|
81
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: November 26, 2013, 11:10:06 PM
|
Another alternative is that this "big announcement" has nothing to do with the chips.
It might be "now our own trading platform is ready", which in my opinion would be a disappointment (as I have very little interest in trading myself, I want the dividends).
this is what I've said numerous times. I am prepared for this disappointment If it implements Colored Coins I would call this AWESOME news. |
|
|
|
|
84
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: November 25, 2013, 11:38:54 PM
|
Ken did recently share with me that we are slated to be on a new, centralized, exchange once transfers complete. This is an intermediary step, as a decentralized solution is the end goal. I'll shoot him a PM so he can officially address this. (I'd quote him but it was via IRC and I don't have a log.) He did not say what exchange he was working with, but the exchange was ready to create accounts/move shares, so it should all happen quick once it happens.
I can confirm this, I have been on the test exchange and it seems close to operational. This was maybe a month ago - the prelaunch URL he had given me is no longer up so perhaps it has moved to a new server. |
|
|
|
|
85
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The general population is insanely ignorant about Bitcoin - and here's proof.
|
on: November 23, 2013, 09:48:50 AM
|
wow I would have thought gamers more open minded. my favorite quote NOOOOOO
NOOOOOOOOO
I dont wanna burn my tiny laptop:eek: You think that is cringeworthy check this one out Every dollar you put into your paypal and such actually exists. You could put that paypal money into a bank account and withdraw real legal tender, that you could then take to the treasury and exchange for the gold that its backed by if you wish. |
|
|
|
|
86
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Ho lee f**k.. Did I goof hard or wat???
|
on: November 23, 2013, 07:53:51 AM
|
Hmm how'd you buy 20BTC on coinbase? Don't they have a limit?
BTC50 / day (3-4 day ACH charge) BTC10 instant / week verified users w/ Visa card BTC1 instant / week for all users now OP - you fucked up hard. Strong suspicion OP is trolling. |
|
|
|
|
90
|
Economy / Computer hardware / [WTS]G.Skill 2x8GB DDR3 |OCZ 3x2GB Tripple Channel DDR3 |2TB External HDD |*NEW*
|
on: November 14, 2013, 03:16:36 AM
|
All pricing shall be done via BitcoinAverage (does anyone know how to make those cool adjusting icons with bitcoinaverage?) G.SKILL Value Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-8GBNT Newegg: $79.99CONDITION: new PRICE: x1 $65 shipped (USA) x2 $120 shipped (USA)  - DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666)
- Timing 9-9-9-24
- Cas Latency 9
- Voltage 1.5V
OCZ Gold 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Voltage Desktop Memory Model OCZ3G1600LV6GKMemory4Less: $481.30 <--- WTF? I see these going for ~$80 new on eBay CONDITION: near mint - ran speed tests for 12 hours for reviewing on Toms Hardware PRICE: $55 shipped (USA)  - DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
- Timing 8-8-8-24
- Cas Latency 6
- Voltage 1.65V
Hitachi GST XL Desk 2TB USB 2.0 External Hard DriveeBay: $199CONDITION: New, in shrink-wrap PRICE: $70 shipped (USA)  - Smooth, Textured Body for Solid Good Looks
- 3.5 inch External Hard Disk Drive
- Speedy USB 2.0 Cable Included
- Power Adapter Included
- Hitachi Local Backup
|
|
|
|
|
91
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at the US Senate
|
on: November 13, 2013, 04:45:07 AM
|
As for claiming Bitcoin makes law enforcement easier because transactions can be tracked, I think that is a mistake because it is really not true. You have change addresses that obfuscate things. You can also just use intermediate addresses and in court they have to prove the entire chain of custody unless they have other evidence. To trace things you have to depend on consolidation so trying to claim it makes law enforcement easier is just rhetoric. In some specific cases it may help and it others it may hinder.
You may not be aware long before Silk Road was taken down operators of a copycat site not so buried within Tor were arrested. If I remember correctly they were identified via use of their Hushmail account, which agents also used to introduce a trojan on their machine to aid their investigation. People, including law enforcement, will use technology differently and with various degrees of effectiveness. Very smart (or very large) law breakers will probably find a way to do what they want to do with or without Bitcoin. Using the block chain as a potential investigation aid is not rhetoric, because the degree of accuracy of computers is very high while the tendency of humans to never make mistakes is low. These market places you are refering to where not using bitcon but rather paypal, moneygram, western union. You may have already known that, just wanted to put that out there. |
|
|
|
|
93
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: How to use lock_time function on a paper wallet?
|
on: November 11, 2013, 04:17:15 AM
|
Ok, I shot a message or two to Gavin: seems like I had misunderstood the above quote. Here is his response on how one would accomplish OP
Sure, theoretically possible:
1) Create a paper wallet that you keep somewhere safe.
2) Create a nLockTime transaction that sends all of the funds to a second paper wallet that you give to them.
3) Give them the transaction (printed/QR code? on a USB stick?) and the second paper wallet, and tell them to broadcast the transaction after their 21'st birthday. (or give somebody else the transaction and ask them to broadcast it).
If you don't trust yourself to keep that first paper wallet safe, you could burn it. Then those funds are locked until that one transaction that funds the second paper wallet.
I believe blockchain.info has a way of broadcasting a "raw transaction" -- no guarantee that blockchain.info will still be around when they turn 21, of course, but there should be SOME way of broadcasting that transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
94
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Delayed transactions (using nTimeLock)
|
on: November 11, 2013, 02:54:22 AM
|
Time-in-the-future transactions are non-standard (as of 0.8? I can never remember when things happened...)
Why: because there is a fill-up-memory denial of service attack, and it really isn't reasonable to expect the entire network to store your timelocked transactions "forever".
