I just bought a 1.5Tbyte drive for $75..
think its big enuf for the future blockchain??
Assuming the block size limit isn't raised, it will take 57 years before the blockchain overflows that drive. I doubt this assumption is accurate. With projected Bitcoin growth, we'd see closer to a drive that big every seven blocks in 57 years. Calculations: In 57 years Bitcoin will be the only form of currency on Earth. The population of Earth is projected to be nine billion. The average person performs 100 transactions a month. That is around 0.0231 transactions per person per block. In total, that is 208 million transactions per block. The average transaction size is around 1 KB. Therefore, there will be 208 GB on average per block in 57 years. Yes, but as you clearly demonstrated, if you reject that assumption you have to make even more assumptions that have no reliable basis and you end up with mere speculation. A block is probably going to be larger than 1 TB on average in 57 years, once considering coin splitting, larger transaction sizes, and whatever other stuff gets stored onto the blockchain. Buying a 1.5 TB disk isn't going to store two blocks in the future blockchain. Luckily, Moore's Law tells us we'll have hard disks 200 ZB (zettabytes) in size by then. Emphasis added. That's quite optimistic. Most of my assets (other than my house) are currently in bitcoin or related businesses, but even I have a hard time accepting "only currency on earth" in only 57 years as a lower bound. It's likely Bitcoin will also be the only currency on the Moon, and it's quite possible (although not certain) it will also be on Mars. Unless Bitcoin somehow fails, I think it's 99.9% certain that Bitcoin will control all but some niches of the world's currency usage in 57 years. |
|
|
|
what have they done
Notice how every car now looks like an un-aerodynamic tank? That stupidity originated in Europe, when insurance companies discovered that it's more cost-effective to hit cyclists without breaking their legs. Now literally more gasoline is wasted driving inefficient, stupid-looking cars than is saved by the hipsters who ride bikes around thinking they're being ecologically friendly. Fix the broken bike infrastructure, not the cars that hit the bikes. This is one aspect that even China is doing better at. |
|
|
|
As far as the issue of using celebrity names without permission, even assuming for the sake of argument that there would be no legal issues, wouldn't it be better to have the celebrity on board anyways? That way they could promote the product during interviews on talk shows and such. The advantage of targeting teenagers would be that they may become lifetime users. Maybe a better way to reach them would be through the classroom. Could we convince business/economics teachers that satoshis make good "play money" for classroom exercises? I think there are some possibilities there. The forum has a lot of teenagers. There are the people who follow trends most closely, and among which Bitcoin is a means of expression. What we really need is an elderly population to use Bitcoin. According to that poll, there are three, all of them male. Which is 5.6% of the voters at the moment. |
|
|
|
...
... ... ...
... ... ... ... Is this really necessary? |
|
|
|
From that thread: Since there is a "Watch Board" feature now, this thread is no longer necessary. Please use the following links to achieve what this thread provided: @Stephen Gornick, if you could put this into the OP and lock this thread that would be appreciated. dree12, Thank you for suggesting this. watch_board will automatically add all new threads in that board to my watch list. That is not what I wish to have occur. I only wish to have in my watch list those threads which I've purposely added. I suppose a workaround is to unmark the ones I don't wish to watch, but that would then be a task over and above and introduces watch list clutter which I prefer not to have. The other options, such as Sort by First Post (oldest first), are inadequate as well. (no notification) This index does the job that I, and others I presume, wish to have done. That thread is also not the appropriate place for this discussion. I apologize. I have deleted my post there, and you can do the same. |
|
|
|
I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something. The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6. Is that something that may change in future or is version 6 just not ever going to work? I cannot predict the future, however, AFAIK no plans to use it are in place now. |
|
|
|
I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.
