still. even if it only applies to miners in the united states, isn't that a big deal? Am I the only one that thinks so? I almost fell out of my seat when I read that.
It's a very big deal. It's basically the end of Bitcoin-to-USD-and-back. You will need an official -centralized- company to handle your Bitcoins from now on. My guess is that no company in the US will be able to do the paperwork for Bitcoin. So that's that: the end of Bitcoin in the US. You made quite a few gigantic leaps in logic to reach that conclusion of a company to hold all the bitcoins forever not allowing anyone to put theirs in their own wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Are some of you 12 years old? Liberty Reserve, let alone any others, hasn't got an ATM, why should Bitcoin? Only Paypal has, but only if you're an American, you give them your Social Security number and pay extra super fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is clearly a better place to have your money than Liberty Reserve and at any given times there are probably billions sitting in LR. All that's needed is time to pass, so clearly Bitcoin is way undervalued.
|
|
|
|
|
Rubbish. It's only Silk Road's extended downtime leading to panic sells.
|
|
|
|
I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.
You misread the image. Its income tax only that they don't pay. The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low. For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security. So those people do not want to contribute their fair share? No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong. So, do they not use government services? The stronger make their life a misery, so it compensates. |
|
|
|
I cannot wait until people who do not pay taxes are kicked out of the country.
You misread the image. Its income tax only that they don't pay. The reason they don't pay income tax is that their income is too low. For example, a guy who works all his life in low paid jobs, retires at 70 with no savings and lives on his social security. So those people do not want to contribute their fair share? No, it's those people that are less skilled, less intelligent, and less strong. |
|
|
|
|
These kinds of conversations are bullshit.
''Government'' isn't something that only exists after the existence of money, to pull us all down because we all have money. This is garbage right wing talk from the same people who legislate that an employer must be allowed logins into our facebooks, the same people who legislate that sharing torrents should be sued. To see something and merely evaluate it on the basis of whether there are property rights in it, you'd have to have a very warped view. Would it be a blessing to approve of all abuse just because it comes from the private sector, of Oscar Pistorius or the crazy guy in Human Centipede, or demeaning jobs imposed by stronger people? Of course not. Fact is, in order to have money be the right in this world, people of this persuasion have to keep legislating. They look not for a world that isn't governed by something, but for a world where our selves are sold and marketed to each other, where we don't share, and where we are consumers and we are consumed and where dissent of this ideology is cornered and alienated. Capitalism infects the bloodstream of the world with its perniciousness, class, feudalism, power, coercion, abuse and a variety of other instrumentalized solipsisms. Its definition of coercion excludes itself because once everything is capitalist and the only freedoms left are capitalist, you are engaging in voluntary work for the customer because you have nowhere to run to.
But by restricting money with savage tax rates like Denmark and socialism does, there also aren't many kinds of freedoms. You can't do this, you can't do that because it could harm someone down along the line, you have to consult with the village assembly what you can do, you have to stay put, you have to pay social security so we are all at the same level. The ultimate case of socialism where there are freedoms, communism, doesn't quite ever happen, it's always on the verge of happening.
So it's not a matter of government vs no government, but of one ideology over another, some certain kinds of freedoms versus other kinds of freedoms. You choose.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few addresses on a wallet. I just did two transactions and sent bitcoin to an address on another wallet.
I'm perplexed because the estimated BTC transacted shown on blockchain is the full sum. I sent them on the default bitcoin-qt, where to my knowledge there isn't a way to specify the address from which to send.
The addresses from which I sent the bitcoins show, combined, the total of the bitcoin sent. Not more than the total. So I assume no extra bitcoin was sent and no change was returned to one of my 'invisible' change addresses. Am I right?
But after reading so much about change and how blockchain interprets estimated BTC transacted as either the change or the payment, why am I not sending bitcoins with change?
I'm also surprised why these bitcoins haven't got any fees, at least it seems that way. I thought they took ages to confirm and that I had to do some command line programming to choose no transaction fees.
|
|
|
|
ok, pywallet works well to get the privkeys from wallet a, but unfortunately it is not designed to work with wallets with versions later than 32500, so when I try to import into a new wallet, the wallet gets corrupted.
So, I am very close, and I like this bulk import/export method because I can prune this giant wallet I have, but I am at a loss how to import the addresses. The new client has the importprivkey function, but it takes 1-2 minutes per address to import.
Does anyone know a way to import privkeys into a wallet quickly?
What did you mean by versions later than 32500? |
|
|
|
|
But encrypting a wallet.dat creates 100 new keys in a keypool, so I'm not so sure it's a good plan to decrypt it for use, then encrypt it for storage. If you google things like encrypted wallets bitcointalk, you'll find people complaining about this. I could have sworn I read people dealing with wallets that had completely different addresses encrypted compared to decrypted.
Also, if you're going to use a wallet.dat for offline use, a wallet.dat from bitcoin-qt isn't a deterministic wallet, so once 100 addresses are used up, and they will be due to change, the offline won't be keeping up with the keys getting created online, or something like that. It's quite complicated, I still don't understand it myself.
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/readme-qt.rstBoth assuming that the '\' are and aren't actual enter for new line; When writing: apt-get install qt4-qmake libqt4-dev build-essential libboost-dev libboost-system-dev \ libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-thread-dev \ libssl-dev libdb++-dev libminiupnpc-dev in an Ubuntu, I get E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg&lock - open (13: Permission denied) E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/dpkg), are you root? Anyone know what this means?
|
|
|
|
|
Are any of you getting E: Unable to find a source package for bitcoin
when writing
sudo apt-get build-dep bitcoin
?
|
|
|
|
|
Related to this issue, I want to ask something else.