Even in the past, the statement "unspendable by the sender because of replacement not being implemented" was not true. Wait long enough and only a subset of the network will have the timelocked transaction (because new nodes, old nodes restarting, etc). Broadcast a double-spending version without a timelock and it will get mined fairly soon.
This is extremely saddening to hear and utterly destroys many of the cool things "smart contracts" promised. So this will never be a feature in Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
96
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: How to use lock_time funtion on a paper wallet?
|
on: November 11, 2013, 02:19:06 AM
|
Some more research I have just found: From Satoshi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1786.msg22119#msg22119https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131443.0https://people.xiph.org/~greg/signdemo.txtHowever, from the brief amount of time I have researched this - this comment from the second link is worrisome: One thing that wasn't mentioned yet was that there's not currently a mechanism for replacement. Locked transactions can be "introduced" into the blockchain fairly easily, and nodes will accept them and hold them in their memory pool (and thus drop conflicting transactions), but they won't forward otherwise-valid replacements, and only miners with custom rules will mine them for you. If you want to replace a time-locked transaction, you're going to have to mine it yourself, or go find a miner to agree to help you. Once a replacement is mined (or even just a regular transaction spending one of the inputs), all nodes holding the time-locked tx will see the conflict and drop the one in their memory pool. So, if you can create the tx, you can get the "time-delay" aspect out of the network right now, but you have to work pretty hard if you use the "replacement" aspect of it. P.S. - Congrats on being the most well-spoken, research-driven, single-post Newbie I've seen on these forums  And this makes it seem like it is not even supported what-so-ever from Gavin himself.... Time-in-the-future transactions are non-standard (as of 0.8? I can never remember when things happened...)
Why: because there is a fill-up-memory denial of service attack, and it really isn't reasonable to expect the entire network to store your timelocked transactions "forever".
Even in the past, the statement "unspendable by the sender because of replacement not being implemented" was not true. Wait long enough and only a subset of the network will have the timelocked transaction (because new nodes, old nodes restarting, etc). Broadcast a double-spending version without a timelock and it will get mined fairly soon.
Seems like this feature is totally dead...wtf bitcoin! Anyone knowledgeable in the subject feel free to offer your wisdom! |
|
|
|
|
98
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at the US Senate
|
on: November 10, 2013, 11:42:45 PM
|
It's up for debate what authority they should have. But they can thwart businesses from accepting it if Bitcon remains symbolic to pedo/terrorist/drug users.
A few examples, they can shut down Coinbase, and every other company residing in the US. This will only force businesses to move outside of America. I don't think the Senate is naieve enough to think they can completely control bitcoin if/when they understand it.
But I regress, why do you think it is bad for communication with the Senate? What harm can be done in reality, and how would you argue against my statement that only good can become of this - with the stipulation that if no communication was made they would already do what they are set out to do?
We're rehashing old ground now. What you say in the first sentence, I already said in post 58. And my answer to your question "what harm can be done" is in post 61: "By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules." And I have already stated that I do not think that is a logical assumption. Let me put it in a different context: How will doing nothing i.e. not communicating with them help Bitcoin in any way? Don't you think communication will at least give us a chance to "argue" our POV? If they listen/agree or not what difference does it make? All in all, they will do whatever they want, because they can. Attempting to educate them is a step towards steering them in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
99
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at the US Senate
|
on: November 10, 2013, 11:31:46 PM
|
By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules.
They do, like it or not. If you fail to understand this you are living in a bubble. Bitcoin is not American, for a start. Definitely, but they can control Bitcoin in America to a limited extent. So what authority do you think they have? They shouldn't have authority over me at all (in theory) since I neither live nor have citizenship of the US - and nevertheless their laws impact on my freedom to transfer my money between different countries and bank accounts, which is already abhorrent. But that aside, do you really think they have ethical authority over private transfers of wealth between individuals? Be aware I'm not making the argument that all taxation is unethical (I'm not taking a position on that, don't want to go down that road). And leave out these ad-hominems "dumb", "living in bubble" etc. Argue the point. It's up for debate what authority they should have. But they can thwart businesses from accepting it if Bitcon remains symbolic to pedo/terrorist/drug users. A few examples, they can shut down BitPayCoinbase (which have been instrumental to bitcoins recent success), and every other company residing in the US. This will only force businesses to move outside of America. I don't think the Senate is naieve enough to think they can completely control bitcoin if/when they understand it. But I regress, why do you think it is bad for communication with the Senate? What harm can be done in reality, and how would you argue against my statement that only good can become of this - with the stipulation that if no communication was made they would already do what they are set out to do? Things that will likely happen and become legislation specifically for Bitcoin (and already has in the bitcoin-sphere) is the continuance of AML/KYC laws. |
|
|
|
|
100
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin at the US Senate
|
on: November 10, 2013, 10:46:32 PM
|
By entering into a dialogue with the US govt. about it, you are tacitly accepting that they have any authority to make such rules.
They do, like it or not. If you fail to understand this you are living in a bubble. And I disagree that by accepting to communicate is any indication of accepting they have authority - not sure why you think this. If anything, they can explain how they DON'T have the authority to stop bitcoin (see localbitcoins) and why it would be in their best interest to not stifle and come up with sensible legislation. Bitcoin is not American, for a start. Definitely, but they can control Bitcoin in America to a limited extent. I'm even more concerned about the extent to which the general population will be swayed by their governments' propaganda. Yet another reason why entering into a dialogue is essential. If we (the bitcoin foundation) is able to adequately debunk the often touted myths then job well done. If not, then nothing lossed and they will do what they have set out to do. If nobody steps up to the plate they will continue regardless. Discussion can only help - I do not see how it can hurt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
