Bitcoin Forum
June 03, 2015, 03:41:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.2 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 [107] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ... 802 »
2121  Economy / Speculation / Re: Official End of Mt Gox thread on: February 20, 2014, 05:08:50 PM
this time again its a real joke: letting no money out, not freezing trading...

They make money off of trades.  They don't make money off of fixing their withdraws. 

Perfect system for MtGox is that they never open withdraws and traders convert all their balances to trading fees and MtGox.

If the value of depositor funds is x and MtGox collects 0.5% (both sides) on each trade then after trades equal to 1000x ( 0.995^1000), 99% of depositor funds will have been converted into fees.  MtGox does a single one time withdraw for the remaining 1% and clears the books quasi legally.

Pretty much the same concept that results in poker sites ending up with 70% to 90% of the funds deposited.
2122  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: mtgox announcement on: February 20, 2014, 10:23:52 AM
Sad thing is the OP joke was almost on the money.

https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20140220-Announcement.pdf

2123  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2014-02-19] The First US Bitcoin ATM Arrives in New Mexico on: February 20, 2014, 09:42:09 AM
Some Bitcoin adopter you are...

You CAN withdraw cash from a BTM/BVM!

The cash is BTC

2124  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: The worst ever that could happen on: February 20, 2014, 09:39:59 AM
hm....then whose coins will be used to pay OP?  Huh

The next person who accidentally sends them 2 BTC?
2125  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Keys with withdrawal limit on: February 20, 2014, 09:12:51 AM
Listen to kjj and wheatstone.

This is often known as an xy problem
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem

Proposing solutions for a system you don't understand is almost never successful.
2126  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Help! Sent BtC to a premine coin wallet that ended up being a legit BTC address on: February 20, 2014, 07:15:36 AM
I exported the private key by calling dumpprivkey <addressHeSentTo>, the went to a BTC client and did importprivkey <key>. The BTC client said something like "import failed". Any ideas? Will Electrum work better than bitcoind for this?

You can't import a privkey unless the wallet is unlocked.
What was the format of the privkey?  Don't post it here for obivous reasons.  If you are unsure of the format just report what is the first digit and length of the key.

Also rule #1 which applies to any technical support situation.  The error message was something like .... is useless.  Copy and paste the exact error mesage.
2127  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is btc-arbs.net legit? They are claiming to make you interest on deposits... on: February 20, 2014, 06:48:53 AM
Obvious shill is obvious.  4 posts all "innocent" inquiries about a scam site.   I remember the days when scammers really worked hard to pull of a successful scam.
2128  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: SPV library for .NET on: February 20, 2014, 05:57:33 AM
Any progress or updates on this?  Will it be capable of running a full node or limited to only SPV mode?
2129  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Why is there many bitcoin exchange! on: February 20, 2014, 05:56:10 AM
Could someone please explain why is there so many bitcoin exchange, each trading price doesn't seem to correlate between different exchange, aren't all bitcoin the same value?

Why isn't there only one gold shop in the entire world?  Who needs 2 or 2,000?
2130  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 20, 2014, 03:44:47 AM
Quote
The same scenario would apply to exchanges,

I can think of one exchange that did not spend enough of their gross margin checking on changes in different versions.

Agreed and even if they survive it will have cost them many magnitudes more in future profits than employing someone competent to keep them compliant would have ever cost. 
2131  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 20, 2014, 03:34:40 AM
Quote
No, I wouldn't, and neither would MANY other people.

Here is a question from someone obviously too dumb for bitcoin:

In the bitcoin "who would run it" universe, there are about 8 people who matter - the guys who run the 8 biggest pools (ignoring P2P for now).  If the right (wrong) two of those guys "ran it" (for whatever reason), then all the other 10,000 hashers would be impotent.

See, that's not even a question.  How dumb is that?

That is incorrect.  Tomorrow the top three pools could start producing blocks which pay them 10,000 BTC.  Nothing stops them other than the fact that every other node, user, merchant, and exchange would simply see those coins as invalid and drop the blocks they produce.  Those miners would simply no longer be on the Bitcoin network anymore.  In time difficulty would fall and the miners who remain would be far more profitable.

Miners can't force a consensus change to the rules of Bitcoin.  The security model of Bitcoin is that every single node implicitly does not trust ANYTHING another node broadcasts.  When your node receives a block or transaction from a peer the first thing it does is independently verify that block or transactions.  It doesn't matter if hundred thousands nodes have already done so it implicitly distrusts every other node and so it verifies it for itself.  If it doesn't verify then it is dropped, your node won't even relay it to other nodes.  The block or transaction is just discarded.  Your node knows all the rules for the network and doesn't need a miner to validate them.

