This doesn't make sense to me.

What it is saying is that, to get around a hard fork (and a soft fork), some miners will mine a new block type.
This new block is at 1MB, but can "expand" to bigger than 1MB, by allowing included txs to fall outside of that 1MB limit
and into the "mushroom" section of this new block. When you are in this section, you can not see, verify, or spend (technically).

That means when people use bitcoin, they won't know if their tx will be within the 1MB or the mushroom section.

This alone will cause too much damage to the market place, especially with merchants.
Bitcoin is based on a provable tx. Your now saying we won't be able to prove or see some txs.

I wonder if the miners on the bottom of the page are going to mine both chains (Core & Classic),
or only mine this "Classic" chain. Interesting to see how those miners will proceed.

Not surprising there is another attempt at a way to get a higher block limit.
This will continue forever, till there is a raise in the limit.

Seems like garbage. Is there proof that Amazon has banned the book?

My understanding is secp256k1 was used over r1 and others because
secp256k1 is less common and less likely to have a backdoor.

Here is what the bitcoin wiki says:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Secp256k1

OP has not returned or answered to his original posting to this regard.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1323778.msg13519845#msg13519845



Blockchain.info has no change addresses. I think there is another problem.

Curious8, please post your bitcoin address that had bitcoins in them. NOT YOUR PRIVATE KEYS.

I have never used that blockchain.info feature before.

Can you see your original btc addresses in this "imported wallet"?
Can you check your transactions to see if your btc moved out of the wallet?
Did you check your Archived addresses to make sure they are viewable?
Where did you store your "backup"?

What exactly do you see after you put your password in? Nothing?
Or just all empty balances in your addresses?

More info is needed to figure out what you see and what the problem might be.

I don't usually get involved in the "blocksize debate" very often,
mostly because I'm not testing the system, understand the system, and its true capabilities,
and thus, I have no idea what is or is not truly feasible in this relation.

In that light, I would like to point out that even with a blocksize increase,
the average tx will still take an average 10 minutes for a single confirm.

The "lighting network" would allow a work around,
whereby merchants and others can finally "sell/buy their coffee",
with a single confirm, and not have to wait 10 mins (or more) for such.

Increasing the blocksize from 1Megabyte to even a (crazy) 500 Terabytes,
still doesn't solve the issue for smaller, everyday, simple purchases.

Just my non-expert opinion.

The actual problem with the whole issue is that we as a community,
should have created a simple "organization" to only help fund the devs, long ago.

This "dev fund organization" would never do any conferences, videos, ads, lobbying, or etc., but only to help finance devs.
If this was done properly, then many of the issues and calls of "conflicts of interest" today would not exist.
This "organization" would have no vote, or say, or power, other than to collect donations and disburse to devs monthly or so.

Whether the current dev standing is correct or not, with regards to the current hold on a 1mb limit, is irrelevant.
An organization only to fund the devs, and provide them the ability to live comfortably and work on Bitcoin,
is something that should have existed since the early days. Purported issues voiced today only exist because of lack of insight in the past.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not what I'm talking about, they tried to do too much and wasted so much.

Can your carnival have fun clowns too?



I will only pay admission if there are fun clowns.

Yes, it makes it more likely for loss, because of things like keyloggers and such.
Private keys are safe and can not be hacked. Only you can be hacked and as a result, eventually reveal your private key.

When it comes to backward engineering your private key from address reuse, this is based on what I have read previously.
Another forum member who is an expert can expand and explain it more properly than I.

My understanding, is that the more you reuse an address, the higher a chance for a hacker to "figure out" your private key.
My understanding, is that it isn't simple and would take a good amount of resources and time to do so.
My understanding, is that they are able to "figure out" your private key, by finding patterns from your multiple transactions out of that address.
My understanding, is that the minimum about of transactions out of your wallet a hacker would need is about 30 individual outputs.

But ultimately, if you kept your address reuse to below 29 transactions, out of that address, you are very safe.

