sort of... the fact is the engineers always design or improve their product according to the users feedback, if i'm not mistaken, like you did with your coins  Absolutely, it's the drivers who ultimately decide whether to buy the car. In this case, Bitcoin is like a car that is easily stolen. That might work for you, but is preventing a lot of other people being interested in it. Not very many people can effectively ensure malware won't get on their system. So the feedback of "don't worry about me, I keep my car in a garage at all times, at home and everywhere else I go" isn't feedback that's going to increase mass appeal. In addition, Luke is the kind of person who would design your next car to be steered with your feet and accelerated with your hands, just like airplanes are taxied, and he would argue that this is easier and safer for everybody because pilots won't have to switch between two ways to drive a vehicle when it is on the ground. (Simply do a search for "tonal bitcoin" for a prime example) What car is not easily stolen ? You can insure it if you want but the engineers can do very little about it by putting alarms or hard to copy keys in it. Overprotecting users won't do any good to increase adoption. Educating them how to drive the damn thing maybe. Btw i try not to comment on people i don't personally know. |
|
|
|
Until now the one who has the most convincing arguments is Luke-jr. He states that, and i agree with, the power must remain with the miners, between others.
So please, bitcoin developers, don't ruin this trying to make it better.
...
I don't code or read code either only a small miner, ...
Wouldn't this be like a driver who has never worked on an engine let alone designed one, trying to tell a bunch of engineers that one of them is the most convincing not because of the merits of his design, but because he argues that the control over the engine design must remain with the drivers, not the engineers? I think when Gavin says he is out of patience, he means he needs a beer because someone, who is referred to elsewhere as "lord asshat" on the board, is being an asshat? And not because he needs to release some untested code ASAP. sort of... the fact is the engineers always design or improve their product according to the users feedback, if i'm not mistaken, like you did with your coins |
|
|
|
|
I trust no one that's why i use bitcoin when trading with you people so let's try keeping the trust factor aside a moment when serious protocol changes are involved.
At this moment i am really pleased and happy with the way bitcoin works as a protocol and at the user interface but it seems that, according to many, i am a big geek for being able to use it as such. Even my parents understood how to use it the first day with no problems.
I like Gavin's and team efforts to improve and make the life easier for the not-so-techie people in every aspect but not on this one. We started with OP_EVAL and it didn't work so good and now Gavin's proposes another method, better in theory, with a short BIP and a shorter deadline ahead. Some voices start to raise and Gavin states he's almost out of patience. This doesn't sound right to me.
Until now the one who has the most convincing arguments is Luke-jr. He states that, and i agree with, the power must remain with the miners, between others.
So please, bitcoin developers, don't ruin this trying to make it better. If we can't agree on something like this maybe isn't the time to do it and you can leave the people adapt by themselves like they did for over 3 years. I don't want bitcoin adapted for large corporations or complicated centralized services. You already gave us the encrypted wallets so, if you ask me, the people that can't guard their money don't deserve to have them.
I don't code or read code either only a small miner, investing time and resources into this project and be happy with what i get. The thing that gives value to bitcoin is all of you out there doing same. Thank you
|
|
|
|
I doubt that the CIA has the legal authority to do such a thing. Even if they do, Satoshi is in japan, isn't he?
You're the first person in a long time that i see put cia and legal in the same phrase so i may safely assume that you work in the PR department for them  |
|
|
|
|
i didn't received any payment. I have to open the e-mail the moment i receive it to get payed or it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
hmm... should i worry or put my tinfoil hat
The CIA infiltrates and destabilizes or manipulates any organizations or governments that poses a threat to the US government. I think bitcoin would be a threat to the dollar, and it is just a question of how much they measure that threat to determine if zero to N agents need to be assigned to it. It also needs to manage black budget accounts (presumably to fund missions in the above paragraph) that need to be sent around the world and be hidden. If it looks like this is becoming a currency (especially in the underground) then they might also want to think about getting some. This will also require some agents to be assigned to the BIAMG (Bitcoin Infiltration and Management Group) - or just BAM as they refer to it in the office. robkohr is exactly correct. Once the CIA gets the go ahead, the covert operation in code named WAM BAM. Afterwards, the CIA agents leave the country carrying a banner that reads WAM BAM Thank You MAM. lol, you're always right Phinnaeus so if we spot them around we will know what they're up to Right now we are pretty secure with the code Satoshi left us but i'm concerned about the most evident vulnerability, leaving aside the 51% attack, our bitcoin dev. team. Would there be a chance to pressure more than 51% of the core developers introduce a "backdoor" for the CIA into the code with a new feature, bug fix or you name it ? |
|
|
|
thanks for the good advice G, i didn't know it was my client "remembering" the others about the transaction.