That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something. The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6. |
|
|
|
Ahh, too bad... vanitygen -X 6 -F script 3gig
WARNING: Built with OpenSSL 0.9.8o 01 Jun 2010
WARNING: Use OpenSSL 1.0.0d+ for best performance
Difficulty: 78508
Pattern: 3gig
P2SHAddress: 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC
Address: 3ddDB5j5am69prQBNaVfeH2wvdZHGD9w7Z
Privkey: 5WYu7CxrJ9fxriZ5uJ3v1zKqpmituvQ9KqgHsfv5H4VddpJmon6 Tried sending wee little coin to 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC but client field goes red and it won't send. I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space. |
|
|
|
Yet another article based on the same inaccurate Verge report. Doesn't anyone actually research their stories these days? Even the BBC didn't bother to fact check the ArsTechnica or Verge report before they picked up the story.
Bitcoinica is legally an exchange because the lawsuit defined it as such. |
|
|
|
Is this a bubble? Will there be a correction?
If you are buying as an investment, then you take what comes with investment -- a risk of loss. Those who buy bitcoins as they need them for making purchases aren't exposed to exchange rate risk, they buy bitcoins and they immediately use them to complete the purchase of goods or services that they needed the bitcoins for. So whether or not this is a bubble means little for them. Nobody knows the future though. The metric that should be closely watched is the transaction counts. They have been rising. - http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popularNow the amount of currency to accommodate that level of activity might only be ten million USD worth of bitcoin though (a wild guess). So that would value bitcoins at a $1 each to support Bitcoin's current economic activity. So anything over that is for the most part speculative value. Could it go to $20, or $100? Sure. But until the transaction volumes (and underlying bitcoin amounts) gets sufficiently higher, it is still 90% speculative. Do you think the current price of gold is almost entirely speculative? Good question. Similarly, the total $$$ in existence is far bigger than M0 money supply. The same argument will eventually apply to Bitcoin. Fractional reserve banking increases money supply. |
|
|
|
Now this is strange. When I tried some things work, some do not:
C:\downloads\www.bitcoin.org>vanitygen -F script 3Biteme
BUT 3Test does not work
BUT 3biteme does NOT work
BUT 3Biteme does work, etc.
Certain things work, others do not
Can someone explain this to me?
Answered this in your other thread, but I'll repeat here. The version "5" covers only the first half of 3-prefixed addresses. The rest are in version "6", with some confined to versions "4" and "7". |
|
|
|
Now this is strange. When I tried some things work, some do not:
C:\downloads\www.bitcoin.org>vanitygen -F script 3Biteme
BUT 3Test does not work
BUT 3biteme does NOT work
BUT 3Biteme does work, etc.
Certain things work, others do not
If it "works", the address is unusable. 3-prefixed addresses are hashes of scripts, not public keys. I think your answer is that version "5" only covers the first half of the 3-prefixed address space, with the second half being version "6". I'm not too sure about this, but it seems like that's the problem. 3Biteme is in the version "5" space, while 3Test and 3biteme are in the version "6" space. Nonetheless, none of these addresses will be redeemable. You're hashing pubkeys, not scripts. |
|
|
|
Awesome, so mark_logan bought Flexcoin from Satoshi in the flesh. Quick, ring him back and ask for a message signed by the alert key.   Wait, does this mean that Satoshi = Gavin = theymos? |
|
|
|
I'm leaving now before I ragequit this entire forum.
I'm like 99% sure I'm overreacting at this point, but I've reached the limits of how much idiocy I can take for one day. God I wish every forum had StackExchange-style downvote buttons, wouldn't have to say a damn thing, just click to show my dissent.
OP, is the fact that the address was used to mine block 44444 somehow important to you? You know, collectors item or something . I think that's a coincidence. |
|
|
|
I just bought a 1.5Tbyte drive for $75..
think its big enuf for the future blockchain??
