Bitcoin Forum
April 23, 2014, 07:05:58 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... 728
1001  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: Residential Limit 15amp or 20amp? on: January 19, 2014, 04:50:21 AM
DeathAndTaxes!!! Nice link .. cheap too!!

Thanks for your contribution to this thread! Where is your btc tip jar..!! I wanna by ya beer!
Ill hunt you down from your site if i dont hear from you! Thanks again.

I don't need a tip (I got a coin or two in the ole wallet.dat), glad to help for free.  My miner days are likely coming to a close so I will need to mine vicariously.

<shamless plug mode>
If you absolutely feel the need to help ...  consider next time you need to sell some coins to pay that electric bill. Smiley
</shameless plug mode>
1002  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Simple Transaction Signing Question on: January 19, 2014, 04:46:32 AM
The handling of tx fee is a pretty ingenious solution.  The tx fee and the miner reward are loosely coupled.

There is one potential concern, since tx fees are implied not explicitly defined, a bug in a client could result in a loss of coins for a user.

For example say a flawed client created this tx:
TxIn0 (value 100 BTC)
TxOut0 (value 1 BTC)
TxOut1 (value 9 BTC)

You just paid 90 BTC as a fee to miners.  Likewise a flawed miner could actually "erase" coins permanently.  If the sum of all txs in a block is 1 BTC and the block reward is 25 BTC but due to a bug the miner makes the coinbase tx 25.1 BTC then the money supply would be reduced by 0.9 BTC permanently.

The major clients are at this point pretty extensively tested so the risk is more in custom implementations or using the rawtx RPC call (which is very low level and will let you do lots of dangerous things).

Bitcoin likely can't be changed at this point however for an altcoin the only (hindsight being 20/20) changes I would recommend would be:
a) make the tx fee explicitly defined in the tx header and thus a tx is invalid if the sum(inputs) =/= sum(outputs) + txfee
b) make a block invalid if coinbase =/= sum(tx_fees) + current_block_subsidy

1003  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: Residential Limit 15amp or 20amp? on: January 19, 2014, 01:15:17 AM
I had the same question on adapters and got some of these and these They both seem to do the trick, though I don't have my outlet installed yet, so haven't fired everything up. They're pretty inexpensive, especially if you have Prime.

While that will work they make cords which have the correct connectors on each end.  As pointed out above you just need a C13 to C14 cord.  It is pretty common in datacenters.   Almost all electronics (like your ATX PSU) have C14 inlet, and PDU have C13 outlet.  So a single cord is used for everything.  Servers, switches, routers, firewalls, etc.

For amazon:

This is just an example I typed "C13 to C14" there may be (and likely is a cheaper, better version) but the cable one needs to go from PDU to PSU without any adapters is a C13 to C14 cable.

1004  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Simple Transaction Signing Question on: January 19, 2014, 12:42:58 AM
It is complicated and probably better to look at the code directly as trying to explain it in English at a high level abstracts some of it away so while this gets you closer it may still leave some parts ambiguous.  The second image is closer to the correct scenario however remember a tx can have multiple inputs as well.

A hash of the simplified transaction consisted of a SINGLE INPUT and ALL outputs is created, this is then signed by the private key for that input and stored in the "sig & pubkey" portion of that tx input.  
See here:  

Bitcoin has no concept of "owners" or "wallets" so the change output isn't special, it is an output just like any other.  If you are going to create an illustration for explaining then creating one with only a single input is a poor choice because the next questions becomes how to dI handle n inputs where n >1.  An example with 2 inputs is better because 3, 20, or 4,000 inputs are handled exactly the same as 2.  

The other thing you need to divorce yourself from is you aren't sending funds from a public key, you are using a SPECIFIC unspent output of a prior tx as an input.  Yes in conversation we may say "he paid me from address 123..." but when trying to explain Bitcoin's working that falls apart and trying to understand anything becomes impossible.  An input is a specific unspent output.  It is referred to (in the Tx input) by the tx hash (of the prior tx) and index (which output of that tx is being used here).

So in more general form.   Lets assume you have a tx which consists of 3 unspent outputs (which become inputs for this tx) A, B, C and two new outputs Y & Z (it doesn't matter if one of these is a change address or you just happened to pay two different receivers with the exact amount of coins, an inputs is an input and an output is an output).

