Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2018, 02:24:31 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 [348] 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 »
6941  Other / Off-topic / Re: The best file compressor on: September 13, 2010, 12:36:40 PM
FreeArc and NanoZip also have incredible compression ratios. They're not quite as good as PAQ, but they're much faster.
6942  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Losing Critical Mass and Call to Action on: September 13, 2010, 06:50:20 AM
Hummm, well, I didn't have any luck finding how to determine what constitutes as an address examining the c++ code, but here's a PHP function that should work as expected:

Code:
<?
function is_bitcoin_address($address) { return preg_match("/1[a-zA-Z0-9]{33}/", $address); }
if (is_bitcoin_address("17NdbrSGoUotzeGCcMMCqnFkEvLymoou9j")) echo "yes";
else echo "no";
?>

Bitcoin excludes a few normal characters for the sake of readability, and a Bitcoin address can be either 33 or 34 characters long. It's:
1[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,33}
6943  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 12, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
If you don't use the block chain, then you eliminate double-spending protection. A could make two pooled transactions to himself using the same coins.

Also:
- Why couldn't an attacker just insert 10,000 nodes into the network and record all messages? It's pretty easy to do.
- What stops whoever signs the outgoing pool transactions from just sending them to an address he controls? The network can't verify that he's sending to the correct addresses unless they've seen the transaction that A made, which removes the anonymity aspect.

If you don't think I understand your system, explain exactly what every member of the network would be doing in this system. For example:
1. A creates a transaction like this: "txIn: previousTransaction; txOut: SEND_POOLED B_PubKey amount".
2. A transmits the transaction to his peers.
3. His peers do Huh
6944  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 12, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
gumtree:

How do people who collect from the pool prove to the network that they have the right to do so? The sender will need to say to the network, "This person can remove x coins," but this is equivalent to a normal transaction.
6945  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Printing bitcoins : could it work? on: September 12, 2010, 01:15:28 AM
QR-code should decode to something like

      bitcoin://17NdbrSGoUotzeGCcMMCqnFkEvLymoou9j

because there are plenty of non-bitcoin QR-code users out there too.

Zarutian wrote a proposed Bitcoin URI scheme for this kind of thing, and I made some modifications. Here it is:
http://pastebin.com/VsBbmXQx

According to that, you would use something like:
x-btc:addr=1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD?theymos;store
This says "Store 1NX... in your address book under the label 'theymos'".
6946  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 10, 2010, 05:57:59 PM
The fix, for those interested: if any change would be less than 0.01, it is "thrown away" by adding it as a transaction fee. Someone else will get it when they generate a block. Maybe someone will manage to collect enough of them to form a usable cent.
6947  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 10, 2010, 02:31:12 PM
So I lost a penny in it. My question then, that transaction fee, then goes to the next block? Or the one before the one I generated?

You didn't pay a transaction fee. You have .01000010 in your balance; you just can't spend it. The network would accept it if you sent the entire 0.01000010 to another address (you can't break it apart), but the Bitcoin interface doesn't support such high precision.

Quote
Since fees apply to transactions less than 0.01, adding a transaction fee should be at least 0.01 right?


That's not network-enforced. Transaction fees are not "outs", so they're not subject to the "dust spam" restriction.

it seems I paid the fee too. Why would that be? A block that had too many tx, the value coming from multiple small value purses (but the client should see one purse that satisfies the whole transaction, right?) or what else?

You received a fee of 0.01. You didn't pay one.
6948  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 09, 2010, 06:43:13 PM
0.3.12 contains some changes to transaction fees. Are you using that?
6949  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 09, 2010, 02:05:11 PM
If you send your entire balance, then you won't have enough left to pay any fee. You could send 49.99.

I don't know why that's happening. There shouldn't be a fee for any non-combined transaction.
6950  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: I require Linux help... specifically SSH... on: September 09, 2010, 01:39:55 PM
Quote
sudo ssh -ND 443 <my server's hostname>@<my ip address>
sudo ssh -ND 9999 <my server's hostname>@<my ip address>

You would run these commands with the SSH on the non-server computer. Then you'd connect to localhost:443 or localhost:9999 with SOCKS. Also, it's remoteUsername@remoteIP; you're connecting to the user at the IP.

You could use antinat to set up a SOCKS server on your server. Then you wouldn't have to run SSH on the non-server computer.
6951  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.12 on: September 08, 2010, 06:56:31 PM
Won't older clients will reject non-standard transactions, even if newer [future] clients are updated to generate them?
They just won't include them in blocks they generate. So the transactions might be slowed down a bit, but not stopped entirely.
6952  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.12 on: September 08, 2010, 12:25:04 AM
What does the prohibition of "nonstandard" transactions do?

Code:
main.cpp:506
// Rather not work on nonstandard transactions
if (GetSigOpCount() > 2 || ::GetSerializeSize(*this, SER_NETWORK) < 100)
  return error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : nonstandard transaction");
What is included in "GetSigOpCount", and what does "GetSerializeSize" measure?

