Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2018, 05:06:43 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 »
7141  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: 0.3.10.1 Question on where block should be on: August 16, 2010, 12:18:00 AM
There are 74643 blocks as I write this. The split is causing some network problems. You should connect your computers to each other with the addnode parameter.
7142  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 11:21:06 PM
What block number is it?

It's around 67k. It only took me about 3 minutes to get to the current block.
7143  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 10:06:02 PM
What about the transactions from 74000 to the invalid block. Are those all invalid now as well?

Only this aberrant transaction and coins generated after it in the block chain will be removed. All other transactions will continue to exist.

Quote from: NewLibertyStandard
Will the bug fix include the 4-way SSE2 patch included in 0.3.9rc2?

It's included.
7144  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 09:26:09 PM
Once you have an update, you could download knightmb's block chain.  You'll want one that's old enough that it ends before block 74000 so the most recent security lockin will check it.  Can someone find the link for that? 

http://knightmb.dyndns.org/files/bitcoin/blocks/
7145  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Strange block 74638 on: August 15, 2010, 06:28:56 PM
This could be a serious problem. Bitcoin's printblock also shows it:

Code:
CBlock(hash=0000000000790ab3, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=0000000000606865, hashMerkleR
oot=618eba, nTime=1281891957, nBits=1c00800e, nNonce=28192719, vtx=2)
  CTransaction(hash=012cd8, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(000000, -1), coinbase 040e80001c028f00)
    CTxOut(nValue=50.51000000, scriptPubKey=0x4F4BA55D1580F8C3A8A2C7)
  CTransaction(hash=1d5e51, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(237fe8, 0), scriptSig=0xA87C02384E1F184B79C6AC)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0xB7A7)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x1512)
  vMerkleTree: 012cd8 1d5e51 618eba
7146  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 07:36:38 AM
Quote from: RHorning
Why?  If you sent a transaction to a bitcoin address, how is that any different than sending the transaction to somebody else?

It's only different because you are capable of sending to a public key instead of a hash, since the full public key is in your wallet. Normally you don't have the full public key, so you must send it to a hash. There's no technical reason why you couldn't send self-transactions to a hash -- Bitcoin just doesn't. You don't need to extend the protocol at all to deal with this (the confirmation stuff you mentioned isn't necessary).
7147  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 06:47:42 AM
Transfers to yourself are the same as transfers by IP address, so it was probably thought that this type of transfer would "blend in". No one uses IP transfers, though. (And no one should because they're insecure.)

Not much anonymity would be gained if this was fixed. You can't do proper "internal mixing" unless you have the ability to choose which coins you want to send to yourself.
7148  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [PATCH] implement 'listtransactions' on: August 15, 2010, 06:29:49 AM
Most transactions are not "rolled back" when two chains recombine. Transactions in the shorter chain get put back into the transaction pool, and will eventually appear in a block. Generations would normally be the only transactions removed, which is why they are treated specially.
7149  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Potential disaster scenario on: August 15, 2010, 02:15:12 AM
Why would it "grind to a halt"?  Economies don't function just because money is being printed.  Are you using the same argument for the US dollar and assuming our "economy would grind to a halt" if the government didn't print more dollars?  Of course not.

Blocks are used to verify transactions. For example, Bitcoin Market requires two confirmations. If a block takes two hours to make, then it would take four hours to put Bitcoins into Bitcoin Market. This would not be good.

When people start adding transaction fees, the value of the current block will steadily rise until it is solved. If this gets very high, everyone will attempt to "win the jackpot". The market will solve the problem.

Botnets will probably be supporting Bitcoin in the future, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
7150  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 02:00:56 AM
I bet anonymity is a must for many users. We definitely need a poll.
What happens if i send all my money to one of my unused addresses? I guess that coins from all other addresses are gathered in one and no one is able to tell if I sent them to myself. Right? As the OP (I think) said, I will be still in the "suspect" list but nevetheless it offers some deniability.

BTW when you send money to yourself the transaction log doesn't even list which the receiving account is...  Roll Eyes

Don't send coins from one address to a different one on the same computer. This actually reduces your anonymity because it combines several different coins (some of which, such as generations, might be pretty anonymous). It's also obvious what you're doing because Bitcoin makes a special transaction when you send coins to yourself: it includes the full public key for the destination instead of the hashed public key used in normal transactions.

