNewBlock: Child-pays-for-parent / Add transaction fee later - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647That is in a "next" version of the client: Please test (if you dare): next and next-test 2012-09-20 - http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=110898.0Also what would prevent this is: improve dust spamming prevention algorithm - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1536 |
|
|
|
Where did you see that Intersango is being closed?
I asked the same thing. The title is misleading. Intersango doesn't have a UK bank so there's not much GBP trading right now, but it still services USD, EUR and PLN markets. |
|
|
|
Is there any chance people would support a version of bitcoin that's goal is to keep its users as anonymous as possible ?
Open Transactions? |
|
|
|
You see, a bitcoin clone can be used as a crypto share. Let's say you create a new bitcoin clone and call it [random name]. You can then create a website where you define the contract (the type of contract that you find on GLBSE now or in the legal paperwork which constitues a real world company), namely how and if dividends will be paid out, how much influence the shareholders have etc. You are describing Open Tranasctions. This specifically was one of the reasons it was built. |
|
|
|
Google Authenticator is officially supported now for logging in to the website(it's optional: if you don't set it up, you can use the website just with your password, if you want to feel more secure - enable GA authentication).
Are there plans to add multi-factor authentication like OTP to the trading site? Right now I can add OTP to the website but that doesn't do anything to stop a replay attack to get unauthorized access to my trading account (where only username and password are still required): - https://icbit.se/WebTrade |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
