Bitcoin Forum
May 16, 2022, 04:35:47 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Ripple Giveaway! on: February 21, 2013, 03:51:29 PM
rweRQCDfqKRENJYFZcjnknfH8UveHSg67E
2  Economy / Economics / Re: When will it be possible to trade on MtGox again? on: June 21, 2011, 04:51:05 PM
You guys are kidding, right?  They weren't hacked, this experience will make them change and improve their security procedures for DBAs, and they've been hard at work since the event happened to improve security and bring everything back up for everyone.  What would you have preferred they do?  In my opinion, they've demonstrated professionalism, and I look forward to the improvements which the problem will engender.  We can't expect them to identify security holes on a contractor's computer, and its unrealistic to think they'd be invulnerable to attack, especially considering the massive amount of money that flows through there each day.  They're not prophets or fortune tellers, they're regular people, and they've reacted to this situation as well as any person could. 


I'm getting emails from the operator of TradeHill trying to exploit the situation...glhf faring any better in security when all eyes are on you.
3  Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Most Efficient Miner? on: June 06, 2011, 06:59:25 PM
I was referring to GPUs, as that appears to be the majority technology for hashing at the moment.  The FPGA idea is fantastic, but I don't have the capital to purchase one at the moment.
4  Bitcoin / Mining / Most Efficient Miner? on: June 06, 2011, 06:42:45 PM
Has anyone done a comparison of recent revisions of the various miners on the same hardware?  Implementation efficiency is a big deal when it comes to squeezing execution iterations out of a program, and I can't help but suspect that I could squeeze a few more hashes out of my machine by using the most skillfully-written miner...
5  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: OpenCL miner for the masses on: November 10, 2010, 04:19:51 PM
Quote
I'm running Linux, and the standard "patch" command responds that the input is garbage, while copying the patch files on top of the mainline ones won't compile by a long shot.  Could someone clue me in to what I'm supposed to be doing here?

You need exactly the right revision of the bitcoin sources to use the patch. Most of the patch versions I have seen are for the "svn" development revisions of bitcoin. I think the top few lines of the patch should have a svn revision number that you can use to get the right revision of the source using a svn command.
svn -r {num} http:....


have fun.

Go to sources root and then :
$ patch -i -p0 < /path/to/the/patch

Thanks!  The next issue seems to be wxWidgets.  The revision calls for 2.9.0, but I can only find 2.9.1 now, which doesn't appear to work.  Anyone know where I can get 2.9.0?  Or, does 2.9.1 indeed work, and I'm just doing something wrong?  Sorry for the dearth of questions...
6  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: OpenCL miner for the masses on: November 09, 2010, 09:31:18 PM
does this work on nVidia cards which support OpenCL?
yes, it does.
works fine for me on 8600GT and gtx260, so it should also work on all in between and above.

Great to know that it will work on my card.  I've gotten PyOpenCL installed, but I've hit an impasse patching Satoshi's mainline client.  I'm running Linux, and the standard "patch" command responds that the input is garbage, while copying the patch files on top of the mainline ones won't compile by a long shot.  Could someone clue me in to what I'm supposed to be doing here?
7  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: OpenCL miner for the masses on: November 09, 2010, 04:08:16 PM
I see all kinds of discussion regarding AMD/ATI drivers here...does this work on nVidia cards which support OpenCL?  Mine is on the list at the beginning of the thread, but I think I may be missing/skipping something, or misinterpreting whether my card is supported by this fork at all.  Thanks to everyone in advance.
8  Economy / Economics / Stable Exchange Rate? on: August 07, 2010, 05:38:33 PM
It looks as if the two main markets, bitcoinmarket and mtgox, are stabilizing around 5.5-6.5 USC/BTC.  The outliers and quartiles have been tightening for days now, and now the values are centering in that range.  Thoughts?  Could it be that we've established a market value?  That would be a major step toward currency confidence and widespread public use.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: sorry guys (and gals)! on: August 07, 2010, 05:29:02 PM
Keep in mind...  We are trying to create a new currency, not a personal money tree for everyone.