It's pretty much still about change, though. And though I'm mostly sure about the answer, I just want to make sure because by this point I'm getting superstitious.
Change is the reason why all of what we call 'weird behaviour' happens, as far as I can see. So it would stand to reason that a wallet.dat file can only be moved around from one OS to another as long as it doesn't actually engage in transactions. If it just sits there and doesn't send or receive money then no harm's done, no? It's when we engage in transactions that we have to start worrying about always using one and only wallet.
|
|
|
|
thanks a lot for this write up. i want to ask you two things: do you think it being so slow might be because raspberry pi isn't designed for ubuntu. it's not one of its officially supported OSes. Or is it because pi is generally slow all around when it comes to 2D acceleration? And, I noticed you used the command line a lot. Is there any reason why a simpler transfer through USB stick, and Unetbootin, might not be just as good, first the OS through an .iso, then Armory, as detailed (though not with Pi) in this blog: http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/post/46937654072/transferring-bitcoins-to-a-secure-offline-wallet-using |
|
|
|
|
So basically if I receive 5 bitcoins in one tx, 3 in another, and then send 2 bitcoins to someone else, I'd be spending a 5btc 'banknote' and 3 would be sent back to my change address. I would not be spending an 8 btc 'banknote'.
NIce to know what that Estimated BTC Transacted means, it certainly was confusing me.
|
|
|
|
Just watch out: importing private keys is a minefield. Some guy on reddit lost $10,000 because he didn't know about "change" addresses and assumed his unspent coins stayed in his cold wallet address.
This is not an issue with private keys or importing them. It is perfectly safe to use importprivkey with bitcoind/litecoind. The problem comes when people go creating raw transactions (the brainwallet site let you do this and you can deliberately / not accidentally do it with bitcoind/litecoind). If you create a raw transaction and do not send all of the funds from the old address what's left will become a fee for the miners. The moral of the story is stay away from raw transactions unless you know exactly what you are doing. No need to be afraid of single private keys. If you have a question, ask! I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Isn't the problem as such: cold wallets don't renew their pool of 100 unused addresses, so by the 101st transaction they make they start sending change to addresses they don't have and so these go back to the miners. But then hot wallets do create these new addresses and deterministic wallets have a huge amount of spare addresses, so there's no problem with them. But as far as that understanding of the issue goes, there's no problem with the old address (the address that's sending the coins) only sending part of its funds elsewhere. What you're saying is that any given address in a wallet has to send all its coins, if not the difference between the originating address and the transaction will be lost to the miners? |
|
|
|
|
I get it, so basically the problem with cold wallets is they don't keep up with the addresses that get eaten up and created with every new transaction, because at any one time, a bitcoin wallet can only contain 100 untouched addresses. I assume by that that the issue would arise by the time we do the 101st transaction from or to a cold wallet, that that is when we would start losing money because the two wallets, the updated live one and the cold storage one, would begin to be different and the use of one in a transaction would invalidate whatever only the other one can see.. Or maybe by 101st transaction, these addresses just disappear from both wallets. That is a doubt I have. Another doubt is that maybe cold wallets dont register change at all if money is sent from a cold wallet. Thats where it shows how unfamiliar I am with btc- it could very well be instead, that bitcoins can only be sent from hot wallets and that the problem is that the cold wallet used to import and create the hot wallet, must be eliminated forever and never touched again and if we are to go about storing our wallet again we have to do it from the result of our latest hot wallet. Am I on the right track?
|
|
|
|
Someone said you could lose thousands of dollars due to change, so I looked it up https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Changeand don't understand it. Is the problem that the change produces a new address and that if you're doing the transaction in a cold wallet this new address won't be registered by the cold wallet as it would by a hot wallet like bitcoin-qt? If that's it I get it, I think. If it's something else I don't. Another thing I don't get is the transaction the above link uses as example: http://blockchain.info/tx/0a1c0b1ec0ac55a45b1555202daf2e08419648096f5bcc4267898d420dffef87It says Estimated BTC Transacted is 0.89 BTC but the example talks about how 10.89 was transferred. Does Estimated BTC Transacted mean the amount that went into a new address back into the original owner? thanks in advance for enlightenment |
|
|
|
If I haven't spent any outputs, just putting the wallet dat in another computer will bring no issues?
Just "putting" it there, No. Using it there, yes.
What I do see is that if two wallets on two clients are placed online and used, there'll be trouble. But will there also be trouble if a wallet is transferred from a client on a first PC to a client on a second PC, and then continued use as if nothing happened?
If you are going to ignore the intended/designed use, you are going to be taking chances of causing yourself problems. To answer whether an action is going to have trouble, you'll need to be very specific about what actions are taken on each copy of the wallet, and when, and how. If you learn how Bitcoin-Qt works, and you are very very careful, it is possible to keep two copies of the same wallet synchronized and running without encountering "trouble". However, a small mistake in action will create a big mess and quite likely lead to a permanent loss of bitcoin.
I see, precision is the safest bet. Well, a PC with a bitcoin client isn't working well and I want to move the wallet to another client on another newer PC. I don't ever intend on turning on the old PC and its client ever again. I was able to extract a copy of the wallet, the wallet.dat file, from the old PC today. The blockchain the old client was seeing though is very much stuck in time from about November. All I have to do is copy the wallet into the new PC and client, and never ever never never never touch the old setup on the old PC because that would create synchronicity issues, no? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
