|
1581
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Electrum - a new thin client
|
on: December 17, 2011, 06:48:31 AM
|
Red Emerald, I think we all understand benefits of green addresses. There's only the only problem with distribution of that list of trusted (green) addresses.
I like the idea to have some user interface for manually modifying "green addresses" in the client. If merchant decide that he want to trust Instawallet or Mtgox, why not, it's his choice. But distributing green addresses with client sounds dangerous.
I don't think the client should come with any green addresses baked in. A GUI and a couple RPC commands would let people control this list in anyway they want. Maybe sites like Instawallet and Mtgox could host their own addresses. Maybe someone could make a site like http://www.iblocklist.com/ only with lists of PGP-signed green addresses instead of bad IPs. Those methods won't be designed until a client or two has the ability to accept them. A few people have mentioned having a "advanced" flag for the client. Maybe green addresses could be hidden behind something like that. If you want to move funds between your own wallets, why wait any time? It's not like you are going to double spend against yourself. I think it would be nice if this was an option. |
|
|
|
|
1582
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator [v0.17]
|
on: December 17, 2011, 06:16:55 AM
|
|
What version is litecoin? I am wanting to generate a vanity address for it and don't know what to put for the network byte.
Or better yet, how do you figure out the version for any alt-chain? I'm assuming for litecoin it is L in some different base. I tried 0x32, but that didn't work. All I know is that bitcoin is 0.
$ vanitygen -X <something> L<my address>
|
|
|
|
|
1583
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Electrum - a new thin client
|
on: December 17, 2011, 01:33:55 AM
|
You are a retailer. You wish to trust a customer and give them an immediate sale, regardless of confirmations. You have a Bitcoin wallet running on your local machine. Now you have two options:
- Your method: Ask customer for their sending Bitcoin address. Customer has to have a client running that will allow them to select which address to send from. If they can't cover the bill from a single address, they have to send from multiple addresses, which further complicates your creation of green addresses. Once you input the customer's addresses, the customer sends to your Bitcoin address. A few seconds later, you see one or more sending addresses pop up as "green" addresses, and you know it is ok to give the customer the goods without waiting for confirmations.
- My method: The customer sends to your Bitcoin address. You watch the wallet until you see the transaction pop up with 0 confirms. You make sure the total is correct with the receipt amount, then call it good.
Not sure who you in "your method" is referring too, but I think you are missing a piece. I believe that the green address thread had the idea that a transaction that has any of its inputs coming from a green adress should be considered green. This is the workflow I was imagining for a POS that can use green transaction. 1) Create an address for the customer's payment and show it to them (maybe via a QR code or something) 2) The customer pays the given address and tells their client to send the payment through a green address (on instawallet, it's a checkbox) 3) Your POS sees the new 0 confirmation transaction contains an input from a green address and accepts it immediately. OR 1) Create an address for the customer's payment and show it to them (maybe via a QR code or something) 2) The customer pays the given address with a wallet service that does not support green addresses 3) Your POS sees the new 0 confirmation transaction and you either give them the item now or you make them wait for 6 confirmations The second option 3 seems pretty stupid to me though. I'm convinced now that green addresses solve a non-existant problem since waiting the 6 confirmations seems unnecessary. So I guess my new feature request is to be able to spend inputs from transactions that have a customizable number of confirmations. I think this would be simple to implement and would allow for people to setup their clients for their own needs. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Point_of_sale_with_bitcoins_isn.27t_possible_because_of_the_10_minute_wait_for_confirmationOption 3 seems like it could work with Green addresses, but I no longer see the need for such heavy protection against double spends. |
|
|
|
|
1584
|
Economy / Economics / Re: How will SOPA in the US impact bitcoin globally if it passes?
|
on: December 17, 2011, 01:07:39 AM
|
SOPA mostly deal with online piracy, and pirates don't pay for the things they download. They didn't pay with fiat back then, and they are not going to start paying in bitcoins now.
Remember allofmp3.com? A Russian online store selling all kinds of music from all artists and all labels in various unprotected formats. The company never transferred any money to western copyright holders. Sorry I'm not following you. I made 2 points: 1. SOPA mostly deal with online piracy 2. pirates don't pay for the things they download It looks like you're trying to refute point #2, but your refutation fails because you gave an example of a paid website, which pirates don't use (by definition). So what are people who bought songs from allofmp3.com called if not pirates? Customers? allofmp3.com was a scam but I don't think you can call the people who fell for the scam "scammers". I really don't think not paying is part of the definition of piracy (even though it may be a large part of most pirates behavior). Not being authorized to have the content (which is usually done by paying) is what makes you a pirate. If you pay some random bootlegger at the flea market for a copy of a movie, you can't claim the movie is legit because you paid someone for it. |
|
|
|
|
1586
|
Economy / Economics / Re: How will SOPA in the US impact bitcoin globally if it passes?
|
on: December 16, 2011, 12:10:44 AM
|
SOPA mostly deal with online piracy, and pirates don't pay for the things they download. They didn't pay with fiat back then, and they are not going to start paying in bitcoins now.