Are we creating a new currency or competing with PayPal and the like as a payment service?  The two are very, very different...and we're back here again...
10  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Faster Hashing - What's the Point? on: August 06, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
I've seen two recent releases, .36 and .38, mention faster hashing.  Why is this advantageous?  Won't faster hashing simply cause the difficulty to increase, and place us precisely back where we were before the "speed" increase, only with a higher difficulty number?
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / 0.3.7 Changes on: August 01, 2010, 06:14:26 PM
I noticed that 0.3.7 is released on the website, but after searching the forums I can't find any information on what the changes are.  Never mind that the changes from version to version should be packaged with the download....

anyone care to clue me in on this one?
12  Economy / Economics / Re: Greece, the EU, and Bitcoins on: July 22, 2010, 03:04:18 AM
...or the kiva microfinance program http://www.kiva.org/ which lets you micro loan to third world businesses ....

Just want to voice my approval for any potential option of supporting Kiva.  I know that the idea was abstract, but that charity is phenomenal in my opinion.
13  Economy / Economics / Re: Greece, the EU, and Bitcoins on: July 22, 2010, 12:08:33 AM
How do we deal with the issue of necessary currency value differentials...?
The same way that New York and Oklahoma are both accommodated by the US dollar, i.e. by a variation in the cost of living.

The guy who mows lawns or makes pizzas in New York is going to want more bitcoins for his work than the guy doing the same job in Oklahoma.

Hmm.  You're quite correct...then is my (partial) explanation for the Euro situation in Greece wrong?  If so, then by what means?  I think that the "variation in cost of living" approach can only stretch so far, perhaps  Ie, there's FAR more difference in the COL between New York and the outskirts of Bangalore than New York and Oklahoma.  The COL approach works in the NY/OK case, but not with a cost of living variation as extreme as the first scenario.  Then again...I'm not exactly sure.
14  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoins on Mars on: July 22, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
I have an answer for this.It is called quantum entanglement and has already successfully transported data over 89miles.So with moore's law we could actually have a situation where bitcoin would be viable on Mars - instantly and with no break in the block chain.
Moore's Law: The number of transistors on a microprocessor doubles every eighteen months.

What does this have to do with this?  Transistors on a chip != quantum entanglement distance.
..quantum entangled relay transistors to transfer data quickly. Actually, if they were incorporated into microchips, it could be a way of increasing the transistors. The computer in one room has so many transistors and the computers in the other room has so many transistors, but as the quantum entangled transistor technology improves, it allows the two to be combined into a single processing unit, thus prolonging Moore's Law. Cheesy

I agree that physically disparate but quantum-entangled processing units would mimic a single, spatially-local block of logic gates...but I still fail to see what Moore's Law has to do with the distance over which data may be transmitted by quantum entanglement.
15  Economy / Economics / Re: [US] Taxes and gold coins on: July 21, 2010, 09:39:29 PM
Well, they're not going to have much records of many bitcoin users' trail.

I really question how many btc users are going to be selling more than $600 of goods in btc....  Besides, this new requirement doesn't trouble gold dealers because of goods transferred *in gold* (though perhaps it should).  The problem is that any Joe or Shirley who sells gold probably sells more than $600 (About .52 troy oz at current rates).  Thus, if they do business with ten people a day, thats 3,650 forms to fill out.  (Neglecting deductions for weekends and holidays).  Yay, bureaucratic paperwork!
16  Economy / Economics / Re: [US] Taxes and gold coins on: July 21, 2010, 09:27:43 PM
I don't understand the hideous threat in this new requirement.  If a business purchases $600 or more in product from a supplier, it must fill out a form to verify that the supplier is reporting these sales (which they should be reporting anyway) to be taxed.

I'm very much in disapproval of the current American administration and its policies, and very much a free-market libertarian.  However, this does not impose any new tax or tax requirement - they're just double-checking to make sure that all goods *already* taxed are reported.  Said taxes might need to be eliminated, but at least this only imposes a reporting requirement, not a new tax.  Pain in the rear?  Yes.  Huge change of policy?  No.
17  Economy / Economics / Greece, the EU, and Bitcoins on: July 21, 2010, 09:23:03 PM
I'm sure everybody is fairly familiar with what is going on in Greece.  For those who don't know, a (very) simplified description is the following.