I should state that i used the android wallet to create that transaction, i don't personally have the ability to modify code like that, i wish.
I will do a reset on the damn thing and hope i get my coins back though.
Ah! Please nag the authors of that software to implement the same anti-dos fee rules as are in the reference client. The rules in the client are there to protect the client from the network not processing it's transactions. Your experience is an example of this— sometimes people miss the importance of it simply because so few txn hit the mandatory fee rules (though subcent output ones always do). I don't know what the resend policy is for that client. In the reference client it will remember transactions forever that it was a party to (which I'm sure the android one does too), and it will rebroadcast them after a random delay with a maximum of 30 minutes every time a block has been solved since the last rebroadcast without including them. will do, thanks you guys, i know now that i have a chance getting those coins back yeah |
|
|
|
Well if that is true that is weird. Almost every pool mines zero fee blocks (if they are valid zero fee transactions). It is possible that somehow it never got transmitted (never made it to a pool due to network issues). You may want to try deleting the transaction from the wallet and then doing a -rescan.
This isn't weird in the _slightest_. Though just about all nodes will happily mine normal zero fee txn, most will not mine zero fee bitdust transactions because they are indistinguishable from a DOS attack. (And this protection being insufficient is what litcoin's chain grew from like 50 MB to about 400MB in a week or so). Look again at the original post: "few sub-cent tx with no fees " As far as forgetting them— the advice upthread is bad. If you modify the wallet to make it forget about them and then leave it off for a bit, other nodes will forget about the transaction on their own after a few hours— the memory pool has a finite lifetime. They only remember it because the owner node keeps reminding them. After the network has forgotten the transactions and your own node has been mindwiped, you can respend the inputs just fine. Of course, modifying your wallet to remove the transactions is a big pain in the ass... but since the OP obviously modified his client software to get it to create this suspiciously-DOS-attack-like transactions which the client would have refused to generate without modification, he should have no problem trimming the wallet on his own. Cheers. thanks for the good advice G, i didn't know it was my client "remembering" the others about the transaction. I should state that i used the android wallet to create that transaction, i don't personally have the ability to modify code like that, i wish. I will do a reset on the damn thing and hope i get my coins back though. |
|
|
|
Eligius itself won't mine your transaction but they WILL relay it. Eventually a zero-fee miner will pick it up.
This used to work when we had a decent number of solo miners. I don't know how it'll turn out in the current age of million+ difficulty.
Any solo miner running unmodified bitcoind will reject the transaction. His transaction isn't just zero fee it is considered invalid by the network (is zero fee when it SHOULD be higher fee, not just a zero fee that optionally didn't pay a fee). i think it's rather the second, i sent out a valid sub-cent transaction without including any fee, the change was 20 times more but i guess it doesn't matter. I sent the same amount again including a fee and it got confirmed in less than 10 minutes. So my coins are lost then ? |
|
|
|
There isn't any mechanism for this. You really do have to wait for the old spends to get mined.
