|
MITM? Great name for an escrow service!
|
|
|
|
what's funnier than 24? 25  |
|
|
|
Also on-topic from the changelog wiki: No pages link to Changelog. this can be frustrating if you're going to the wiki to find something like the changelog and nothing actually links to it. you pretty much have to search for bitcoin changelog on google to get to that wiki page. Did you fix it? i didn't know i was allowed to... sorry... is it a free-for-all like wikipedia? |
|
|
|
steal bitcoins.
1. set up llc in nevis 2. build community trust for your new wallet service over a period of many months 3. disappear |
|
|
|
The last 10 Million bitcoins will be at least 90% mined by Chinese (mainly students) using high end GPUs that cost them about 1/4 of what the rest of the world pays for them.
I guess I have to wait til about 2013
if we're talking about after 2013, I'd predict it'd be specialized chips, no-one using GPUs anymore. |
|
|
|
Also on-topic from the changelog wiki: No pages link to Changelog. this can be frustrating if you're going to the wiki to find something like the changelog and nothing actually links to it. you pretty much have to search for bitcoin changelog on google to get to that wiki page. |
|
|
|
i guess the 0.3.24 number is more correct since it's a later version, but why is the older one therefore wrong?
The algorithm for calculating the printed difficulty was slightly inaccurate and was changed for a correct one. Since the printed difficulty is for humans only, it's not a big deal. The discussion is here: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10002.0thank you... sending you some bitcents... so handy to be able to immediately see an address in your signature without asking you, despite all the threads talking about people's so-called 'begging' for donations. |
|
|
|
|
sorry i couldn't find this discussed elsewhere yet.
i'm noticing a different difficulty across bitcoin versions.
0.3.20: currently 1,890,361.69014
0.3.24: currently 1,888,786.70535
Just before this latest difficulty change, they were also slightly different from each other. Can someone point to why?
i guess the 0.3.24 number is more correct since it's a later version, but why is the older one therefore wrong?
just curious i guess, thanks.
|
|
|
|
My point is that the attacks seem to be much more frequent with bitcoin services.
i would have guessed that to be true simply because bitcoin enthusiasts were already technically-minded (possibly 'hackers') before bitcoin even was invented. if you invent a new soft fluffy toy and build a new community of soft fluffy toy lovers, you're probably going to get a different type of fan base and a far lower level of SQL injection attempts or other technical hacks perpetrated against merchants |
|
|
|
so much scamming....... i don't feel comfortable...
This has CRUSHED my confidence in BitCoins. So many attacks, it is obvious that this is not ready for serious investment yet, WHY???
not saying scamming is good, but you guys reminded me of a beautiful quote (seen it the comments of some bitcoin related blog article): To me the Wild West is a place of great opportunity, fierce competition, and unencumbered innovation. Of course, the flip side is that in Wild West you face risks and dangers that are absent in the old economy. You are responsible for your own protection against those dangers. Fail to protect yourself, and you will probably get pwned. There will be no nannies you can run crying to, and nobody will bail you out. But as long as you take the necessary precautions to minimize those risks, the Wild West can be a hugely rewarding place to be. |
|
|
|
You need to specify the -rpcport of the instance you want to stop (probably 7332).
yep, hence using the -datadir switch to point to the secondary bitcoin.conf file... thank you. |
|
|
|
so i was able to get this working, one instance running on 8333/8332 and another working on 7333/7332.
But when I tried to stop the 2nd instance, it stopped the first one instead!
/web/sites/.bitcoin1/bitcoind <- this runs on the default ports
/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- this runs on 7333
/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop <- this command stops the bitcoin1 instance!
Use /web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ stop Thanks, will try that... Funny I tried that switch before, but I put it after the 'stop': /web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- doesn't work  didn't even think to put it first. |
|
|
|
|
so i was able to get this working, one instance running on 8333/8332 and another working on 7333/7332.
But when I tried to stop the 2nd instance, it stopped the first one instead!
/web/sites/.bitcoin1/bitcoind <- this runs on the default ports
/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind -datadir=/web/sites/.bitcoin2/ <- this runs on 7333
/web/sites/.bitcoin2/bitcoind stop <- this command stops the bitcoin1 instance!
|
|
|
|
are you 'speculating' mt gox is having issues again?  |
|
|
|
|
after compiling bitcoind it's come out as 17mb... it actually runs fine (finally, yay!), but I'm wondering what is the final step in the process... what util would one use to strip it down to the size that normally gets released?
|
|
|
|
The precompiled binaries need squeeze (current stable) or later.
You can either upgrade to squeeze, or compile bitcoind yourself. Also note that on occasion someone will post a precompiled version on the forum that was compiled for older libraries (and works with lenny).
thanks for your help. My host tells me that your reference to squeeze is for debian 6.x and apparently I'm running debian 5.x, so it's a no go. is this just an anomaly with this particular version of bitcoin? i.e. would waiting for 0.3.25 solve this problem or would the problem be ongoing until my OS is upgraded? |
|
|
|
thanks, reading it now... |
|
|
|
|
Google already 'tells you what you want' when you use their 'artificial stupidity' search engine.
It's constantly displaying search results for things you didn't actually ask for. I like my search strings kept literal thanks, not littered with a thousand different synonyms. eg. search for 'lump vs bump' and it shows results for 'lump or bump' instead. fuck you google.
Such artificial stupidity like that has finally led me to use bing more often. Now all I need is a beard and sandals.
|
|
|
|
I don't think at all this is annoying, not saying that because of my sig
your sig is perfect... perfectly clear and visible without being a huge in-your-face display. again, my preference would be to have an 'ignore users' option, that'll fix 'em. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