First the output scripts are created.  The "normal" Bitcoin tx is a PayToPubKeyHash, so likely the user provided you a Bitcoin Address.  This is reversed into the PubKeyHash and a script which locks that output of a specific value to a specific PubKeyHash is created.  The outputs are arranged in a sequence randomly (to avoid leaking which one is the "change").  Lets say Z become TxOut0 and Y becomes TxOut1.  The inputs are then arranged in a sequence randomly.  Lets say A becomes TxIn0, B becomes TxIn1, and C becomes TxIn2.

We now have a tx which looks like this:

A simplified version of the tx is created (TxIn0, TxOut0, TxOut1) and hashed.  The hash is signed by the private key for A and stored in the Sig & PubKey section for TxIn0.
A simplified version of the tx is created (TxIn1, TxOut0, TxOut1)and hashed.  The hash is signed by the private key for B and stored in the Sig & PubKey section for TxIn1.
A simplified version of the tx is created (TxIn2, TxOut0, TxOut1) and hashed.  The hash is signed by the private key for C and stored in the Sig & PubKey section for TxIn2.

One last thing which may not be obvious.  There is no 1:1 relationship between inputs and private keys.  For example if you have two unspent outputs to the same address (say A & C) then they share the same private key however they are still unique and discrete inputs so the tx above would still have 3 inputs.

I likely am overlooking or misstating something here so I would double check all this against the code.

1005  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What's the point of reducing block rewards over time? on: January 17, 2014, 09:00:06 PM
A key component of Bitcoin is a fixed money supply.  You can't do that if you issue new coins forever.  Now you could keep the block reward at 50 BTC and just go 50 BTC to zero like a car hitting a brick wall at 100 mph and hope the network can handle it.  The subsidy halving gives the Bitcoin "economy" time to adapt to being supported by transaction fees.

In theory you "could" have a crypto currency without a fixed money supply.  You couldn't say things like no more than 21M coins will ever be created but on a long enough timeline the difference between <1% annual money supply growth and <1% annual money supply reduction is minimal.  Of course changing the rule after the fact would be unethical.
1006  Other / Off-topic / Re: Just outta curiosity: if the forum was founded in 2009... on: January 17, 2014, 01:12:51 AM

1007  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What happens when mining stops? on: January 14, 2014, 04:31:20 AM
Simple. Mining doesn't ever stop.  As long as there is Bitcoin there will be mining.
1008  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Problems receiving any bitcoin transactions. on: January 12, 2014, 06:41:36 AM
If blockexplorer (or shows no activity then the answer is simple ... nothing has been sent.

If someone doesn't send you coins there is nothing your wallet can do to make them appear. Smiley
1009  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Anti-Bitcoin propaganda in upcoming video game on: January 10, 2014, 04:46:59 AM
And where exactly is the anti-bitcoin propaganda?  Huh

This. Whats stopping any government from setting up their own crypto currency anyhow?. If the game turns out good I'd happily buy it, don't see any threat at all from this.

What is to stop someone from selling condoms with holes in them marketed to people who want to have children?

99% of USD are ALREADY digital and centrally controlled.  What point is there in a decentralized centrally controlled currency?
1010  Other / Meta / Re: VIP Member "goat" abusing trust rating system on: January 04, 2014, 10:39:12 PM
Taking things a step further, I would argue that there should not be a Default Trust list at all - It should be something that each user constructs themselves.

This.  The concept of a trust web is very decentralized and open however the default trust web essentially undermines the entire system as given the "easy way out" most users will simply use the default.  Now one could argue well it doesn't matter what other people do but that is simplistic.   If a super super super majority of users trust the default trust (because they never decided to educate themselves) then for a persons interaction with those users all that matters is what the default trust thinks, nothing more, nothing less.

1011  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Blockchain Inconsistencies? Blockexplorer vs Discrepancy on: January 02, 2014, 07:15:47 PM
Can you link to the site because the only reference I see for a "BitCare app" doesn't use private keys, it isn't a wallet, and it simply reports balances based on addresses.

I wonder if this is an "xy problem".
1012  Economy / Economics / Re: A way to lessen inequality in Bitcoin on: January 02, 2014, 06:57:22 AM
No, not leaving that out of the scenario. I think you might be assuming that the average person has hard assets. The majority don't, all the more so after the consequences of the last 5 years. They're who I'm worried about.

It they don't have assets then they likely don't have any significant money either.  People don't just sit around with mountains of cash and no assets.   Cash continually loses value.  Other than death and taxes it is one of the certainties of life.  If fact quite a few people have a negative net worth which means in a currency failure their negative networth would rapidly approach zero (a net improvement).
1013  Other / Meta / Re: VIP Member "goat" abusing trust rating system on: January 02, 2014, 05:58:35 AM
I dunno, as we all know, the Trust system is completely subjective. The best a person can do is post their information and link their sources, and its up for the reader to detirmine its validity.

