The difference is that those are optional in Bitcoin. In order for them to work, it requires a critical mass which is not yet exist.

The daily trade volume is going to pass #6. What happens?

Please give a better example, they have exact representation in IEEE

Ok, it makes a bit sense now, for some possibly real use case. I have included all out transactions including the OP_RETURN, so I was wondering where is the missing.

Subtle implementation rules are not a problem, but it must be stated clearly not only in the code, but written somewhere.

Reimplementation is also a way to check the existing Bitcoin code base, so you cannot blame them, even though their client is just rubbish. After that, they might help back.

Anyway, thanks.

No, it is not an attack vector at the moment, but it makes the rules look more arbitrary, harder to explain, harder to understand and harder to verify. I am writing a program and the total UTXO is not equal to the total "expected Bitcoin" at any time, so I have spent hours to find it out. If it were all in some "blackhole" addresses, indeed, that makes thing simple. In case of not having a full blockchain but only UTXO, I am not sure whether it allow some kind of attack.

I am asking why it is not implemented in the first place. The first such transaction is at least two years after the genesis, so I think there may be some intention to do so.
 

I was thinking that the total Bitcoin difference between two adjacent blocks is always newcoins = (50e8 >> (height / 210000)), so the following rule should hold:

    "sum of all input values of all transactions in a blocks + newcoins = sum of all output values of all transactions in a blocks"

But it is not!!! Only the ">" instead of "=" holds in the above rule, there have been some blocks having less newcoins than the expected value above. Now, there are more than total 10BTC disappearing in nowhere and the reported total coin in most websites are simply wrong. I feel faked by it as there is really a way to destroy Bitcoin: Users pay the transaction fee and miners throw them into blackhole by not adding it to the block's coinbase.

This rule can be very trivial to verify by simple additions with no additional backtracking required. So why don't we enforce the coinbase output value to satisfy the rule above?

Example: https://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000016034213ddfedb834de864de92b03723db20ae70d3e631ef68d

Some data for addresses with the last transaction in and out

1 187265 2742730.1887 54135 1131514.4367
2 315633 3735105.5717 90051 1508839.3391
3 564223 5386743.333 133748 2010838.6344
4 684371 5995782.3147 169695 2210078.8551
5 792756 6292835.3493 251123 2287452.2254
6 856458 6492933.1587 309809 2432789.9497
7 910566 6724922.9885 349843 2463812.9358
8 959606 6889373.9607 377582 2498900.9373
9 1007434 7139908.9884 401585 2524772.1555
10 1072809 7274791.2503 428237 2551757.6283

Thanks for the suggestion. Is it possible to play with the brainwallet on the testnet? I have taken a look on it before. The issue is that the functionality of brainwallet is very simple and it seems not support sendtomany() now. Sure I can first send it to standard wallet and then create another transaction, but it takes an hour and increase the error.

The standard client have commands for all type of transactions, that is why I want to know whether the scheme described works or not?

Reading few methods of offline transaction (https://bitcoinarmory.com/using-offline-wallets-in-armory/), it seems that there is still no easy way to do that at the moment (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167312.0). There are many details to take care in BOTH online and offline clients. The less thing to do, the less the risk. So could the whole process be easier if the whole blockchain is copied to the offline computer? Is there any problem in following procedure?

(1) Copy the whole folder ~/.bitcoin/blocks to the offline computer
(2) [offline]: ./bitcoind sendtoaddress <address> <amount>
(3) [offline]: ./bitcoind getrawtransaction <txid>
(4) Copy the hexstring transaction back to the online machine
(5) [online]: ./bitcoind sendrawtransaction <hexstring>
---------- Alternative ----------
(4) Display QR code of hexstring transaction in offline computer
(5) Scan QR code and paste the transaction at https://blockchain.info/pushtx
(6) Erase everthing on USB to prevent any information leaking back to online computer

I have couples of concerns about the Satoshi client:
* Is the ~/.bitcoin/blocks folder contains all the necessary information of blockchain? Is it enough to only copy the newest part of database?
* I dont want to backup wallet every time. So to prevent the keypoolrefill(), is that the only way is to sendmany to send back to the original wallet? Do I need to calculate the exact amount in the sendmany to prevent it to send remainder to new address?
* Is the fee determined from the offline computer accurate? Even if the blockchain is not the newest one?
* If there is any errors found about the transaction before submitting, how to remove it and make a new one?

You want to protest that they add the "illegally" word in the introduction? Just wait until you see the show.

No. The paper does not give any solution. It leaves out the most important part of how to choose the group of "trusted" people.

Centralization is always the most efficient system. However, corruption always occur due to human nature. Spreading the authority to a hundreds of people may not solve problem. It is just like politician in communist country always vote the same which is essential put power on the same authority.



If one day Bitcoin user base grow, the mining must become a very specialized industry and this core group should still consist of more or less 40,000 people. This group owns the equipment as investment and look for profit so we can assume they behavoir economically rational. It is much much better than a small group of hundred people. 

However, what we need is competition between all those people but not cooperating between them. The pool mining promote cooperation in which pool are acting like "mintettes" in the paper. There is no real solution yet and will hinder Bitcoin. Other problems in the paper are also real, and neither Bitcoin nor his solution solve them.



The combined of these two systems as a two phase confirmations might work better. All currency holders vote periodically the "hard" checkpoint. Two phase confirmations may be needed for very large amount transaction for more trust. It is more complex and may have conflicts but it depends on implementation.

