Bitcoin Forum
November 12, 2019, 06:11:03 AM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 [393]
7841  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Post your static IP on: February 21, 2010, 09:48:26 AM
I'm at theymos.ath.cx. I should be online 24/7.

You need to look up my IP address before you give it to Bitcoin. My IP address only changes infrequently, so this should be OK.
7842  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proof-of-work difficulty increasing on: February 16, 2010, 06:01:51 AM
I generated 5 blocks today on my Pentium processor. Two of them were within 3 minutes of each other.

I have noticed some slowdown since the adjustment, but I still generate a lot of coins. My computer is off while I'm sleeping, and BitCoin bootstraps quickly when I turn it back on. Do you guys-who-are-having-trouble have the BitCoin port open?
7843  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Incorrect Firefox Warning for Bitcoin website on: February 16, 2010, 05:17:17 AM
The CA's root certificate needs to be included in the browser to make the warning go away. CACert isn't included in any popular browser, and Startcom was only recently added to Windows. With Startcom, anyone who doesn't install the optional root certificates update in Windows update will still get an error in Chrome, Safari, and Internet Explorer. Firefox has had it built-in for a while.

HTTPS isn't the default (or really necessary) for bitcoin.org, so it doesn't much matter. If you want to manually switch to HTTPS, then you can deal with the self-signed certificate.
7844  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Incorrect Firefox Warning for Bitcoin website on: February 15, 2010, 08:43:04 AM
The TLS certificate is self-signed, so the warning is "correct". The encryption is just as strong as any other HTTPS connection, but without a CA's signature the site's identity can't be guaranteed -- a man-in-the-middle attack could be used. Unfortunately, getting a signature costs money.

Verifying the certificate's fingerprint here before adding an exception will prevent any MITM attack. This is only necessary when you add an exception; subsequent MITM attempts will trigger a warning by your browser.
7845  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Double Click Win32 Exe Installer = NCIS Error. on: February 15, 2010, 03:30:12 AM
It doesn't even detect bitcoin.exe normally, just when it's in the installer. I sent the file to ESET, but I don't know if they actually check into these things.
7846  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Double Click Win32 Exe Installer = NCIS Error. on: February 15, 2010, 12:43:10 AM
Turn off NOD32, download, and save to a different location than before.Then run the installer (the one you just downloaded). It's not a virus. You can turn NOD32 back on after the installation is complete.
7847  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What's with this odd generation? on: February 14, 2010, 09:46:58 PM
What property guarantees the continuing profitability? If the cost of electricity triples in 20 years, the number and size of transactions wouldn't change (as far as I know), but running a node would become more expensive and possibly unprofitable.

What stops someone from creating a client that will send repeated transactions just below the fee maximum when it has to in order to avoid fees? Or from many different identities to the same one (if this is possible)? I can see there being a great demand for such a client if BitCoin becomes very popular.
7848  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What's with this odd generation? on: February 14, 2010, 08:48:57 AM
Is the fee enough to always ensure the profitability of running a node, even when BitCoin generation stops being profitable?
7849  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What's with this odd generation? on: February 12, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
There's a small transaction fee for very large transactions.  (usually over 10,000 bc)  The node that generates the block that contains the transaction gets the fee.

The fee is based on the KB size of the transaction and intended to compensate the network for the resources used to process it.

If the same money gets sent again, it won't incur the fee again because it'll be small.  The first time they're bundling hundreds of 50 bc coins together.  After that it's just one line to send the combined unit.

Does the sending client send more BitCoins to account for the fee (so the recipient gets what he's expecting)? Why couldn't someone just send 1000 small transactions to bypass fees?
7850  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / What's with this odd generation? on: February 10, 2010, 06:31:40 PM
I thought BitCoin only generated in 50 coin increments, but I got 50.44 here.

Pages: « 1 ... 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 [393]
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!