You can't currently run as a full network node without full blocks, since there's no way to represent on the network that you're sending just a partial block. Would the vectors currently used for Merkle trees even work if part of the tree was removed?
I haven't seen any relevant code. I don't think transaction trimming is intended for use in the near future.
|
|
|
Yes, this is feasible. Alice's client could let her send the same coins again with a higher fee. One of the two transactions will make it into a block and the other one will be ignored as a double spend.
Exactly right. If the two transactions share any inputs, then they will conflict, and both can't exist in the block chain. Each transaction input has a sequence number associated with it. This is intended for replacement situations like this; a lower sequence number indicates that this transaction should take precedence over other transactions with a higher sequence number. However, miners currently don't respect sequence numbers, so you must rely on the network's forgetfulness.
|
|
|
The network forgets about transactions if they haven't made it into a block within a few days. You could resubmit it then.
Bitcoin doesn't currently allow you to "unsend" a transaction, though, so you'd have to restore from a wallet backup to get the "stuck" coins back.
|
|
|
You can use the RPC command "setgenerate true threadNumber". Bitcoin will store the number of threads to run in your wallet and remember it across runs.
|
|
|
so the "send remaining account balance" could be patched as a sending to myself / use the same address? that would be very elegant hack, probably for "advanced" tab settings but i can imagine that being very useful for the late adopters and lay community.
If you patch Bitcoin to send change back to the original address, then the address balance will be accurate. This would be a pretty easy change to make. It also makes backups more reliable, since a new address is not needed for each send. It's terrible for anonymity, of course.
|
|
|
I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more please?
Take a look at "Against Intellectual Property" (PDF), which largely represents my views on the matter. If I own a section of land, then no one cares. I can't interfere with the use of anyone's property. My ownership doesn't affect anyone. But if I own intellectual property, then I have the right to stop people from using their property in certain ways. I can stop someone from using their ink and their paper to recreate my words. I can stop people from assembling their electronics into certain formations. This is exactly opposed to the libertarian principle of allowing people to do what they like with their property.
|
|
|
Though, since bitcoin can use a tor proxy, it gets all those features. How well would it work to use a tor location hidden service as your available IP? If the client just forwards everything through the proxy, letting it do DNS lookups, then it would mean that you just wont resolve for any clients not using a tor proxy, but it should be transparent for anyone doing it.
Bitcoin doesn't handle hostnames. You need to use Tor's MapAddress to use a hidden service (explicitly with -addnode), though this does work.
|
|
|
I think we could just remove the special "dust spam" fee and rely on the priority mechanism. Then "dust" would only be allowed in the first 27k of a block, and non-dust would usually be given priority in that area.
The -limitfreerelay switch can be enabled by default to protect relay nodes from dust spam.
|
|
|
I'm not sure that things are so simple. Perhaps you are opposed to the idea of IP, but many self-identifying libertarians (Randians come to mind) are supportive of such rights. fergalish describes one approach to IP, which seems to be quite reasonable.
There are, of course, extremes even within the so-called "libertarian" crowd. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, ultra-free marketers espouse the notion that everything should be privately owned. This includes, by necessity, ideas. It also includes things like air. The idea here is that once the resource is owned, then the owner will naturally want to take care of it. This seems crazy to me - more likely the owner will use the control over critical resources to coerce for profit..
Respect for property rights is the core libertarian issue. I have a hard time considering people libertarians if they say, "Property rights are absolute, and everyone can do what they want with their property, except when someone else already used their property in that way."
|
|
|
Is it not possible to forward two ports for bitcoin? E.g. 8333 and 8334 and announce this ports in the distributed database, like bittorrent does?
No. You could modify the source to use a different port, but "stock" Bitcoin greatly prefers to connect to peers on port 8333, so it wouldn't do any good.
|
|
|
Why would there be any difference? TrueCrypt encryption is transparent to all software.
|
|
|
Well, even libertarians think that property rights should be enforced in an anarchist/lassaiz-faire economy. Patents are nothing other than intellectual property, but I don't know if the libertarian argument defends that too. So maybe they could argue that patents are OK, but that there shouldn't be a monopoly on patent enforcement...  I note that patents exist to protect the research investment of the developer and allow them to recoup their investment through exclusivity for a while. Of course, it's being abused now, but what do the libertairians amongst us say about intellectual property? Libertarians are opposed to intellectual property, as it allows non-scarce intellectual property to interfere with the use of scarce real property.
|
|
|
4chan is also a good area for general Bitcoin usage: it can be used for request bounties and for donations among anonymous posters.
|
|
|
Addresses are unlimited and not attributable to a physical person so wouldn't that be like trying to trace quicksilver running through a horsehair cushion? Single bitcoins remain whole for how many transactions exactly? .... or as a SA once said, trying to "pick fly-shit out of spilled pepper."
So I'd said 99.99% anonymity which is pretty good for a digital transaction.
Bitcoin's anonymity is not nearly that strong. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/AnonymityThe only core idea is decentralized transaction verification.
|
|
|
I like supporting full precision in the UI and fixing coin selection.
The fees for generators should reflect actual costs, but I don't like the idea of hard-coding this. It should be user-selectable, and relaying fee requirements should be removed (or reduced and also user-selectable).
0.001 BTC is a good default fee. Amazon S3 charges $0.140 per GB if storage and $0.100 per GB of bandwidth. Even 0.0001 BTC per KB would be significantly higher.
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it was because i got bitcoin in the timeframe or there is just a bug in the GUI of the addressbook window.
Anyone else experienced this bug, or maybe this is a "normal" behaviour which i haven't found in the docs yet?
It is expected behavior, though probably those addresses should be labeled more descriptively. Bitcoin automatically generates one of these no-label addresses whenever you receive BTC at the address listed in the "your Bitcoin address" area. The new address replaces the old address in "your Bitcoin address" to encourage you not to re-use addresses.
|
|
|
|