Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2017, 01:10:36 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.2  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 458 »
421  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hardware device and protocol for seeding and verifying Provably Fair gaming on: September 04, 2013, 11:37:31 PM
I didnt understand the bitzino example You gave. did  You mean that the bitzino verification is from a neutral source and cant be manipulated?

Yup.  two pieces of information (the hash they provide and then after that the seed my client provides) are known by me before each play.  Then after the game is played the secret is revealed.   It can be proven later that their secret [Edit: deck] didn't change as it should hash to the same value they provided prior to the game play.  

So then for shuffling the deck bitZino uses a few functions, sha256, MersenneTwister19937, and FisherYatesShuffle.

The pseudocode for it is at the bottom of this post:
 - https://techblog.bitzino.com/2012-06-30-provably-fair-shuffling-through-cryptography.html

So after the game is over I can verify that the results of the deck shuffle were not altered during play.  From there each game can be verified.  Each type of game has a unique challenge.  Even though I know how the cards were shuffled for blackjack, for instance, I would still need to track each play -- where did I stand or bust on the hand, did I split, etc.    So that part of the verification isn't necessarily generic.  The player's actions would need to be fed to a verifier that knows the rules of the game.

This technology won't be something the casinos would be anxious to develop.  So this would be an innovation rising from the bottom-up, pulled forward because it protects the player from a dishonest operator (or even an operator that is unaware of a bug or other situation causing players to not be paid out properly).
422  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A mistery hidden in the Genesis Block on: September 03, 2013, 11:07:17 PM
Satoshi did one more joke on us before fading away. Tomorrow, I will tell.

A new mystery about Satoshi hidden in the Bitcoin block-chain
 - http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/new-mystery-about-satoshi/

by Sergio Demian Lerner,  ‏@SDLerner on Twitter.
423  Economy / Gambling / Re: Any good bitcoin slots? on: September 03, 2013, 09:46:18 PM
I see BitcoinVideoCasino.com has slots now:
 - https://bitcoinvideocasino.com/slots
424  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-09-03 contrariancompliance.com: No Banking, No Bitcoin on: September 03, 2013, 09:36:35 PM

Individuals are today selling bitcoins by accepting cash deposits (e.g., using Bitcoin-Brokers.org) through their bank account.  Some of them might be considered money transmitters by FinCEN, I suppose.   Will banks need to scrutinize every account that sees a cash deposit to try to figure out if the transaction was for a digital currency trade?
425  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Hardware device and protocol for seeding and verifying Provably Fair gaming on: September 03, 2013, 09:30:23 PM
The innovation referred to as "Provably fair" gaming is an innovation that has driven the growth of Bitcoin-based online wagering.

The problem with Provably fair is that actually verifying each hand (or round, play, etc.) from the service to ensure it was truly fair is something very difficult to do, today.   Each site has its own verification techniques and the ones that use a random number generator for the client seed includes challenges for verification as well.    If a provably fair site were to want to cheat, it could probably get away with it for a while before some techie was manually performing verification analysis and discovered that cheating had occurred.

This is not a bitcoin-gaming specific challenge.

I see the need for some protocol so that the game can get the client seed from a user-defined source not under the control by the gaming service (e.g., a browser plug-in, or external, consumer-owned, hardware device even), and then then after each play the plug-in or device would then verify that the results of the game were computed accurately.

There's probably only a handful of seed + verification approaches that would suffice for most provably fair gaming offered today.  I know that BitZino uses at least two, as their slots needed a different approach (factoradics) than their other games needed:
 - https://bitzino.com/about/fair

If this seed + verification protocol were created and plug-ins and/or devices were available, most Bitcoiners would only play the online gambling services where this protocol is offered.   Competitive forces would draw other services to use the protocol as well, possibly even into the casino industry where Bitcoin is not (yet) even used.

At a minimum, such a protocol would give Bitcoin-based online wagering added legitimacy since you would no longer need to trust that the provably fair service isn't cheating you.

Any thoughts on the topic?
426  Economy / Gambling / Re: What is the best bitcoin casino? on: September 03, 2013, 08:38:23 PM
One nice thing about SatoshiDICE is that it is easy to externally audit.  It grew so fast because it was among the best methods for wagering.   There is no way for me to know for sure if the wagers that appear in the chat (troll) box for wallet-based wagering sites are actual wagers or if they've been fabricated to make it look like lots of play is occurring.

BitZino had publicly shared some growth numbers some time ago and they were impressive:
 - https://bitzino.com/about/numbers/10_million_hands

But still even if all the Bitcoin-based online casino sites were doing as well, the aggregate amount is still a tiny fraction of all online wagering, which itself is a tiny fraction of casino gaming that occurs.

