When the two networks combine, the generations in the smaller network become invalid. All transactions based on those generated coins also become invalid.

That would be really insecure. All nodes calculate it independently. All nodes use the same time, which is based upon block timestamps.

That looks really nice. I like the first one better.

http://blockexplorer.com/testnet is now using the new testnet.

I have 7 $15 Amazon gift codes that I'll sell for 16.5 BTC each.

Keep in mind that the address ledgers/balances on Bitcoin Block Explorer are not totally accurate after sends, since some of your money gets sent to a new address.

Clearly the topics are generating discussion, which is good. If it is truly a useless duplicate, then someone will post a link to the "official answer" and the topic will die on its own. This is exactly what a moderator would do, except that a moderator might lock the thread and prevent even the possibility of a useful discussion.


I might merge or delete topics if I see very similar topics posted around the same time, especially if many people complain about it. I prefer for someone to just post a link and let the topic die naturally, though.


Good idea.

I never lock threads. Often, duplicate threads get even more useful replies than the original because people don't have to get up-to-speed on a huge topic. "Completed" topics might benefit from new information.

Off-topic posts are a problem, but I'm not sure how to deal with them. I don't want to delete them on sight, since that causes confusion and makes people upset. The split/merge tools are not flexible enough to deal with larger cases without ruining the discussion.

For average users, using just one address per account would solve a lot of problems. Backups would be much easier.

Merging topics is usually too confusing.

No section seems much better than this one, so I'm not going to move this topic. I believe the OP is capable of moving the topic, though, if he thinks some other section is better.

There are many transactions per block, so the fee per transaction can be low. The total block reward might also be reduced from 50 BTC, in which case the total computational power of the network will likely decrease.

Yes.

For bookkeeping you can use accounts and RPC "sendfrom", and Bitcoin will keep track of individual account balances. If you sendfrom an account and its balance is too low, the transaction will fail and you'll have to "move" funds from some other account. This is all artificial, though -- "sendfrom" doesn't actually try to send from account-owned addresses.

Being able to choose coins would be useful, especially for anonymity reasons.

You can't choose your "from" addresses in the official client. Even if there was an option for this, it would still only be possible to send from an address that has an unspent transaction belonging to it.

Unspent transactions are called "coins". You can only redeem full coins, so if you don't have a batch of coins that can be evenly combined into the desired send value, you need to send yourself some change. Bitcoin tries to choose a set of coins that fits the desired send value closely, minimizing change.

Before buying SpinRite, you can check to see whether there is a disk problem by running "badblocks -s /dev/whatever" on Linux.

First-word nations seem to be feeding themselves just fine.

The last hash is doubled.

I like using "pronounceable password generators" to come up with names for things. I just go through the results and pick one that sounds good, oftentimes modifying it slightly.

With a 10MB limit, someone can create 10 full blocks within a 500-block span to disable getblocks uploading for almost the entire network. This is probably an even more effective attack than whatever the limit is designed to protect against.