Assuming the block size limit isn't raised, it will take 57 years before the blockchain overflows that drive. I doubt this assumption is accurate. With projected Bitcoin growth, we'd see closer to a drive that big every seven blocks in 57 years. Calculations:
In 57 years Bitcoin will be the only form of currency on Earth. The population of Earth is projected to be nine billion. The average person performs 100 transactions a month. That is around 0.0231 transactions per person per block. In total, that is 208 million transactions per block. The average transaction size is around 1 KB. Therefore, there will be 208 GB on average per block in 57 years.
Yes, but as you clearly demonstrated, if you reject that assumption you have to make even more assumptions that have no reliable basis and you end up with mere speculation. The assumptions I made were mostly lower bounds. A block is probably going to be larger than 1 TB on average in 57 years, once considering coin splitting, larger transaction sizes, and whatever other stuff gets stored onto the blockchain. Buying a 1.5 TB disk isn't going to store two blocks in the future blockchain. Luckily, Moore's Law tells us we'll have hard disks 200 ZB (zettabytes) in size by then. |
|
|
|
multi-sig address ARE usable right now
As far as 99% of the userbase is concerned, they're not usable until the standard client supports them via the GUI interface. An average Bitcoin user is not going to write a config file, launch the daemon, then use a series of archaic bitcoind commands to craft a super-duper-special transaction that has limited utility in its current implementation anyway - especially not if the sole cause for creating such a transaction is to use a vanity address starting with a "3". As they are currently implemented, multi-sig addresses are NOT usable by the VAST majority of users. TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.
I corrected a statement by giving a valid assessment of the current implementation of OP_EVAL addresses and got pissed when some asperger's-addled moron decided to give the "correct" version of the facts which, despite being correct in the most technical sense, is still incorrect for practically every Bitcoin user in existence. By continuing to perpetrate this stupidity you are grossly misinforming other users about the current status of OP_EVAL transactions. Was my original reaction a bit over the top? Definitely. My apologies if anyone was offended, I've just reached the limits of how much idiocy I can stand. I think it's time for a vacation from bitcointalk since every time I come here I nearly pop a vessel. You're missing the point. OP wanted the firstbits 3GiG for an address (donation one, most likely). The only person who needs to know how to spend those funds is the OP (in fact, the only person who should know how to spend them is the OP). To the general public, the address is a novelty that only needs to be sent to (which Satoshi does support). |
|
|
|
Maybe something like this will work (combining other's suggestions) FREE MONEY!
This QR code contains bitcoins (BTC): decentralized, open-source digital currency. Please see www.weusecoins.com or www.blockchain.info for instructions on how to redeem them.
The private key contains 0.1 BTC to 10 BTC (they are scattered all over the campus). Bitcoins are valuable, and the amount included could be worth over 100 $!
Be sure to sweep the coins to your own address after you scan the private key.
☐Note: Please check this box if you have taken the coins, to avoid disappointing others. First come, first serve.
|
|
|
|
To avoid disappointment, have someone write TAKEN when they have emptied the key. Also make sure they sweep it. FREE MONEY!!
This private key contains 0.1 to 10 bitcoins (they are scattered all over the campus!). Current value (as of today: dd.mm.yyyy on mtgox.com): 11.80 $/Bitcoin !!!
Be sure to sweep the coins to your own address after you scan the private key.
Go check on blockchain.info!
☐Note: Please check this box if you have taken the coins, to avoid disappointing others. First come, first serve.
|
|
|
|
I just bought a 1.5Tbyte drive for $75..
think its big enuf for the future blockchain??
Assuming the block size limit isn't raised, it will take 57 years before the blockchain overflows that drive. I doubt this assumption is accurate. With projected Bitcoin growth, we'd see closer to a drive that big every seven blocks in 57 years. Calculations:
In 57 years Bitcoin will be the only form of currency on Earth. The population of Earth is projected to be nine billion. The average person performs 100 transactions a month. That is around 0.0231 transactions per person per block. In total, that is 208 million transactions per block. The average transaction size is around 1 KB. Therefore, there will be 208 GB on average per block in 57 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