For the record, I would trust Goat with my money, and find him to be a very trustworthy person. However I agree with not having you on the default trust list, not that its a vote anyway, tis Badbear's decision. Nothing personal, however some of your feedback ratings have been driven by personal fights you have had with people, and not whether or not they are financially or morally untrustworthy. You have helped to tag scammers and I do appreciate that, but the default trust list isn't about who is trustworthy, its about who can give fair feedback to establish a larger trust network.

gmaxwell unfairly attacked my pool hopping operation with a childporn network that only he knew about (and might have even made up!). One might think pool hopping to be unfair but to attack it with these sort of allegations? Wow! 

Wait how did I miss this event?  Using CP as a weapon?  That is pretty low.   I have no love for pool hopper but they merely exploit the poorly constructed rules of prop pools.  A good thing IMHO as it has driven those pools (mostly) out of existence replaced with fairer distribution systems.
1014  Economy / Economics / Re: A way to lessen inequality in Bitcoin on: January 02, 2014, 02:27:38 AM
Put another way, when currencies in a fractional reserve system collapse, only the quickest will get any money out in time. What fraction of those quickest will get their money into hard currency before the real value becomes zero? Troubling to think how many people could be left with nothing. I will not be happy with that situation.

I think you might be equating wealth with money.  Money makes up a small portion of the average persons wealth.  Property, stocks, real estate, etc would still have value in a currency collapse. 
1015  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The SEC Shows Why Bitcoin is Doomed. on: January 02, 2014, 02:18:06 AM
Here is what we will see in 2014.  Companies like with $9M invested, with $25M invested and any of the other companies that receive significant investment moving quickly to spend a lot of that money to become licensed in all the US State.

That is possible but they are going to stop all business and wait 6-9 months?   For a license they may or may not need?
By definition apply for a license (a defacto admission that unlicensed activity is unlawful) while engaging in unlicensed activity is not smart.   I can't see any state granting a license to an entity which is operating without a license while seeking said license.  The time required to obtain a license is an obstacle.

And another issue with NO federal regulator is the there is ABSOLUTELY no list of all the money transmitters in every state that requires licensing so there is really no way to tell.

Not sure what you mean by this.  There is no unified list but pretty much all states make licensure a public record and most (all? I want to say all but there may be one or two exceptions) make these records available online.  If xyz claims to be a licensed money transmitter, license #12345679 it is pretty hard to verify if there is no way to verify.

CA money transmitters:
VA money transmitters:
NY money transmitters:

Pretty much just google "[name of state] money transmitter" and you can find a list within a link or two.
1016  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The SEC Shows Why Bitcoin is Doomed. on: January 02, 2014, 12:52:30 AM
If I'm reading this right, you are predicting the inevitable failure of Bitcoin as a mainstream financial tool. Start-ups can't afford the cost of entry and power-brokers with deep pockets will crush new legislation, yes?

Well the US isn't the entire world, the rest of the world doesn't really care how dysfunctional the US regulatory structure is.  So I see two potential outcomes (and I should state this is my personal opinon doesn't reflect the views or intentions of my employer).  One potential outcome is that startups abandon the US market.  They operate when regulation while not non-existent is at least not an impossible burden.  The ones which are successful gain the resources to handle the large fixed overhead that MT licenses creates.

The other scenario is startups in the US comply with federal requirements, and are able to grow faster than the response from states; in essence grow to survive.

It certainly is an obstacle to growth, and innovation but progress already routes around the damaged parts of the system.  Bitcoin will survive, however the US may simple lose its status as the "tech capital" when it comes to Bitcoin related enterprises. I am not saying that is a forgone conclusion but the regulatory risk and uncertainty doesn't help.
1017  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The SEC Shows Why Bitcoin is Doomed. on: January 01, 2014, 11:04:35 PM

You bring up a HUGE issue.  There is no Regulator at the Federal Level for "money transmitters" the "Money Service Business" category that FinCEN put the bitcoin industry in with the March 18th Guidance.

This is some thing the National Money Transmitter Assocaition is trying to address with upcoming "Industry Symposium for Legislative Action - (ISLA)" February 18, 2014 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST in Washington DC.