There will be other more systems in the future.

The purpose here is to emphasize that Bitcoin is a easy to use micropayment system across multiple website.



I think so.


It is exactly the point of this campaign: Teach them how to use Bitcoin. And even better, when they spend Bitcoin, it can give chance to their friends to try. It may result more people have hand on experience of Bitcoin. I am sure 80% of them will not touch Bitcoin anymore in the same year.

But suppose they face a problem later, then they will take Bitcoin as a possible solution. In your example, if both hammer or skew driver can solve a problem. I am pretty sure they will choose hammer because they already know how to use it.


Yes, but in most case the problem is only one facet of the whole picture. It is just like
* Paypal chargeback my money! Ok, I move to Google Checkout because they are much fair.
* Bank take too much time to process my transfer! Ok, I use credit card for it instead.
* Identity theft of credit card! Ok, I move back to Paypal.
* Bitcoin take much lower fee than paypal? You are lying. The exchange fee is very significant for small payments unless I earn it directly.
* Bitcoin allow transfer of any amount across border instantly! Well, unless you never exchange it back to the currency.

Bitcoin does solve multiple problems at the same time, but the chance that a single persion encounter more than two of them is vanishingly small. We have to admitted that most of the benefit are only for the people who already have Bitcoin. Buying Bitcoin in exchange just cause them the same trouble.

A very unique feature is that Bitcoin can be used across multiple website easily. Again, the premise is that they own Bitcoin. Again, no one will buy Bitcoin for this purpose only. Now, there are way for them to earn Bitcoin such as Feedzebird. What I want to do is to bootstrap such usage pattern, and then refer them to earn those Bitcent if they are interested.



If anyone give me few Twollar of Twitter, or facebook credit, etc, for free. I will just spend all of them. I dont understand them and I dont want to learn any details unless I decide to put real money in it.

Our focus is the micropayment aspect across website, so casual user need not care any details as well as it work! It is just like the business model for most free flash game, they attract many people to play it but only a tiny of them will take it serious and pay money. Bitcoin need a large amount of casual user and some will take it seriously because it solve their problem.

That is why I do not recommend any friends to buy Bitcoin.

I am not sure how to register a domain, and I dont know what other contents I want to add.

Thanks for the name. My writing is poor and now it should be better organized.


Buying gifts using Bitcoin certainly help Bitcoin economy, but your friends may not know it and they are not interested.

How do you give Bitcoin to them and do they spend all of Bitcoin? I would say that most of friends ignore Bitcoin except some geeks because most think it is too complicated. So I would like to make everything simple to maximize the friends to try Bitcoin. The plan is to guide them to instawallet and send Bitcoin to them, and then ask them to spread to other friends or make donation.

Another part of the campaign is to ask friends to spread Bitcoin to their friends, i.e. to propagate it to one further layer. If my friend of friend is also your friend of friend, this co-occurrence in the same date will greatly raise their interest to get Bitcoin from us. This collative behaviour is what I want to create.

In practical situation, it is likely that they are extremely close to each other. In the OP situation, it asks for the electric cost which is the incoming energy to the house. It is possible that the electric energy go out from other wires such as the Internet wire.

No one interest in it?

I do not believe there is such objective value on everything. It has such price points because money are at the center linking everything. When you need to exchange stuff with other and convert it to money first, you must go through that price. The price may differ by the number in your mind, but you have to deal with it.

But in fact, if you bypass the money at the center and directly exchange it will others, and both of you agree with the exchange stuff. It is very likely that you two get more value in your own "real number line". In this sense, I do think there is any objective value.

Barter in today is much more convenient than years before, but still not yet any sophisticated, so lets see what will happen on ti

The real problem needed to be solved is the situation with limited resource, but not the situation with abundance resources. Robotics and other technologies does not solve this problem.

For example, after an Earthquake, there are no food, no medcine and no doctors, someone have to die, so what do you do?

For a more realistic situation, if everyone sudden want the same stuffs, then the sharing mechanism break and we need to produce a large number of same stuff. In this sense, advertisement is devils because it creates a huge demands for the same stuff in a short time. Even more, people can change mind in a matter of minutes. Everything produced by robots in the previous minutes are wasted then. So how to solve it?

Suppose now we have technology travelling to and from Mars. But the fact that everyone go to Mars every year can consume more energy that the Earth absorb, so how would you solve the problem. Remember, in the world without money, you are restricting my freedom to move!

I always think that it is more important to change our mind and take some sacrifice. We must deal with the situation that lacking resource. Hoping that we have abundance resources is just bullshit. Hope so is the same situations that governments do nothing in "good economy" period.

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

I think that the bitcoin faucet was a useful starting point for many people because they can test the bitcoin before understand it. Now, it our round to distribute more bitcoin to a wider people. Asking them to go the faucet themselves and give their email to an unknown website will demotivate most people. In my opinion, sending bitcoin to your friends directly in facebook is the most effective and convienent way for them to try. You are a much trustable source and you can give them guidances. If we can create environment for people to send bitcoin within friends just like playing game, then it is a success because they already know how to use it.

Because of the number of people joining the Bitcoin100, I would think that this campaign will be success as many people are willing to donate their bitcoin to charity. Here, you may also send the bitcoin to friends first and then ask them to send to the charity you want.

Anyone want to participate in it?