But not having the most popular wagering service doesn't mean it isn't either sustainable or useful.  But collectively the sites keep getting better (e.g., see http://BitcoinVideoCasino.com's latest update), providing more value (e.g., the higher payout available with http://just-dice.com), available in a wider scale (e.g., Bitcoin Video Casino's mobile app for Android), more entertaining (e.g., ....  [your suggestions here]), etc.

427  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is FastCash4Bitcoins ever coming back? on: September 03, 2013, 08:00:28 PM
* With the exception of clients in the states of VA, NY, and CA at this time.

With most banks having branches in multiple states, are there restrictions from me opening a Wells Fargo account in, oh say, Nevada with my California address?  [Update: Or is it the address of the customer and not the location of the home branch that determines the state, as far as FastCash4Bitcoins is concerned?]
428  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple starts to conquer the world from China on: September 03, 2013, 07:39:28 PM
Ripple will never be open source.   It is just the bait to build the network.  Once it is large enough there is little reason to open source it.

Would the arrival of the day men with guns show up to confiscate hardware and shut it down increase the likelihood they release as open source?

Today Ripple is being used as the successor [Edit: a successor] to the "redeemable code" -- a debt-based voucher.  Releasing as open source is the only way for that network to continue [Edit: and existing XRPs held by anyone to continue to have value] after such an event.
429  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What if dev-team is compromised? on: September 03, 2013, 06:01:30 PM
Probably fork right, but what fork?

Well, let's take the unintentional change to the Bitcoin protocol that happened with the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind v0.8 release.

It caused a hard fork.

It took less than an hour for a sufficient amount of hashing capacity to conclude that coins mined using v0.8 blocks would become worthless and thus abandon it to go back to the protocol as it exists in v0.7 and prior (or use a v0.8 patch that fixed the incompatability).

That's because the economic majority favored the v0.7 side.  

 - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

And that's for a change that introduced that unwanted behavior had slipped through undiscovered.  An intentional change to alter the protocol would likely not go unnoticed as there are many eyes on every change to the source that is released:
 - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Release_process
430  Bitcoin / Technical Support / Re: Accidently sent bitcoin to first genesis block, any way to get it back? on: September 03, 2013, 07:17:46 AM
Bitcoin payments are irreversible, just hope that satoshi read this and send your coin back to you

Sending a large chunk there and claiming it was an accident would be a nice attempt to see if Satoshi is monitoring this forum!
431  Economy / Economics / Re: $-100,000 a day could some one explain how this runs on: September 02, 2013, 02:51:56 AM
There will always be seigniorage in the bitcoin world as the transaction fees will support the miners

But that isn't seigniorage.   That's simply fees paying the freight.
432  Economy / Speculation / Re: How to explain google trends vs BTC/USD ratio? on: September 01, 2013, 09:48:15 PM
How could we explain this spread between btc price and google trends.

The first time I learned about the word twerking I did what many others did and googled it.  

I've heard the word twerking hundreds of times since and occasionally have seen it occur but I've not once done a search on it in ever since.

So even though there is (presumably) more twerking occuring today than there was yesterday, the frequency of Google searching for twerking is down today versus yesterday.

So similarly, for Bitcoin, Google trends will spike when there is an influx of those who are becoming aware of bitcoin for the first time, but Google trends can drop even though the actual subject of the term is seeing an increase in activity.

But because financial speculation discussion (due to a rising exchange rate) is the primary reason people are learning of the term "bitcoin", the google trends will lag, not lead, the exchange rate.  Thus Google searching for the term bitcoin can drop significantly without the exchange rate falling as well.
433  Bitcoin / Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin QT Asking For Passphrase to Receive BTC on: August 31, 2013, 07:16:40 PM
I only thought "passphrase" was needed to send not receive BTC.

The logic for that is that you don't want a key added to your wallet without your explicit permission.
434  Economy / Economics / Re: Investment on: August 31, 2013, 05:25:16 PM
startıng a dıscussıon about general ınvestment.

Nope, you are starting a discussion about speculation.

ı can say for sure the prıce of sılver ıs goıng to double perhaps even trıple ın the next 12 months.

Ooohhh, me next!

I can say for sure the exchange rate for Bitcoin is going to double perhaps even triple in the next 12 months.

Of course, I can't really say that as I have no idea which way the Bitcoin exchange rate will head.  Just as you have no idea for silver.

What we do agree on is that fiat is going to be the loser over the long run.  It always has.

