Bitcoin is not designed for microtransactions.
Depends on what you define as microtransactions. When the value surges more the transaction fees may go down. For sure transactions on the level of the fees are wot worth to be executed. This is exactly true, what is the definition of a microtransaction? Say Bitcoin is $40,000/coin in 5 years, is a .00001 BTC transaction still considered micro? Probably not. The 5,430 sat limit isn't part of the protocol it is a rule enforced by nodes as an output that small is uneconomical. It would cost more in fee than the value of the output to spend. The min tx fee has declined over time, the dust threshold will also decline. |
|
|
|
If you want to permanently destroy the coins, there's really no way other than sending it to an address that's guaranteed not to have a private key, such as 1BitcoinEater. Or you could read the thread and see there are multiple ways to destroy Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I know that none of the 50 coins generated in The Genesis Block can be spent, but what about other coins sent to that address? can they ever be spent?
The other "coins" sent to that address are spendable. Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs. The genesis block output is not part of the UXTO (initially as an oversight and now as backwards compatibility). Each transaction to an address is a new output and in the case of the genesis block address those outputs are spendable (because they are part of the UXTO). |
|
|
|
|
Sure but there are cheaper PDU if you don't need fancy metering capabilities. Lots of 30A 208V/240V PDU on ebay for $30 to $40 ea.
|
|
|
|
That remains true until all Bitcoins are created. Then the only reward is transaction fees which as of right now is pretty much nothing.
If Bitcoin isn't any larger than it is now then in a hundred years or so it won't really matter. Realistically even a decade from now Bitcoin will be much larger or it won't exist. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin relies heavily on cryptographically secure PRNG and as we have seen from the android exploit, ensuring high entropy is often a challenge. This functionality is handled by the operating system which means the security of the client becomes heavily dependent on the security of underlying operating system. Even if we discount the possibility of three letter agencies intentionally weakening the PRNG (which they may do even for non-Bitcoin reasons and Bitcoin users become collateral damage) there is always the possibility of implementation bug in certain situations. There is a proposal for deterministic ECDSA signatures http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6979This would remove the need for random values as nonces in Bitcoin transaction signatures. HD wallets remove the need for random values when generating private keys. HD wallet seeds still need a high entropy random number but as this only needs to be done once it could even be done by dice rolls (100 rolls of standard six sided for 256 bit seed). |
|
|
|
Here is a dumb question. I am running Antminers overclocked. And they keep tripping my 15a circuits with just 4.... They take around 425 watts each. Does a PDU allow you to somehow run more power on a circuit than if you were to run it straight through?
No. But a 30A 240V circuit is going to have 4x the wattage of a 15A 120V one. |
|
|
|
They almost certainly are quoting the chip. We only care about wattage at the wall. Also not sure if that chip has been released yet, it certainly wasn't at the time of the OP. The OP refers to ASICMiner 130nm the linked post was for 40nm. Most companies miss their target numbers. I would look at them with a good dose of skepticism until you see reports of users in the field getting x W/GH AT THE WALL (i.e. killawatt meter of equivalent). |
|
|
|
Would it be possible to halt all mining power except say 1 PH/s worth, and let the difficulty readjust normally (keep in mind that bitcoin difficulty would be 30x less), and have like a first come first serve sort of thing where for all OTHER bitcoin miners to begin mining again, they would have to sign up to a "queue", and be entered in as the rest of everyone ahead of them are allowed to mine again. Would this be possible? Would it actually make bitcoin difficulty MUCH easier until everyone was back in from the "queue", or am I just thinking too much?
The purpose of mining is to secure the network. "Free coins" are the compensation, not the reason. It isn't feasible but if it was, it would undermine the security of the network and allow an attacker to accomplish an attack with a 97% reduction in cost. |
|
|
|
Then it's a low fees issue, bitcoind on electrum servers is rejecting transaction due to low fees.
Just increase fees and try again or manually create and broadcast transaction but it can take some hours to some days, to get confirmations.
Ps: How big is your bulk transaction? I mean how many addresses?