Remember allofmp3.com? A Russian online store selling all kinds of music from all artists and all labels in various unprotected formats. The company never transferred any money to western copyright holders. Sorry I'm not following you. I made 2 points: 1. SOPA mostly deal with online piracy 2. pirates don't pay for the things they download It looks like you're trying to refute point #2, but your refutation fails because you gave an example of a paid website, which pirates don't use (by definition). So what are people who bought songs from allofmp3.com called if not pirates? |
|
|
|
|
1587
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Electrum - a new thin client
|
on: December 16, 2011, 12:00:07 AM
|
Reading email discussion about "BIP15 / Aliases" in development mailing list, lot of funny proposals here. However I pretty like proposal for using URLs for retrieving sending addresses. It's the most clean, easiest to implement and easy to understand by normal people, what I read there so far:
When you'll ask for receiving address, counter party give you general URL instead of Bitcoin address. HTTP(S) request to that URL should give you an address used to this transfer. It's on the decision of counterparty if this address is static (every HTTP request returns the same address) or it's randomly generate or counterparty provide you customized URL just for this specific trade.
Any reason why *not* implement this into Electrum (even if it won't be chosen as "official" alias system into standard client)?
This sounds cool. I think we should only allow HTTPS requests if we want to be secure. Tampering with HTTP is too easy. |
|
|
|
|
1588
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: [ANNOUNCE] Electrum - a new thin client
|
on: December 15, 2011, 11:58:41 PM
|
Can you add support for green addresses?
Essentially its a list of addresses that you will trust even with 0 confirmations.
what would be the desired behaviour when coins come from such an address? The transaction would be treated like it has been confirmed by 6 blocks, meaning that I can use those coins for another transaction. This will be more more helpful when we can select which inputs to use when spending coins. If green addresses were implemented, than a POS (like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38893.0) could easily be built without modifying the client. I guess it is true that green addresses solve the non-existant problem of double-spends at a POS. I still think that they are cool though and I don't think it is unimaginable that someone will come up with a better use for them in the future. And I don't think centralization is bad. I think being forced to be centralized is bad. Green addresses could from a central provider, but they could also come from any number of other distribution methods. |
|
|
|
|
1591
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Mtgox auto-signs with a 437522 BTC wallet?!?
|
on: December 15, 2011, 01:43:50 AM
|
The same number of coins have been made each day since the beginning.
No that's not true. Satoshi set the initial difficulty of "1" so that it would generate less than 6 blocks per hour. He didn't want to generate a lot of blocks until more people got involved. I can't remember the starting rate, and I can't find a reference to it right now, but I'm pretty sure it was less than one block per hour. After a while, there were enough people generating that "6 blocks per hour" was reached at the starting difficulty of one, and from that point onwards the difficulty "auto-adjusted" to try to maintain that target rate. Right, well, it was at full rate at the excitement of the initial announcement but soon fell far below one block an hour and stayed there for pretty much all of 2009. The area under the red line is less than one block per hour, and this is a log scale graph: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.pngHow many coins were generated during that time? And how many people were mining? I think my original post would be more accurate if I had said "The same number of coins have been made each day since the time people started caring about bitcoin" which might as well be the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
1592
|
Other / Meta / Re: My ad results
|
on: December 15, 2011, 01:39:36 AM
|
I would argue the value of the clicks from DailyBitcoins is no where near the value of the clicks from these forums. The mindset of the userbase is completely different.
That's what I was thinking. For a comparison, one would need a highly comparable website in terms of numbers. ...except that while using my iPhone, I have accidentally clicked on those ads dozens of times with my big fingers so I think we can assume not every click was legit. I think that most ad clicks are accidental |
|
|
|
|
1600
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [OpenSource] BitSafe, a safety deposit box for your bitcoins
|
on: December 11, 2011, 11:37:13 PM
|
Download the Binary Image file and flash it on your drive. On Linux: sudo dd if=/path/to/binary.img of=/dev/sdX (where sdX is the name of your device) On Windows: I recommend Image Writer. You'll need to launch it as administrator. Go pick the downloaded binary.img file, choose the letter of the drive you wish to install bitsafe on and press "Write". What would you suggest to use on a Mac? I tried Disk Utility and I got: "Restore Failure - Could not validate source - Invalid argument" Thanks! Use dd. Mac's have it and it should work exactly the same as on linux. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