they could get mined in a year for example ? yes. but if no one accepted the transaction, there's nothing preventing you from reusing the same coinbase. how would you do that with the standard client ? I have the output change coins locked too use python wallet tools and manually remove the transaction ok, i will try that @Revalin what are trying to say man, pls be more specific, i already broadcast a transaction that doesn't confirm for almost a month... I don't think he knows. He is pointing you towards Eligus pool which accepts TX that are considered "invalid" by the rest of the network however they don't do it for free. If your transaction had no fee it will be rejected by the pool not for being invalid but for being cheap. ahh got it, so a solution exists, send the tx again with a nice fee to a specific node, I only need to figure out how to really do it now @Revalin now i'm confused, so you can't do it |
|
|
|
I suppose such an exchange costs me a 1 BTC casascius coin, but I really do believe people keep them like treasure. I gave away a LOT of Casascius Coins at CES. This is why your physical coins are so useful. I gave away a lot for Christmas gifts and I've given them away in conversations as well. I ordered a bunch of coins in November and I'm all out except for the ones that I keep for myself. Need to order more soon. Regarding the OP, I agree that BitTorrent is a very good analogy to use if the person knows what it is. We need ways of making the connection with different type of people though, BitTorrent works well with tech-oriented young people but not so well with some other types of people. BitTorrent is often associated with software/music/movie piracy. True or not, I'm not sure that associating bitcoin with BitTorrent is sending a particularly positive message.  the people using bittorrent in fact know they aren't doing anything illegal and get allot of benefit from it  |
|
|
|
This?: http://www.iqt.org/IQT is focused on new and emerging commercial technologies that have the potential to give the CIA and broader U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) mission-advantage today and in the future. As a strategic partner for the IC we understand complex customer requirements, and we constantly survey the leading edge of the commercial marketplace in order to identify, adapt, and deliver technology solutions to our customers. hmm... should i worry or put my tinfoil hat |
|
|
|
There isn't any mechanism for this. You really do have to wait for the old spends to get mined.
they could get mined in a year for example ? yes. but if no one accepted the transaction, there's nothing preventing you from reusing the same coinbase. how would you do that with the standard client ? I have the output change coins locked too use python wallet tools and manually remove the transaction ok, i will try that @Revalin what are trying to say man, pls be more specific, i already broadcast a transaction that doesn't confirm for almost a month... |
|
|
|
You can resend the balance of that address to a new address. The new transaction will be confirmed and the old one dropped. Then you can send the coins from the new address. Unfortunately that's all theoretical. I'm not sure what software exists that would let you construct the double-spend.
Any client which has already seen the first transaction will not forward the "replacement". It would see it as a double spend and reject it as a duplicate. I guess if you modified your client AND sent it directly to a miner who used a modified version of the bitcoind so that it was included that might work. Alternatively if you mine solo (or p2pool) you could simply mine it yourself. Eventually you will solve a block right? lol yeah, so if don't mine or have the chance to send it to a special miner my coins are really lost then. I would feel better to know a transaction expires sometime in the future, a year for example. Would not be considered a double spend because it didn't got confirmed in the first place and it isn't "spam dust" either because it's only one tx. I learned my lesson though and i'm happy it didn't happen with a greater amount either. This could happen to allot of people that could send really small amounts if bitcoin appreciates a bit more, so 1 year can be a great time limit for unconfirmed tx's. What would be the chances to have this feature implemented by the dev team in the future releases ? |
|
|
|
Yeah, guess they do like to always stay on top of new things that come out. The non-disclosure agreement would be a bit odd though, didn't hear Gavin comment anything on that |
|
|
|
There isn't any mechanism for this. You really do have to wait for the old spends to get mined.
they could get mined in a year for example ? yes. but if no one accepted the transaction, there's nothing preventing you from reusing the same coinbase. how would you do that with the standard client ? I have the output change coins locked too |
|
|
|
There isn't any mechanism for this. You really do have to wait for the old spends to get mined.
they could get mined in a year for example ? |
|
|
|
|
no one knows something about this... ?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ppl,
I would like to know if a timeout mechanism for broadcast-ed transactions exists or is implemented somehow. Nothing related on wiki, or i'm too stupid to find it.
I made a few sub-cent tx with no fees and they got stuck for over a month already and they were "old" coins too. I would like to re-send those with a fee associated so it doesn't happen again but the client wouldn't let me and they still exist on the network as "unconfirmed" tx's.
Any help appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