Greece, like the rest of the EU bloc, is under the Euro.  The Euro is a unified currency which spans over twenty nations.  Some of these nations are more economically prosperous than others.  Germany, for instance, can produce more value into the global economy than Greece.  In a multi-currency situation, this would lead to a devaluation of the Greek currency so that its goods could be purchased cheaply by the Germans and others with more economic power.  While the situation is not as good for the Greeks as if they were able to compete evenly, they can't compete evenly anyway, so at least this way they can sell something at some price.  However, the country is locked into the Euro.  Therefore, it is locked into a 1:1 exchange rate with all Euro countries (France, Germany, etc.)  Thus, it cannot offset its economic weakness with a devalued currency, so it must compete on even footing with other Euro countries, which it cannot do, as it is less economically and technologically developed.  Thus, we have a crash.

On the another stage, the US buys things from India because the RUP is devalued relative to the USD.  This works out well for both countries, as it enables the US to get cheap goods, and India to sell goods which couldn't compete with the goods of more prosperous and developed nations on even footing.  (Opportunity cost is at the root of this).  However, if the US and India were locked into an identical currency, the economic weakness of India today would look like a paradise relative to what we would see then.

The parallels between the Bitcoin and the Euro are obvious.    Say the BTC becomes a global currency.  How do we deal with the issue of necessary currency value differentials to accommodate the differing capabilities of disparate geographical locations?  Obviously, if we can't, then the BTC is worthless in all but the economic top-tier countries, because it cannot be used save on an equal footing with such countries.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoins on Mars on: July 21, 2010, 09:06:52 PM
I have an answer for this.It is called quantum entanglement and has already successfully transported data over 89miles.So with moore's law we could actually have a situation where bitcoin would be viable on Mars - instantly and with no break in the block chain.
Moore's Law: The number of transistors on a microprocessor doubles every eighteen months.

What does this have to do with this?  Transistors on a chip != quantum entanglement distance.
19  Economy / Economics / Re: Future Adjustment of Divisibility on: July 19, 2010, 10:16:13 PM
Harder than you think.

Please explain.
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Verification of Coin Ownership on: July 19, 2010, 10:14:35 PM
The block chain can verify that the "coins" belong to a certain private key. If you've lost the private key you've lost the ability to transfer the coins and hence the ability to spend them hence they're not "yours" anymore. The whole idea of "coins" is a fiction to make the system more easily understandable. The system simulates the expected behaviour of coins. A coin is more accurately the expectation of the success of a mutually agreed value transferring transaction. If we mutually agree to invalidate certain transactions or similarly validate certain non-standard transactions then we can manipulate people's "balances" arbitrarily.
I'm quite aware that "coins" are not coins, but validations for a magnitude of transaction.

Why not just store the keys, and derive coin ownership while online?
This is what happens.
So wallet==keyfile, and nothing else?  Good, that's appropriate.

You misunderstand how coins work. The fact that the number of coins is limited is something that is mutually agreed by the software. The fact that block generation "creates" bitcoins is something mutually agreed by the software. There's no mathematical basis for any of it. If you change the software to interpret the block chain in a different way and to validate transactions or calculate balances in a different way, as long as everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees then hey presto! that's the way it is.
I do not misunderstand in the least.  I do not believe that there is anything mathematical, or effectively necessary, about how anything at all in how the system works.  In fact, there's nothing effectively necessary about anything that has ever run on a processor.  Its software - which is by definition a set of arbitrarily defined and decided instructions.  My suggestion is that the convention of permitting the infinite deflation of the system might be better suited and more economically sustainable if it were changed - the convention being "If key.timeSinceSeen> X  deleteKey'sCoins().   If extantCoins<21M, generate.  Else, !generate

Additionally, could people use keys not generated by Bitcoin?  For instance, I have a PGP key with which I sign crucial files, and this key is backed up to the n-teenth time on any number of media.  If I could use bitcoin by simply inputting this key into the software, and then the software could derive which coins are mine from the content of the chain, it would make losing access to coins far more unlikely.  Obviously, switching keys would be akin to switching wallets.
This could be done if we change the software and convince everyone to use the new version.
Actually, you wouldn't have to convince everyone to use the new version if the key formats are compatible.  A new client would have a "Create new Wallet by Key Import..." option, which would do precisely what it said.  Old wallets, based on keys that Bitcoin generated (or new wallets for people with no existing PGP key) would continue to work, thus allowing backwards compatibility of the new version.


And, now that I've reviewed the rest of the thread, I see that this has already been discussed.  Oh well - I'll leave it in anyway.  However,...
Note, however, that the destination address (actually, the signature acceptance script) is visible to everyone, so it would be a very public transfer.

Please tell me you're not saying that the private key becomes public knowledge....
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!