This is "lightly" enforced by the network:
Code:
main.cpp:1425
// Check that it's not full of nonstandard transactions
if (nHeight > 79400 && GetSigOpCount() > MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS)
  return error("AcceptBlock() : too many nonstandard transactions");
6953  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Always pay transaction fee? on: September 07, 2010, 11:29:33 PM
What is the current threshold, and how does a client know to pay for this in advance?

http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=transaction_fee
6954  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Switch to GPL on: September 06, 2010, 03:44:50 AM
The GPL doesn't force you to release your source if you don't publish the software publicly. Even the AGPL wouldn't force you to release the source in this case, since you're not really allowing people to interface with your software.

MIT-style licensing is the only way to ensure widespread adoption. Companies won't touch GPLed software.
6955  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [PATCH REQUEST] Sending To Yourself (5BTC reward) on: September 05, 2010, 08:33:31 AM
I was wrong about this. Even though transactions to yourself are displayed differently, it appears like a normal transaction in the block.

Code:
            "out" : [
                {
                    "value" : "0.24000000",
                    "scriptPubKey" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x4434DD10F5392C1F080B83
92D3135D0D13670400 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
                },
                {
                    "value" : "51.13000000",
                    "scriptPubKey" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x98352ACB25A13F646AB75D
825B1B8911341BAE14 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
                }
            ]



To determine that the payment is from yourself, Bitcoin just checks to see if all of the receiving addresses and all of sending addresses are in your wallet.

Code:
if (fAllFromMe && fAllToMe)
        {
            // Payment to self
            int64 nValue = wtx.vout[0].nValue;
            InsertLine(fNew, nIndex, hash, strSort,
                       strStatus,
                       nTime ? DateTimeStr(nTime) : "",
                       _("Payment to yourself"),
                       "",
                       "");
            /// issue: can't tell which is the payment and which is the change anymore
            //           FormatMoney(nNet - nValue, true),
            //           FormatMoney(nValue, true));
        }
6956  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: PeerBlock on: September 04, 2010, 05:12:48 AM
PeerBlock is useless. Every entry in the blocklist is based entirely on rumor and paranoia. Large sections of AT&T and Comcast are blocked, which prevents you from communicating with many typical consumers. BlueTack (the provider of PeerBlock and PeerGuardian blocklists) once accidentally blocked its own server; they are totally incompetent. Using a blocklist that randomly blocks half of all IP addresses would be safer.

Everything should work as long as PeerBlock doesn't lie (silently block data) when it blocks a connection. Bitcoin will try other addresses.
6957  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 03, 2010, 05:23:15 AM
Quote
Could this be distributed somehow? You could jumble the coins into different sized chunks and recall them as needed in some randomn way?

I can't think of any way to remain strongly anonymous in any e-currency system and not trust someone.

You can send bitcoins to new addresses owned by yourself in random intervals and amounts. This frustrates attempts to identify you, but I don't think it'd be sufficient to stop a determined attacker. Using the current code to send bitcoins to yourself (the same client) is useless, though, because Bitcoin makes a special, obvious transaction when you do that.

There are some interesting things you can do with the "external mixing service" concept. You can probably chain multiple mixers while only trusting one of them not to steal your bitcoins. You still need to trust one person, though.

Bitcoin-backed "bank notes" transmitted with a strongly anonymous but centralized system like Open Transactions is probably the best solution.
6958  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 02, 2010, 04:19:22 AM
What if you set up a separate laundry node behind tor and sent all the coins to it from the public laundry service? Would your coins be traceable when sent to someone else ?

Bitcoin needs its own onion routing scheme  Smiley

With Bitcoin, Tor doesn't help much. Read this:
http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=anonymity

At the end of that article I described a somewhat easy-to-implement "Bitcoin laundering" service:
Quote
- Set up two Bitcoin installations.
- Put some amount of BTC in installation B. This is the maximum amount of BTC you can deal with at once (for all customers).
- Customers send BTC to installation A. You send them an equal number of coins (or minus a fee) from installation B. Send as 10-50 BTC increments.
- Send all coins from A to B when all orders are satisfied. You can't send coins from A to B if you have any orders that have not been satisfied from B.
- This can be automated, or you can do everything manually.

This still keeps logs (unavoidable without modifying Bitcoin), but it ensures that you never get back your own coins.

The log situation can be helped by periodically moving your bitcoins and deleting the empty wallet.dat file (this deletes all of your receiving addresses, so be careful).
6959  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.11 with upgrade alerts on: September 02, 2010, 02:43:29 AM
Alerts are broadcast in the same way as transactions. Each node, upon accepting the alert, sends the alert to all of its peers.

Bitcoin won't relay alerts that are signed with a different key. Propagation might not be very good for any client if different alert keys start being used.
6960  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 01, 2010, 08:16:01 PM
Do they delete all logs on send?

You're not actually deleting logs unless you've modified Bitcoin. Bitcoin keeps logs of every transaction in wallet.dat.
Pages: « 1 ... 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 [348] 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!