Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2024, 04:27:17 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Help using Multisig transactions on: August 08, 2013, 07:54:02 PM
Yep, what dserrano5 said. The error should point you in the right direction: "Missing redeemScript".
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin API - solved! on: August 06, 2013, 03:37:42 AM
This thread is 2 years old.
3  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Elqnt -- Anonymous Peer-to-Peer Bitcoin Exchange on: July 27, 2013, 09:17:47 PM
Even if you announce downtime on twitter, still best to have a static page (S3 works well for this) to let everyone know you are doing maintenance. 
4  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Elqnt -- Anonymous Peer-to-Peer Bitcoin Exchange on: July 27, 2013, 08:57:25 PM
The site doesn't load.

OSX 10.8.4
Chrome 28
5  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: BitInstant has my money on: July 27, 2013, 03:36:30 AM
It doesn't seem like BitInstant has handled this very well. They should be reaching out to their customers, not waiting to be contacted by people who feel like they've been scammed.
6  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: BFL, KnC, ASIC Miner, and now.... on: July 27, 2013, 03:33:27 AM
After watching people wait years for stuff from BFL, I'd be skeptical of anything that I haven't seen with my own eyes. Like monomeric said, the proof is in the silicon.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 11:00:25 PM
I agree with satoshi's idea. It seems like the best of both worlds.

8  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 08:36:21 PM
On the other hand, with a parallel currency devoted to some task such as processing DNS records or perhaps something else that may even have even more CPU resources thrown at it, I would argue that over time this "alternate" currency may have a substantially stronger currency train.  There are no guarantees here, but certainly I could see some people throwing CPU cycles at some of these alternate application simply because of what they do in terms of say DNS records rather than even as currency.  They will have this "alternate currency" which is then even better protected than Bitcoins, and my argument here is that the currency is thus a stronger currency which will drive Bitcoin out of the market place.

And like a Ronco advertisement, "that's not all"!  Since there are concrete applications for this alternate currency (buying domain records, paying transaction fees on the "Bitcoin stock exchange", buying certification from a document registrar, etc.) there is also built-in demand for this currency simply to have it.  That in turn is something that I think over time may even make this currency more valuable in terms of the overall size of the economy using these coins, further driving value out of the Bitcoin economy in a downward spiral.  Bitcoin will then just be a cryptographically weaker currency with fewer people trading a relatively worthless currency.  Is that really what Bitcoin users really want to see?

Sorry kiba, should have quoted it for you to follow along. RHorning was discussing another mainline only for DNS stuff. My response was to that.
9  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 08:25:38 PM
I don't think this is going to go away, as there are other application for Bitcion which can use this same principle.  As I've tried to abundantly explain, the method of "attack" here is also a more generalized database for other kinds of data besides DNS records.

The benefit to Bitcoins is in regards to the mining activity needed to produce block chains containing non-financial data:  Either that CPU activity can be applied to the main Bitcoin block chain and thus strengthening Bitcoin as a whole or it can be applied to a "parallel currency".

If people want to use fake Bitcoin transactions and use either the timestamp or some other method of encoding data into a regular bitcoin transactions, that is fine. But what I am against is the main Bittorent protocol officially sanctioning some kind of Domain registry protocol, or any other arbitrary data protocol for that matter. The chain still benefits from the increased cpu power, without having to create a different transaction type.

Would you not agree that at least for mainstream adoption, you wouldn't want to confuse the message about what bitcoin actually is?

And FWIW, there is not more "built-in" demand for another alternate currency. If anything, only being able to use them in a DNS setting makes them a less viable competitor to Bitcoin.
10  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 04:20:35 PM
Because there are 200 million domain names that use the other service and have no reason to "mine" for domains when they can just buy one. You can't be suggesting that even if BitDNS was integrated, it would be more than a niche.

Nonsense, most people will still buy domain names.


Haha, then why even worry about getting it into the main client as a transaction type?
11  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 04:10:55 PM
Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

It's important to understand a distinction here. They are making a distributed Domain Name Service, but are planning to depend on a centralized Domain Name Registration Service.

Bitcoin provides a great way to do a decentralized Domain Name Registration Service which would be a great match for their distributed DNS.

Didn't realize that they weren't doing distributed registration. And bitdns only does Domain Name Registration?

The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big.

And why do you think that is?
Quote
Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS.

I started the bounty pledge drive precisely because I didn't like what the The Pirate Bay is doing.

Because there are 200 million domain names that use the other service and have no reason to "mine" for domains when they can just buy one. You can't be suggesting that even if BitDNS was integrated, it would be more than a niche.
12  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 03:27:17 PM
Everyone is stuck on a hypothetical I gave out, with the point being that, IMO, bitcoin would need to be free from any uses that might discourage its uses, otherwise, the average user may not use it.