On the phone wallet, your private key is stored on the phone and is potentially exposed to malware/virus/hackers on your phone.
This is why it is advised to store a low about of bitcoins on your phone, and store the rest on a computer wallet, offline or cold storage.

On the paper wallet, your private key is only on that piece of paper and is potentially exposed to natural events (fire,flood,physical theft).

There is no real difference in privacy.
You can see both transaction on the blockchain, but that is irrelevant as to how their private key is stored.

Simply, when you expose the private key at any time, on any computer, connected to internet or not,
the fact that you have now "revealed" your private key, is the issue everyone is addressing.

The purpose of a paper wallet is that the private key is not stored in a wallet program or ever used on a computer.
Your private key is only on that piece of paper and is entirely safe from any computer "thief".

As soon as you use the private key to make a transaction, now you are potentially exposed to hackers/malware/etc.
For that reason, it is recommend to use a different address each time, because you private key may have been exposed.

There are two possible ways of exposure,
(1) from malware or hackers, and
(2) from address reuse to the point of being able to backwards engineer your private key. (min 30 internal output address transactions)

So basically, that is why you are recommended to transfer any remaining bitcoins to a new paper wallet.

The idea that banks will need to back up all deposits, is not ever possible.
This can never happen with the current world financial system.

Fractional Reserve Banking can never be reversed,
it is a mandatory feature/result of/for continued financial growth.
It must continue "forever" or the system must collapse in its entirely.

This proposal can only be possible after an extreme depopulation of human depositors.
Then the system can readjust and have enough to cover "all deposits".

There are no corrections. Those days are over.
What Europe is proposing is a sign of the end. Desperation.

Was the email address that you received the coinbase email also used for your bitcointalk.org account?
A hacker managed to get full access and partially downloaded the bitcointalk.org database, a few months back.
I do not believe the email contacts were hashed, so it could be possible they got your email through that.

Otherwise it is strange, if you never signed up with coinbase ever.

I have no concern that this could ever happen in certain western countries, unless:
(1) society collapses due to limited nuclear/biological war, or
(2) society collapses due to massive perpetual financial depression, or
(3) society collapses due to China invading/conquering those nations and imposing this "sesame credits".

In most western countries, there are still people who would fight against this. Especially in the USA.

What China proposes to do is not entirely unexpected, as technology advances, it will be used to control people.
The question is then whether their citizens will go along with it and become willful slaves,
or fight against it and stop it before it gets too big to take back. I suspect they will not fight it.

As to this news with the future use of bitcoin, the elite Chinese citizens will still use bitcoin (they love it),
even if the average citizen is denied. The elite of china think bitcoin is the future store of value. (Gold is so boring..)

Even if China made ChinaStateCoin and it was force upon the citizens, the elites would still own and use bitcoin.

There are people who have been waiting for a few weeks now with no response from support.
Rumors are the worst case scenario. Either they were hacked and lost coins, or not profitable and about to go under.
Last week or two, people were withdrawing any altcoin to get their btc out, over the rumors, but Cryptsy stopped that too.

Good luck to you and the other Cryptsy users.

I don't even know what the purpose of this is. The picture makes no sense.
I think the website is promoting a scam by attempting to claim they worked with Satoshi , Sirius, & Theymos,
as "Founding Members" of Bitcoin Foundation? I actually still don't get it.

My understanding is that Satoshi Nakamoto had nothing to do with the Bitcoin Foundation.

Interesting, but I think then the Stock Markets/Forex/ and many other systems of the current world would be "gambling" as well.

Edit: Maybe they could "ban" the mining process, but I don't think they can "ban" hodling and using it as currency,
since that could be equated to gold coins. I have no idea, but I believe coins (especially gold/silver/etc) are allowed.

Yes, I know. It is not checked. I do not use browser backup.
In any event, I do not know why you get asked for email authorization each time, when I do not.
I assume it is because your your settings of your actual browser, and not the settings within blockchain.info.

No, I don't have that box or any other boxes "checked".
The only thing is my email is "verified".