A little ECDSA magic.  Given a signature and original message one can compute the public key.  It is called public key recovery.  Technically Bitcoin (or some superior future altcoin) could make txs smaller by using this to remove the explicit pubkey and computing it instead. 

what wallet and what is the EXACT error message?

Starting from a flawed premise.  The stated purpose of Bitcoin is to allow transactions without a TRUSTED THIRD PARTY.   Most transactions involve trust of the counterparty.  Even if it is a cash for BTC trade in person in a public place you need to trust the other party isn't going to hit you over the head with a crowbar and take both the BTC and cash.

It is a concept called "change".  Bitcoin works on independent inputs and outputs.  To spend an output worth 1 BTC you must spend EXACTLY 1 BTC.  If you wanted to send only say 0.3 BTC your wallet would create a tx with a 1 BTC input and two outputs, 0.3 BTC to whoever you want to pay and 0.7 BTC back to yourself.

In this case 163o2so6dM2UDGsMG1NSpvhcfjVnLJqugx was a change address in your wallet.  


More info here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change

Nothing you posted indicates you have been hacked or anything is wrong.

Nobody knows it depends on the how fast difficulty rises.  The cheaper the cost per GH/s the more likely you are to turn a profit but there is no guarantee.

Anyone selling you a contract is likely selling you something worthless.   Think about it for a second say YOU had 10,000 GH/s and they will turn a profit.  Would you sell them to someone else or would you just keep the profit.

Sure and you feel the need to advertise the same affiliate link with a one liner response in 30+ posts?

It is spam dude, it is annoying and if a mod did his job he would delete about half of your posting history.

How about bitcoin money supply >= gold supply.

Based on probable die size and wafer batch size.  If KNC gets too many refunds they will lower prices to sell more units.   The general version of this idea is that once chips are ordered (not by customers but by company from the foundry) it is very unlikely they won't end up hashing eventually.  Anecdotally I haven't seen much chatter on large number of refunds requests yet. Denial is a powerful thing.

Still the purpose of the list is not to be the "end all be all" official number but a starting point.  If you think the KNC Nov batch will be smaller then adjust the total accordingly.  Still the network is getting so large that even if KNC batch was half that size we are still probably looking at 11 to 13 PH/s by end of year.

Can you at least read before responding?  The quoted portion above is the post being responded to.  See my response was directed at the post I quoted.    I bolded the correlation if it helps.

^ Note this is not a great idea just pointing out that +1 will be replaced with equally trivial but longer statements.

+1 that is a great idea. thanks.

Yeah that has only happened two dozen or so times.  Markets crashing is simply wealth changing hands.  You either buy, hold, or sell.  For every loser there is a winner.

I never said it did but like "last time" any issue can be fixed baring a catastrophic break and if that happens since Litecoin is merely a shallow copy it will be equally destroyed.  Of course pointing out that Litecoin is so under developed that it was using an antiquated db system as an advantage is somewhat hilarious.

Which amounted to absolutely nothing.  What merchant did you spend those LTC at?  


Agreed but Litecoin isn't that backup.  It is too similar, it provides no novel solutions to Bitcoin issues or weaknesses.  If Bitcoin dies Litecoin is probably already circling the drain.

There is no "mess up" that can't be fixed baring a break in RIPEMD-160, SHA-256 and/or ECDSA.  If that happens LiteCoin provides no protection because it uses the exact same primitives.  The fact that it uses a different algorithm in mining will provide no protection from a cryptographic break.

Litecoin isn't a "scam" and the fact that (an unknown) someone claims it so doesn't have any relevance on Bitcoin.

Litecoin simply lacks innovation and has no purpose.  It is too much a copy of Bitcoin to every grow to anything rivaling its big brother.

Bitcoin is perfectly divisible it will never be too expensive to spend.  People may hoard it when the short term price appreciation is greater than their desire for goods/services but a stagnation of price would be the perfect time/reason to spend.

Gold is an imperfect unit of currency because small amount of gold are very difficulty to effectively buy/sell/trade/spend.  Bitcoin doesn't suffer from that problem.

What is your peak summer time temp.

Assumming you can get enough forced airflow it is ALWAYS going to be cheaper than AC.  AC at best is going to be 3:1 COP in real world.  That means to remove 3KW of heat is going to require another 1KW of AC power.   Using forced airflow a COP of 6:1, 8:1, even 10:1 is possible.   

However we are talking some serious airflow.  Do you have the ability to cut holes in walls, preferably a large intake hole and exhaust hole on opposite walls with the ASIC racks in between?

If it really bothers anyone that the corners of radiator are covered you could always use a shroud.

http://www.frozencpu.com/cat/l3/g30/c429/s163/list/p1/Liquid_Cooling-PC_Water_Cooling_Radiator_Shrouds-120mm_Shrouds-Page1.html

In theory it will allow more even airflow and optimal cooling.  In the watercooling world this has always been subject to a lot of debate and anectodatal reports.

A pretty scientific aproach to testing fan configuration (including the use of shrouds) showed essentially no improvement in performance
http://martinsliquidlab.org/2012/01/15/radiator-shroud-testing-v2/

TL/DR for those who don't like reading.  Shroud vs no shroud = 0C to 1C difference.  In some tests the use of shroud showed marginally higher temps but that is probably just the limit of temp accuracy.  So square radiator and round hole doesn't really matter but if it will bother you buy a couple $5 shrouds/spacers and make it optimal (just don't expect much if any real world performance gain).

Because people are dumb.  Someone citing 2033 as the projected end of block subsidy is not reputable.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png

The chart ends in 2033 so "obviously" so does Bitcoin.  Of course the source for that chart (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_Currency_Supply) explains the subsidy won't go to zero for over a century so anyone quoting 2033 hasn't done even a few minutes of self research.

The date the subsidy will go to zero on the 34th halving of the block subsidy.   That is ~132 years (~2138) after launch IF the network hashrate was constant.  However over time the network hashrate is rising so it will occur prior to that.  How much depends on what the average network growth rate is during the life of Bitcoin.  If we assume the average growth rate is 15% per adjustment period (unlikely to be that high) it would "only" take (1-0.15)*132 = 112 years, still over a century to go.

Um who would choose a over b?