I think jgarzik says it best.

...unless the use of bitcoin for non-currency purposes discourages currency use.  Some uses of the network can act as an overall disincentive against mainstream use.  If people see that miners care little for currency transactions on the bitcoin network, or all the data spam increases TX fees to annoying levels, currency users will find a new network elsewhere.  If people find out law-enforcement-objectionable data such as "kiddie-pr0n.p2p DNS data" is being managed on this network, that increases the incentive for currency users to go elsewhere.

Maybe that makes some miners happy in the short term, and you happy, but I'm here for the revolutionary new type of digital cash.

And this generalized data timestamping/notary service seems like it has the distinct probability of degrading service for digital cash, if it is even remotely successful.


The truth, probably, is that bitdns will never be anything big. Heck, the guy from The Pirate Bay is making his own distributed DNS. The main client shouldn't have a transaction type specifically for DNS.
13  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 05:36:36 AM
Then do we disagree?  Smiley

You are against the protocol being filled with "other uses" (like BitDNS - an exception to normal use). If the official client only allows standard transactions, then the protocol is not getting "minced".

I feel like BitDNS stuff like this is just a phase. It won't last long, and will eventually be forgotten by the discovery of a new way to mine Bitcoins faster with the same hardware (or applicable "next big thing").
14  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 05:08:31 AM
Then what point that I have mentioned are you against?

That having a domain name would help a hypothetical illicit online business?

That Bitcoin being interwoven with said illicit hypothetical online business by virtue of being its DNS provider is a bad thing?
15  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 05:00:27 AM
Kiba, maybe I'm not being clear or something?

Bitcoin is a currency.

People spend it. Use it as an investment. And in the future, it could be a rival to the currencies of some countries.

Why would the Bitcoin community want to have a distributed DNS system piggybacked on its chain? Yea, you could do that with the old client releases, but the new official client release does not support BitDNS/DomainChain. (I am upgrading, and won't support BitDNS/DomainChain).

If someone ***really*** wants a distributed dns chain, make your own chain!
16  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 04:32:19 AM
1) I understand that taking a domain name doesn't shut down the operation, but having a domain name at least makes it easier for the content to be accessed, and easier for it to be profitable for the wrongdoer, who can change hosts, etc, and just update the IP behind the domain.

2) Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by my post.

The point of my post was, why on earth would anyone want the main block chain of a new currency to be wrapped up in a decentralized DNS system that will tend to skew towards illegal (or at least *fringe*) activity? That isn't going to increase adoption.

Im aware that saying "its against the protocol" disallows anyone from taking a domain, but that is the point. Why would Bitcoin want to be a part of a DNS system anyway?
17  Economy / Economics / Re: The economics of generalized bitcoin on: December 09, 2010, 04:14:52 AM
Agreed.

Not to mention that a decentralized DNS system, which I am not against, will have a tendency to skew towards the illegal/fringe uses where avoidance of the law is paramount.

For every Wikileaks, there are probably two somalian child porn sites (or pick your poison) that would enjoy freedom from government intervention.

Just my 2c
18  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin Austrian Economic Study Group on: December 09, 2010, 04:10:26 AM
I hope your talking about the Austrian School, not austria.

If its the austrian school, I'm down, Its always great to discuss economics with like minds.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Some Simple Questions on: December 09, 2010, 04:01:14 AM
For starters, I just want to say Bitcoin is awesome. I am a developer/economist and want to completely wrap my head around the theory behind Bitcoin so I can help out where possible.

My question is about transactions and how they are included in newly generated blocks.

     - I understand that when a new block is generated, the miner gets to keep the fees of the transactions that he includes in the generated block, which replicates transactions across the network and keeps people from spending bitcoins twice, etc. (correct me if I'm wrong).
     - The problem is, how do the miners "see" transactions? Or, how do they actually get the other users transactions to include in the newly generated block.


Also, what part does the "wallet.dat" play? Does it store your private key? If it does, why does it need to be backed up after each transaction?

[edit] Scratch the wallet.dat part, I just saw the question in the FAQ[/edit]
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.18 on: December 09, 2010, 03:02:06 AM
I applaude this decision.

Why would anyone want to muddle up their nice distributed currency system, free from complex regulation from governments, and add a DNS system on top of it? How hard would that be to explain to someone's mom, who (conceivably), could be using Bitcoin in the future?

There is plenty of transaction fees to be had when bitcoin builds a larger user base. We don't need non-standard transactions to make mining worthwhile

The simpler Bitcoin stays, the better IMO.
Pages: [1] 2 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!