As far as bullion, what I would like to see is something like the DYM issue on Ripple become commonplace:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149533.0
435  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can I make direct transaction? on: August 31, 2013, 02:50:30 AM
I think I can make direct transfer, but I want to be sure.

Technically it will work.

The main problem in keeping your funds with a hosted (shared) E-Wallet (like how most pool accounts and exchange accounts operate as) is that when you request a withdraw, you are at that service's mercy.   If they have an empty hot wallet and need to transfer more funds from their cold wallet, you have no options other than to wait.

Instead, if you have the funds in your own wallet -- your transaction goes out immediately.

Additionally, let's say you were withdrawing to an address someone else gave you.  If that other person happens to use the same E-Wallet service, then that transaction may not get broadcast to the network (i.e., is handled internally within the wallet as an account-to-account transfer).   So you wouldn't have the blockchain as proof that you had sent payment.

So generally, you don't want to get in the habit of using your pool's withdraw feature as the method for sending bitcoins to other people.
436  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation Board Election Details Announced on: August 29, 2013, 02:17:53 AM
Edit: Updated list. This should be the final candidate list.


There are three more names for the individual seat:

Individual Candidate: Joerg Platzer 
Individual Candidate: Ryan Deming 
Individual Candidate: Pedro Fernandes 

437  Economy / Economics / Re: Billionaires hate Bitcoin. on: August 28, 2013, 09:10:54 PM
That's probably the closest thing Bill Gates has said (to-date) that can be deemed as being in favor of Bitcoin [Edit: digital currency]:

Quote
Someone who’s interested in finance can help drive innovations such as digital currency that reduce transaction costs so that poor people can borrow at five percent a year instead of 15 percent.

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130828134129-251749025-we-need-our-brightest-people-working-on-our-biggest-problems

[Update: He could be among those who consider any electronic transaction to be a "digital currency" transaction, it isn't evident from this.]
438  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Trading with Bitcoin on: August 28, 2013, 06:01:30 PM
It would sure be nice to have oil (WTI/Brent) as a tradeable product on one of these brokers...

ICBit had it at one time.
 - https://icbit.se/CLG3

There were few contracts traded so after expiration no new contract issue was offered.   The spread was regularly pretty wide but due to volatility there were times when using that contract as a hedge against crude was affordable.
439  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: IDEA: MediaWallet on: August 28, 2013, 04:00:26 PM
As long as Bitcoin distinguishes itself by allowing 2fa or some other wallet control, then it makes an ideal wallet for subscription based content.


There is some 2FA approach for use with P2SH as Gavin describes: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5616606, but that's is likely way overkill to make it work with a micropayments subscription type of of application.   

Coinbase's subscriptions service probably could provide greater ease-of-use, and since it is already offered today by Coinbase that could be implemented more easily.   But the problem with Coinbase's subscriptions is that the customer is pre-authorizing the "merchant" to withdraw.  With the Open MediaWallet concept as I understand it, the content creators would each be merchants and thus that Coinbase subscription model doesn't work.  If there was a single Coinbase account for all MediaWallet content creators, about the only protection from abuse (e.g., payment drawn without approval by a scammer acting as content creator) comes from the amount being limited (i.e., $X per-week limit).

Rather than subscriptions, the micropayments channel (which  BitcoinJ has now implemented) would be a better fit:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party
440  Economy / Speculation / Re: Lets talk BTC price over the next few months (downward move imminent?) on: August 26, 2013, 08:39:41 PM
Why do so many people assume miners HAVE to sell bitcoins right away to "pay bills"?

Why not assume the have other resources and can horde?

That's likely due to the situation when mining was for GPUs and the Bitcoin revenues dropped to where they barely matched the increase in the electricity bill.    There was a high level of whinging (e.g., October and November 2011) by those who felt they "got suckered" into buying hardware (which is kind of true, since much press from May, June and July 2011 touted how miners were making huge bank.  These were not crypto-currency enthusiasts, they were techies who saw their friends getting "free hardware" and they jumped in -- oftentimes maxing out the credit card to do so.   So many of them truly were selling most every coin they mined and used the proceeds for paying off the purchase of the hardware and for the electric bill.  So then, of course, when difficulty rose it took more and more bitcoins, which collectively pushed the exchange rate lower ... incenting further spending, and spiraling on and on further down it went.

The miners who bought ASICs had to pay the cost up front so there's little additional cost to operating ASIC hardware yet (relative to BTCs earned), and thus more miners are today saving their coins than when comparing to 2011 when that sell-everything-you-earn behavior was prevalent.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 458 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!