It is a myth that miners are the primary security mechanism for Bitcoin.  Independent nodes using independent verification are the security mechanism for Bitcoin.  There is one thing that nodes can't do among themselves and that is deal with a problem of multiple valid but otherwise mutually incompatible transactions or blocks.  They don't trust other nodes so they can't just ask another node, they don't vote because that could be easily circumvented with a Sybil attack, they don't have a super node or hierarchy for solving problems because that would be a "center" to the network.  So if you have part of the network thinking I sent a coin to address "A" and part of the network thinking I sent it to address "B" they have no way to resolve that deadlock.  Both transactions are valid, both follow the rules, however they both can't exist.  Money can't work without an absolute agreement on where the money is.

Miners force a resolution to that deadlock by placing either "A" or "B" into the next block.  Nodes favor confirmed transactions over unconfirmed ones and that creates a way to break the deadlock.  That is the sole purpose of miners, they are actually a very small portion of the security system in Bitcoin and for a good thing.  If nodes were "dumb" and implicitly trusted miners for the complete security of the network, it would make miners a "super peer" and the system would have been destroyed a long time ago.
2132  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What the "average user" needs to know about Transaction Mutability on: February 20, 2014, 01:40:13 AM
It must be repeated: The protocol is OK. There is no bug. It was NEVER build with txid immutability in mind. NOBODY should have relied on that. It was a design choice. A bad choice? yes. If they "re-did" the protocol today, the txid would be immutable. But it is too late for that, we must work around it.

I wouldn't say it is "too late".  I am fairly certain with the plan laid out by sipa ( https://gist.github.com/sipa/8907691 ) there is a road to immutable tx ids in bitcoins future.   It won't however happen overnight.  It probably is going to be the better part of a year as it will need support of users and miners, provide a way forward without splitting the network, will require extensive testing and rolled out in phases.

Short term "patch": make clients handle mutable tx ids in a more consistent and cautious manner.
Long term "solution": ensure tx ids are immutable (or at least immutable by third parties).

2133  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What the "average user" needs to know about Transaction Mutability on: February 20, 2014, 01:34:12 AM
Does it have something to do with transaction malleability or they are completely different issues without any connection ?

It is the same thing.  See the bottom of the OP.
2134  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 19, 2014, 09:35:04 PM
That was my point initially: -Forcing- it on people won't work. Changing it, and people would'nt accept, unless there was a DAMN good reason to. People would only accept it if there was a concensus that such a change was necessary. I can't forsee such thing happening now, but in 50 years, if Bitcoin gets mainstream, it could very well happen. Economists have no damn idea of how a deflationnary economy works. I may very well be that it can't work. And if it turns out to be the case, then bitcoin will have to change, or die.

Getting a consensus on any non controversial issue in a large group is nearly impossible.  This is why there are no governments (beyond maybe tribe level) which work on consensus.

All you can do is fork the blockchain, you can't prevent 100% of the people on the planet from using the original.   So it is more probable that there is a hard fork and people choose sides than the entire human race reaches a consensus on an issue.

Some outcomes that may occur:

The blockchain is forked and the new fork is supported by only a tiny minority.  A super majority continue to use the existing fork.  The new fork fails to generate the critical mass necessary and eventually dies off, is abandoned, or is attacked.  The same thing can happen to the old fork is the roles are reversed.

The blockchain is forked and the new fork is supported a small but self sufficient minority.  The new co-exists along side the old fork but never becomes as large or as widely accepted as the original.  Due to the confusion of both forks calling themselves "Bitcoin" it is very likely the minority fork will be forced to adopt a different name.  Once again the same thing can happen to the old fork is the roles are reversed.


The blockchain is forked and the new fork is supported by roughly half of users.   Neither fork is willing to give ground and both continue to call themselves "Bitcoin".  This creates mass confusion as there are now two mutually incompatible "Bitcoins".  Human nature being what it is, members of each fork attempt to attack the other fork, exploit flaws, spread FUD to discredit it.  The fragmentation of user support combined with the attacks and confusion of having two incompatible networks both claiming to be "Bitcoin" eventually kills the project.  Bitcoin (both "Bitcoins") eventually die off and the best we can hope for is another crypto-currency becomes the new defacto standard.

The inertia will always be with the original fork.  To remain on the original fork you don't need to do anything.  To join the new fork requires change.   Obviously the third scenario would be a worst case scenario.  It is for this reason many Bitcoin users are pragmatic and will not support hard forks that are controversial because there never will be a consensus.  It is better to work with what we got then let perfect be the enemy of good.

Quote
Now maybe many would not change, but the side with economic majority would win, because those who refuse the change would see their coin become useless if most merchants prefer the "newcoins".

That is a misconception by default at the point of the fork all users would have "coins" on both networks.  If newcoin is adopted and oldcoin becomes worthless then the user hasn't lost any coins.  However what if the disruption undermines confidence in the network and you see the value of both coins falls, merchant support wane, and exchange rates plummet.  While you may still have the same number of "coins" it is entirely possible that the value (in terms of purchasing power) of your oldcoins + newcoins is less than the value of your current coins.
2135  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 19, 2014, 09:21:17 PM
I don't get this, say I have one private key holding 1000 BTC, there is a fork day 0, I then send 1 BTC each day, which day would the transactions be valid on which fork and why?