I agree to a certain extent.  I generally oppose new regulation but the current situation is just a nightmare of asinine proportions.  They are less than 100 companies in the world which have licenses in all fifty states.  There is some legal opinion that is is easier and cheaper today, to form a new bank (or buy an existing bank or credit union) and thus bypass the entire issue because banks and credit unions are not MSBs and their national charter makes them outside the regulatory scope of most state regulations.  When it is easier to form a bank then issue a prepaid card for example you know something is wrong.

Still this has been a problem for twenty years now.  Decades before Bitcoin was even born there have been attempts to create a single national license because the current system is broken but all attempts to date have been futile.  The states certainly don't want to give up that power and control.   The existing players who have already gone through that nightmare don't want it to go away.  PayPal LOVES the excessive, asinine regulation.  It all but guarantees there will never be a PayPal direct competitor because the burden on any startup is simply too high and without a startup the risk is too much to dump the tens of millions to jump right to the next stage of the game.   The current MSB/MT regulation is a massive economic boom for the GreenDots, PayPals, and Western Unions of the world.  They will move massive sums of money in lobbying to kill any attempt that opens the flood gates for competitors.

Maybe this time will be different, it certainly is needed.
1018  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The SEC Shows Why Bitcoin is Doomed. on: January 01, 2014, 10:51:45 PM
You also have to look at a companies like Coinbase and/or Campbx.  Two US bitcoin companies that "seem" to be operating with in the law as their companies are still operational.   They must be doing something right.

What is Coinbase and/or CampBX doing that BitInstant didn't?  You are implying those entities have state licensure as money transmitters are you?  If they did it would be pretty easy to verify yourself as that information is public record.

For example CA:

The reality is that at the state level most of the regulation is simply a giant unknown at this point.   No two states have the same requirements, no two states even share the same definition of money, money transmitter, or even transmission.  Many states explicitly use the word "currency of the united states", some doesn't even include "foreign currency".   Some states limit their oversight to negotiable instruments (such as checks).   Does Bitcoin meet the regulatory definition of all states?  Maybe, doubtful but there has been no definitive statement by all state regulators ... yet.  However that cuts both ways, to my knowledge no state has said "exchanging Bitcoin isn't covered by statuatory definitions" either.

Bitcoin isn't just cutting edge technology, it is cutting edge in the legal space as well.  It probably will take decades, and countless court cases to resolve it all.   Most big (and no Bitcoin company is even close to "big" I am talking multi billion dollar company) simply get licensed everywhere it is possible to be licensed because despite the up front cost (eight figures easy) it is "cheaper" than the unknown.   Better to be licensed and not need to be then be not licensed and need to.  That simply isn't an option for ANY startup.

To my knowledge no Bitcoin related company US or foreign has a money transmitter license in all states that issue licenses to money transmitters.  I don't believe any Bitcoin startup even has a money transmitter license in a single state.  Someone correct me if I am wrong with cites from one or more state money transmitter registries.  Generally when seeking a license you are implicitly saying "yes I believe our activity is regulated and engaging in this activity without a license is criminal".  By definition that would imply you need to stop business to even attempt to seek the license.  Generally regulators don't issue licenses who are defacto breaking the law at the time they are seeking the license.  Smiley
1019  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Estimate of ASIC pre-orders: 13 to 15 PH/s (diff 1.8B to 2.1B) by end of 2013 on: January 01, 2014, 10:38:38 PM
Hashfast still isn't shipping, their last statement on 12/31/2013 stated certain last minute production problems and suspended shipping.
HF start shipping 31.12/13

I have the 25th unit and it didn't ship.  So HashFast "shipped" a token number of units (potentially as little as 1 BabyJet & 1 Sierra) to say they are "shipping".  My guess is they didn't even ship 3 units but I know for a fact at the absolute most they only shipped units prior to mine which would be a staggering 24 units or ~10 TH/s.  For all practical intents and purposes they haven't shipped anything.
1020  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do I understand proof-of-work correctly? on: January 01, 2014, 10:35:53 PM

But what incentivizes miners to mine on the longest fork?

The longest* fork has the greatest chance of remaining the longest fork.  All other forks will be orphaned and any generated coins on orphaned forks are worthless.  It is in a miners self interest to avoid worthless coins and that means always building off the longest fork.  Thus when miners learn that another block has been found which extends the primary chain they will switch and build off of that.  Doing anything else means a reduction in income.

* Longest technically means the most work not necessarily the most blocks as Bitcoin selects as the primary chain the one with the highest collective difficulty.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 ... 728
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!