Right now, the best way to make your balance anonymous is to use MyBitcoin through Tor. MyBitcoin (presumably) pools all of its customers' balances, so it acts a bit like one of the external mixing services I described in the OP. However, unless they modified Bitcoin, they keep logs of every transaction, so they could identify you if they had to. It's like using a web proxy that keeps logs.

If I really wanted to make an anonymous transaction, this is what I would do:
- Send entire transaction amount to a new MyBitcoin account as a lump sum.
- Set up a brand new (empty) Bitcoin installation using Tor.
- Every day, withdraw 5% of the transaction amount to the new installation. Bonus points: add some randomization to the amount of Bitcoins you withdraw and the time between doing it.
- Finally, send the transaction from the new installation

I doubt you'll ever be traced after doing this unless you're doing something really illegal. If you want more anonymity, you can:
- Send fewer coins from MyBitcoin to your new installation over a longer period of time.
- Also add Vekja (another service like MyBitcoin). This is like chaining encrypted proxies: both will need to be compromised for you to be identified.

MyBitcoin and Vekja don't act like "true" external mixing services because they don't try to mix balances. If you're transferring a lot of money in this way, you're likely to get back most of your own coins, which would greatly reduce your anonymity.
7151  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Letter to the EFF on: August 15, 2010, 12:57:44 AM
Or it can be a verb, "If you like my work, bitcoin me."

That should be capitalized because you are referring to the Bitcoin network. Similarly, "Just Google it" is capitalized when referring specifically to the Google search engine.

These rules are all very trivial and unimportant, of course, but following all of English's ridiculous capitalization rules is a bit of a hobby of mine.  Smiley
7152  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Letter to the EFF on: August 15, 2010, 12:38:50 AM
The word bitcoin is not always a proper noun. It's a proper noun when it is the name of the application called Bitcoin. It's a common noun when it's referring to units of bitcoin currency. It can also be an adjective, but the adjective is based on the proper noun. I prefer to write it lower case when I use it as an adjective. I don't much care whether my adjective capitalization is correct or not.

I am inclined to expand on the adjective usage and use "x Bitcoins." However, the FAQ uses, "1,300,000 bitcoins." If the FAQ is an official source of information, then I would always copy its usage. The FAQ also uses, "new Bitcoins," though, which seems a bit contradictory. Satoshi has used both ways on the forum.

There is precedence for your usage: the Costa Rican colón is based on someone's name, but is written in lowercase. Costa Rica is a Spanish-speaking country, though, so maybe this one example was only inherited from their non-English usage. Do you know of an actual grammar rule for this case? I looked through the Chicago Manual of Style, but I could not find any rules for a case like this.

Hopefully Satoshi or sirius-m will say which usage is correct. Until then, I think I'll use "[0-9]+ bitcoins" as the only lowercase usage of the word.
7153  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Coin generation participation survey on: August 14, 2010, 11:22:20 PM
1) Yes. I've been constantly generating since around January.

2) Yes.

4) Yes. Many.

5) Generating is still profitable, even on my ancient computers. Bitcoin uses $0.25 per day in electricity, but I will make on average $0.60 in Bitcoins per day (and I actually value Bitcoins more than the market price). Even if it wasn't profitable, I need a running bitcoind, and I might as well have it helping the network.
7154  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Letter to the EFF on: August 14, 2010, 12:05:28 AM
So, does anybody have any constructive criticism for my letter? I found that I always write bad grammar and spell poorly.

"Bitcoin" should always be capitalized, as it is a proper noun.

Quote
the bitcoin community appreciate

I would say "appreciates", but this might be a difference between US/UK English.

Quote
your ongoing effort

I would say "efforts".

Quote
such as internet netruality

Spelling: neutrality.
Internet needs to be capitalized.
(Also, I for one am opposed to net neutrality legislation.)

Quote
monetary system called bitcoins

The system is called Bitcoin, not Bitcoins.

Quote
It have extremely low transaction cost, is hard to produce, and is hard to fake and as well many other property that make bitcoin a good money.

In addition to many other useful properties, Bitcoin has extremely low transaction fees and is hard to produce and fake.

Quote
centralized monetary system,
systems

Quote
whom are often backed by governments.
which are often...

Quote
Members of the bitcoin community recognized government's interest in keeping their monetary monopoly and their resultant actions as possible threat to the growing bitcoin economy.

Members of the Bitcoin community have recognized the interest worldwide governments have in keeping their monetary monopoly. Their resulting actions could be a possible threat to the growing Bitcoin economy.