In that very limited example the 100 BTC and any direct subsequent tx would remain valid on both forks for an unlimited period of time.

However a more realistic scenario is going to involve "contamination" with outputs which are valid on only one fork or another.

Let say I am a miner and I mine a block on fork "B".  My reward is only valid on fork "B".  Now lets say I owe you some coins so send coins to your wallet using coins that are valid only on fork B.

If your wallet creates a tx which uses "pre fork" coins (valid on both A & B) and fork B coins then any output of that transaction (including the change back to you) would only be valid on fork B. The same dynamic is happening with with "fork A" coins.   

If it helps you visualize imagine all the coins can be put into one of three buckets "valid on A & B", "A only", and "B only"  So on a hypothetical day 0 all existing "coins" (technically unspent outputs) are in the "valid on A & B" bucket.  Any coins mined on A or B forks are in their respective buckets.

Any tx which has inputs from both "valid on A & B" AND "A only" will put the output of the tx in the "A only" bucket and the input in the "B only" bucket.
Any tx which has inputs from both "valid on A & B" AND "B only" will put the output of the tx in the "A only" bucket and the input in the "B only" bucket.
Any tx which has inputs only from "valid on A & B" but is only valid on one chain (due to differing chain rules) will result in the output going to that chains buck and the input going to the other chains bucket.
There is no method to move coins from "A only" or "B only" back to "valid on A & B".
There is no method to create a valid tx using inputs from "A only & B only".

So like a fork in the road where the roads diverge slowly into the distance, the two forks of the blockchain will also diverge.  At day 0 they are almost identical but with time they will become more and more dissimilar.  The "valid on A & B" buckets will be depleted over time.
2136  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: New Attack Vector on: February 19, 2014, 07:32:00 PM
Perhaps i didn't read it right; does malleability cause any issues in the real world for anyone that only deals with confirmed transactions?

Potentially.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460944.0

The two issues that would face a user using a stock client would be incorrect reporting of duplicate tx and problems with spending unconfirmed change output.  Both are described in the linked thread. 

There are pull requests to provide better handling of both issues and eventually they will be included in the mainline client. These "fixes" don't make tx id immutable (that will require a protocol enhancement) but they will cause wallets to behave in a more expected manner when they encounter duplicate transactions. The long term solution is to make tx ids immutable (or at least immutable by third party) but that will take a lot longer as it may require a hard fork.
2137  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Bitcoin to paypal -- Legit ? on: February 19, 2014, 07:24:22 PM
When people were considering if it was a scam or not did anyone ever consider their offered prices are impossible.

They claimed they are a partner of VirWox, after fees at the time of the post selling 1 BTC on VirWox will net you $585 USD.  The site is claiming a rate of $650 ($665 with bonus code). No legitimate company could use VirWox and offer a better rate than VirWox.  Hell their claimed payment rate is higher than what you could get from VirWox with no fees.

If legit the company would be losing 13% (plus costs) on every single transaction.

Math it kryptonite for scammers.
2138  Economy / Speculation / Re: Here's what the Mt. Gox Press Release will say and why on: February 19, 2014, 06:29:49 AM
Quote
They are a senior management team of a huge business. This is what executives do - this is their whole job.

Senior management team?  Maybe do some basic research before creating a wildly unrealistic an insanely complex conspiracy theory.

This is no Jamie Diamond.  Mark's background is in web development.   His linked in profile lists his role at MtGox secondary under his simultaneous position as CEO of a 3D model company in Japan.   ( BTW that one is news to me. Looks like he started in 2013, I guess there wasn't enough to do at MtGox because everything was running like clockwork. )

In 2010 you know what he was doing?  Massive M&A deals? Complex quant fund management? Billion dollar private equity deals and hostile takeovers?  Doing website design and support. In 2010 he bought an trading card auction site (yes MtGox was originally going to handle trades between Magic the Gathering playing card owners) just as Bitcoin hit the uber-nerd scene and the rest is history.

That is you ultra elite senior management.   Start to see how silly that nonsense of a story line you pulled from your butt looks to people who know the facts?  I mean not just kinda silly but laughing out loud silly.

Next time type the name of the person at the center of your conspiracy theory into google and just read a couple links.  Save us both the time.  Ok?
2139  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Was I under a rock when this really well done "Bitcoin Basics" video came out? on: February 19, 2014, 06:03:10 AM
Saw it for the first time today and it is now my standard first reference to the question "but what exactly is Bitcoin?".  Sure it glosses over the details of some concepts but for the target audience it is well designed without descending into techno babble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyVeHC4X2eA
2140  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many people have received random .00000001 transactions to their wallets? on: February 19, 2014, 05:28:41 AM
Has anyone received them to a Bitcoin-QT wallet?

The QT client will refuse to relay these tx so the only it would be visible is if you had the bad luck of connecting to blockchain.info directly (who seems to relay any kind of rule violating spam garbage).
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 [107] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ... 802 »
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!