|
If it were Steve Jobs Bitcoin wouldn't have an orange logo, be open source, able to mine with a black colored device, (pseudo)anonymous, and free
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone is moving the coins of the Sheep marketplace
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of one exchange dominating a market. Too dangerous.
|
|
|
|
more proof of british background 14/02/2010 0000000065465700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
2009 1.00
30/12/2009 1.18 +18%
11/01/2010 1.31 +11%
25/01/2010 1.34 +2%
04/02/2010 1.82 +36%
14/02/2010 2.53 +39%
Another big jump in difficulty yesterday from 1.82 times to 2.53 times, a 39% increase since 10 days ago. It was 10 days apart not 14 because more nodes joined and generated the 2016 blocks in less time.
the date is in UK format DAY/month/year we know you americans love it as month/day/year, thus satoshi's computer is set as UK not US Or every other country on earth besides UK, and of course US |
|
|
|
|
Thanks you for the 1mbtc !
|
|
|
|
|
don't forget: every 10 minutes 25 bitcoins enter the market and want to find a buyer
|
|
|
|
|
I would advise against a change. It's already established and widely used among shops, exchanges,...
The non-Bitcoin world should not be confused with several logos floating around.
Besides, I think the orange color looks better, more eye catching and is a better representation of themes like "innovation" than this serious blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares about the politics of a completely under-developed and fucked up country regarding economy, human rights, science, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Two companies I'd never trust: Microsoft and Apple
They can say whatever they want, I don't believe a single word, especially if it's about privacy and security. Fuck them.
Microsoft is fighting a request from the US government to search user records that are stored in overseas servers in court. They may or may not win but they are at least trying. Both MSFT and AAPL have limits as to what they are able to do in terms of privacy of information stored on their own servers because the courts are able to force them to comply with search warrants That's what I also would say if I got criticized all the time and afraid that I have to fear to lose market shares, especially in the booming cloud market. I know they are limited but I also don't think they are actually interested. With lobbying and threat to move to another country they could put enough pressure on the government to stop that. If they want... |
|
|
|
Contact dooglus. He still has some 500BTC from just-dice.
I am surprised that there was so much left over from investors. This is more then the total bankroll of most bitcoin related gambling sites/casinos. I think the fact that dooglus publicly said he invested in dicebitco.in and was "wearing" the signature helped them reach a giant bankroll of 7k+ bitcoin can have many reasons - in prison - in hospital - dead - forgot about it - password lost - people who don't check their accounts regularly and haven't heard of the closing |
|
|
|
@UsernameBitcoin
I'm actually looking for that info right now. To try to better understand the time of the white paper. Two months before the white paper Szabo reached out for assistance with BitGold. Satoshi may or may not have contacted Szabo then. If not, Satoshi using Wei Dai as a portal to reach out for certain people could have been where they connected. It does seem while John Nash was touring the world and giving lectures on Ideal Money and the fact that Szabo was studying and writing papers on it for 20+ years that they could have crossed paths and communicated. They also both lived and worked in a very small online cypher community. Remember, Szabo said he knows who Satoshi is. But who is Szabo?
Szabo is indeed a mysterious character. Besides his blog with lots of interesting articles, not much information can be found about him. He allegedly works/ed for Vaurum but this information wasn't online for long ( http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ajrmg/nick_szabo_reliable_secure_p2p_broadcast_crucial/ciw1ncu) The only thing that let me doubt that Nash is involved a lot is his age. Doesn't necessarily have to mean something but I'd expect someone else when it comes to an internet currency. |
|
|
|
@ Bill Bisco
I read an article about Nash changing his writing style to play secret jokes on his colleagues and research assistants. I have been comparing Satoshi's bitcointalk.org posts to the white paper and both Nash and Szabo. Remember, Szabo has been rewriting Nashs papers for 20+ years. For every line in Ideal Money, Szabo wrote a paper on it. But this is serious game theory with a lifetime of planning and I'm positive the linguistics analysis of the white paper and the posts were thought of and measures were taken to misdirect the findings years ago.
@ Aquent
That's why I think Nash let Szabo run lead with himself as the Progect Manager. Nash had all the work completed and perfictly thought out and designed, it just had to be implimented. Nash contacted Szabo and two months later the white paper surfaced. Hal was brought in around this time also. Once Bitcoin was online and working somewhat stable, Nash give the keys to Szabo's trustworthy buddy Gavin, leaving the creator of bitcoin a mystery so there is no one to accuse of being crazy or a terrorist or a thief.
Note: we don't know exactly how it happened, it just all leads back to John Nash being assisted by Szabo in one way or another. IMHO.
Do we know for sure if any communication between Nash and Szabo actually happened? |
|
|
|
|
Two companies I'd never trust: Microsoft and Apple
They can say whatever they want, I don't believe a single word, especially if it's about privacy and security. Fuck them.
|
|
|
|
People scam there too much, why does noone shut the site down?
agree, I learned my expensive lesson, too |
|
|
|
@The Bad Guy
This first section was brought to my attention not too long ago by a member here that spent more time researching this than anyone could imagine. The second section was when I was narrowing it down to the Cypherpunks that had to be involved.
.
.
.
That was an impressive analysis and interesting post. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Looking at GMX's password recovery process, to recover an account it looks like they will either send an email to s***@v*****.com
or they will let you enter your birthdate. Perhaps somebody exploited one of these two options?
reddit formatting markdown fucked up the email address characters, but it looks like S followed by 6 stars @ V followed by 8 stars
entering birth date is rate limited to 3 attempts per 24 hrs. So probably wasn't accessed through this unless the attacker had narrowed down the range a bit
Would take 4 months max to crack the birth date.. So it's quite possible. If somebody knew the exact calendar year, that's true. But do we really really know exactly what year he was born? If Satoshi is only one person and not a group, just try the birth dates of Nick Szabo, Wei Dai, David Chaum, John Nash, Adam Back, Tatsuaki Okamoto, Hal Finney, Neal King, Vladimir Oksman, Charles Bry, Michael Weber, Shinichi Mochizuki, Robert A. Hettinga, Gavin Andresen, and Ray Dillinger and you have your Satoshi. |
|
|
|
But without the miners who would verify the transactions? The miners are the thing that makes the backbone of the blockchain to check to make sure transactions are legitimate. Without it it just wouldnt work or be bitcoin.
I thought the protocol itself could verify it, i.e. the sender who wants to transmit the money is the only person in control of anything, and the protocol just executes the order without anyone's influence. So, it's actually the algorithm of the protocol which confirms a transaction. Read this: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfThen come back with your newly found knowledge and see if you can present a better understanding of what mining accomplishes and why. Thanks, I take a look. I hope it's not too technical. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be centralised if protocol checks the transactions? It is just like a bank, they only checks your balance and deduct amount when you transfer money. It wouldn't be decentralized and considered as p2p as a centralised program checks the transactions. It would function like a bank if only the protocol verifies transactions which isn't what people want.
I think it's different from a bank. There's just the protocol running, not controlled by anyone, no one who can decide whether to allow a transaction or not. Thanks for the link. Is it really centralized if everyone uses the same protocol which isn't controlled by an institution? It could be completely transparent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