Quote
As, such,
As such,

Quote
would like to donate our goods, the cryptocurrency bitcoins to you.
would like to donate some of our goods -- cryptocurrency bitcoins -- to you.

Quote
All together combined are X bitcoins, which are worth in total, X USD.
Combined, this is X Bitcoins, which are worth X USD in total.

Quote
The EFF is free to convert bitcoins to other currencies at will, or buy goods and services with bitcoins, or simply do nothing with it at all. We, members of the bitcoin community hope that the EFF will put the donation to good use.

The EFF is free to convert the Bitcoins to other currencies, buy goods and services with the Bitcoins, or simply do nothing with them at all. The members of the Bitcoin community hope that the EFF will put the donation to good use.
7155  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: help! Bitcoin Article to be published, please review on: August 13, 2010, 09:06:29 PM
Good.

Slightly off topic since it should not go in the article.

Insti, how does the halving of the reward work exactly? Is it rounded down if there isn't enough precision? In about 10*4 years there will be a reward of 0.048828125 BTC will it be rounded down to .04882812 BTC? Will this result in a limit strictly less than 21 million?

It's done as a right bitwise shift (of a 64-bit integer). The reward will go from 0.00000001 to 0. Then no more coins will be created. The maximum number of coins is 20,999,999.9769.
7156  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do we prevent Bitcoin forks (or should we)? on: August 10, 2010, 09:32:38 PM
I very much doubt that any one entity will ever have 50% of the computational power. The botnet operators will bow to the whims of the community because it's the community that ultimately gives bitcoins value. What good is a giant load of bitcoins if you don't have anyone willing to give you something in exchange for them?

If Satoshi starts enforcing a maximum transaction fee (as he's mentioned) and the limit is too low, no one who is generating for profit will "upgrade".

Changing any parameters in a way that reduces profit for generators would have the same result, I think.

Quote from: FreeMoney
I was thinking this is a nice thing about bitcoin. Only a majority is required for an attack, but you need even more than a simple majority for a smooth rule change (only for certain kinds of changes I realize).

I agree. The current economics are perfect, and it would be very difficult for anyone (even Satoshi) to make a major change.
7157  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do we prevent Bitcoin forks (or should we)? on: August 10, 2010, 09:18:41 PM
The decision-making process of the future will be dominated by the organizations that provide the backbone of block generation. If they don't like a change in the code, they'll refuse to upgrade but will still keep 50%+ of the CPU power. A major dispute between bitcoin.org and the backbone would lead to a serious fork.
7158  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The "Bounty Swarm" on: August 10, 2010, 08:31:14 PM
What about showing the one(?) address to which the change was sent? Is there a change address if change happens to be 0?

There isn't. Good idea, though -- there would be a single change address in almost all cases.
7159  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The "Bounty Swarm" on: August 10, 2010, 08:26:29 PM
Transactions are usually from many different addresses (maybe hundreds), so you can't show them in the "all transactions" list.

Returning a payment to one of these addresses would be confusing, since they would see a payment going to an address they created for some one-time thing months ago or whatever. They'd have no way of knowing it was from you. The client could be modified to detect this, though.
7160  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: help! Bitcoin Article to be published, please review on: August 09, 2010, 03:06:52 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an alias, since he speaks perfect English and I haven't seen anything else from him (though I haven't really looked).

Here's my attempt at "how Bitcoin works". It might be better just to skip the complex block chain system.

Bitcoin transfers are very simple: the software announces that you are transferring coins from your "account" to someone else. To prove that you actually own that account, you create a "digital signature" using a special mathematical algorithm. The signing algorithm used in Bitcoin is a US government standard that is considered completely secure.

Digital signing alone might allow someone to send the same coins twice, so Bitcoin uses a unique "block chain" mechanism to securely record the order of transactions. A subset of Bitcoin users have their software configured to constantly compete against all other such users to solve a very difficult computational problem. Whoever solves the problem first publishes a "block" of data containing all recent transactions. Blocks also include (what amounts to) a copy of the last block, which makes a "chain" of all blocks ever created.

Changing anything in a block invalidates the computational problem that allowed the block to be created: an attacker would have to re-do the problem of that block to make any changes. Plus, since the next block has a copy of the block (and that block appears in the next block, etc.) and only the longest chain of blocks is considered valid, an attacker would also have to re-do all future blocks in the block chain, as well. And they'd have to do all of this faster than the rest of the network, since legitimate clients only add new blocks onto the longest chain.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 »
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!