So the transaction has 2 inputs and 29 outputs. I just now tried with a fee of 0.001 BTC and it still returns the exact same error. How much of a fee do you think would be appropriate? It shouldn't be that much. Inputs are ~200 bytes each. Outputs are ~40 bytes each. Your tx is something on the order of 2KB so even 0.2 mBTC (maybe 0.3 mBTC) should be sufficient. There is something else the server doesn't like about it. If you decode the raw tx and paste the json some people may be able to help otherwise I would verify all the inputs are valid and haven't been double spent. Verify all the addresses are valid and there is no duplicated address in the output. Verify the input = output + intended fee. |
|
|
|
Another dynamic to consider is that less new coins means less supply driving up the price and making mining more profitable
you are correct that the reduced inflation will somewhat balance the reward halving shock. but considering that today transaction fee's are a very negligible profit for miners it seems to me that the block reward halving (and thus almost halving of the miner's income unless the current situation changes) will be a major shock to the network despite the relatively small reduction in inflation. Many people made the exact same predictions (based on dubious analysis) before the last time the block reward halved and it occured with a wimper not a bang. Some miners became unprofitable and quit. The lowered difficulty means the remaining miners saw their revenue rise. The rising exchange rate resulting in a higher USD revenue for a lower amount of bitcoins. the last time the reward was halved the transition went smooth because bitcoin's dollar value grew rapidly. bitcoin is no longer a hobby of a small group of people, it cannot continue growing in value this fast forever. it is very possible the dollar value will stay relatively stable when the 2016 halving occurs and so with no fast rise in dollar prices there will be no compensation for miner's lost revenue. with the cost of operation vs mining revenue equilibrium broken there will be no choice for miners but to shut their rigs down until difficulty and hash rate fall enough for a new equilibrium to be reached. Ok. Lets say that happens. Difficulty between now and then goes up 50x and then it cut in half so the network is "only" 25x more secure than it is now? Still even that is highly unlikely as for most miners the hardware is a sunk. The min operating revenue is much lower. Simply put at the block halving if price doesn't rise then it will kill NEW miner hardware and it may make it unprofitable to run miners in high energy areas but existing hardware is already a sunk cost and for those in low power cost areas there will be no reason to stop mining. |
|
|
|
Another dynamic to consider is that less new coins means less supply driving up the price and making mining more profitable
you are correct that the reduced inflation will somewhat balance the reward halving shock. but considering that today transaction fee's are a very negligible profit for miners it seems to me that the block reward halving (and thus almost halving of the miner's income unless the current situation changes) will be a major shock to the network despite the relatively small reduction in inflation. Many people made the exact same predictions (based on dubious analysis) before the last time the block reward halved and it occured with a wimper not a bang. Some miners became unprofitable and quit. The lowered difficulty means the remaining miners saw their revenue rise. The rising exchange rate resulting in a higher USD revenue for a lower amount of bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Sending coins roughly involves three steps:
1) Constructing a transaction;
2) Broadcasting the transaction to the network (other nodes);
3) Having the transaction included into the blockchain by a miner;
We can use "Bitcoin-Qt > Help > Debug window > Console" to complete step 1) and 2) of sending one Satoshi. But whether step 3) can be completed is up to the miners.
That isn't exactly true. Most clients (QT client included) will prevent you from creating a tx that the client itself will not relay. This is done to protect users from having "stuck txs". So by default the QT client will not allow you to do #1. Now #1 isn't part of the protocol. It is just a client side check to prevent you from doing something stupid. It can be easily removed from the source code and recompiled. However #2 isn't as easy. All nodes have rules on which tx they will relay. This is a anti DOS mechanism. Low priority tx w/o fee will be dropped not relayed by any QT client. Most other clients follow the same (or similar) rules. So while you can get past #1 by modifying your client you can't control what other nodes do. It is very likely that all of your peers will simply drop your non-standard tx. #2 can be bypassed if you can connect to a miner directly of course as you point out nobody can force a miner to include a tx and there is no reason for a miner to include a non-standard no fee tx when there are waiting paying (and high priority no-fee) txs. |
|
|
|
|
It already exists. It is called ripple. The problem is what happens when the promise isn't kept.
As far as no transaction fees that is a pipe dream. Who maintains this massive global ledger (which if popular would span billions of new transactions a year)? Who pays the cost of it? Any system is going to have a cost. A fair system ensures the cost to user isn't marginally higher than the cost to the provider. An unfair system (i.e. credit cards) uses barriers to entry, monopolies, and price fixing to coerce a marginal cost to users which is significantly higher than the marginal cost to providers.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is a great idea. Could also be an area for best practices both on the user side and on the service side. Things like don't hash your passwords using MD5 with no salt (i.e. MtGox).
|
|
|
|
Hi if that picture is true then can someone please she'd some light for example on why a stupid thing such as a remotely managed electric car battery charger is running SHA-1024? Thanks, btw they used to run SHA-256 before...
There is no SHA-1024. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2Wikipedia is full of mistakes. I am sure there is SHA-1024 product coming out, the guy is making the hardware and applying for license... There is no 1024 bit version of SHA-2. Either your friend is talking nonsense or you misunderstood him. SHA-2 is no longer being developed. SHA-3 is the intended replacement and it supports arbitrary hash sizes up to 512 bits. Why would anyone use SHA-512 then if SHA-256 is impossible to break in this time and space? Not impossible to break, impossible to BRUTE FORCE. Cryptanalysis may eventually weaken SHA-256 (and SHA-512) and performing a preimage attack may be faster than brute force. Today no such flaws are known to exist for SHA-2 (all hash sizes) however the use of larger keys and hash sizes can be thought of as insurance. |
|
|
|
There are two mobile versions available: WAP? What is this 1997? Modern phones can handle html5 just fine however a responsive design which adapts content to a small screen is what is considered mobile friendly for modern websites. |
|
|
|
|
It is 5430 satoshis not 5300. Also tx with outputs less than that are allowed they are just non-standard. If you can find a miner (or yourself) willing to include it in the next block you could send 1 satoshi with no fee.
|
|
|
|
No they are not.
[infographic]
While, your overly used infographic is correct in saying that it would be impossible to check all of the keyspace, it doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible for someone to bruteforce a private key. It may be extremely and ridiculously unlikely but there is still the minutest chance that one can be found via bruteforcing. But for all intents and purposes that probability is so low that we just like to say its impossible because it sounds better. The term is infeasible. Then again just about anything which most people consider is impossible is simply low probability. Trying running directly into a wall. There is a non zero percent chance that due to quantum effect you will pass right through it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
