Latest posts of: jgarzik

Hal,

Just to echo the other devs: your contributions continue to be felt today. Pieter (sipa) is working on integrating your ECDSA speed-ups into the main client.

Thanks so much.

Quote from: notig on March 21, 2013, 05:13:09 AM

you've been in bitcoin for years don't you have a crapload already ? Lol Tongue

Under 200 bitcoins currently. I spend mine, and have given away over 15,000 BTC in years past as developer bounties.

This land sale is another example of same: you create a bitcoin economy when you buy and sell with bitcoins.

Obligatory plug: Selling 3.3 acres of vacant land for bitcoins.

Quote from: kano on March 21, 2013, 03:18:05 AM

It is not in the BIP he implemented ... go read it.

Not relevant to evaluating your claim of "[luke-jr] put botnet support into the bitcoind client"

That statement is not just characteristically hyperbolic... it is simply false, as the source code demonstrates.

Quote from: kokjo on March 20, 2013, 07:59:45 PM

i am also devloping a bitcoin client, pycoin. although i have not done much lately on it.

If you like python, check out https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinlib/ and the bitcoin client that uses it, https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/

I'm trying to encourage everyone to use python-bitcoinlib for their python projects. It fully verifies the blockchain, and passes many reference client tests.

The wiki has a long list: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

Quote from: kano on March 21, 2013, 12:37:01 AM

Yeah we could point out how YOU put botnet support into the bitcoind client (yes it is there) buy adding a STUPID 32bit nonce range that wasn't in the BIP

Read the code closely. bitcoind's block processing behavior is the same as it always was. getblocktemplate returns a static value for "noncerange":

Code:

    result.push_back(Pair("noncerange", "00000000ffffffff"));

and never examines the value.

noncerange was always silly in my opinion -- which is why it does not change bitcoind's behavior one bit.

Quote from: Evan on March 20, 2013, 08:06:24 PM

Quote from: jgarzik on March 20, 2013, 04:42:18 PM

Bump. (next bump if something changes, or a week+ from now)

Title report?

Summary: Clean title w/ title insurance obtained when I purchased these lots. Currently there is one associated lien, the mortgage on the collective two lots (one debt, two lots).

Can furnish more details to serious inquirers.

Quote from: Dhomochevsky on March 20, 2013, 02:56:18 PM

We don't know that yet, but I agree, an almost 400% price hike is ridiculous. I don't think many people would venture for such an expense, especially after tens of terahashes were added to the network and tens more will be added by the time they get their units.

The units are being sold into a market at which demand vastly outstrips supply.

If sold at auction, the price would be even higher.

Quote from: deathcode on March 20, 2013, 01:52:33 PM

So, some dude has a blog and writes his opinion about bitcoin dying and this is news?

Try reading the first line of the OP.

A major financial newspaper, the Financial Times, thought it was news.

Quote from: TraderTimm on March 20, 2013, 01:48:33 PM

Bitcoin troll is obvious.

He thinks it is the end because he reads their guidance as law -- "As he sees it". Ah yes, how convenient for him. He got trounced in his last little screed, so I don't expect any different this time around.

+1

It is clearly a troll-blog; but it was mentioned in Financial Times, sadly...

This was linked in today's Financial Times Alphaville:

URL: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/rip-bitcoin-i-think.html

RIP Bitcoin, I think

Quote

As predicted here last month, USG is killing Bitcoin - I'm pretty sure. FINCEN has just issued its guidance on virtual currencies.

TL;DR: every currently operating Bitcoin exchange is operating in violation of the law - or, if you prefer, "law." (Obviously "laws" made in this way are a profound and utter mockery of the good old English word "law," but there you go.) Here is the complete Bitcoin guidance:
[...]

Build your dream cabin near the river! Asking $28,000, or the equivalent in bitcoins (~55 BTC as of this writing) for vacant land in Wake County, North Carolina totalling approximately 1.5 acres.

Lot #11 is full of young pine trees. Used to be a garden, 40 years ago.

This lot is less than 0.5 mi to the Neuse River, and has only a slight slope.

Utilities available: electricity, cable TV, Internet, phone, water (well), septic tank.

Nearby: Walking distance to Neuse River, Wil-Mar golf course. Short drive to Knightdale or Raleigh. Easy access to I-540 highway, which takes you straight to the airport.

Pictures: http://gtf.org/garzik/holly-lake/

Map/GPS addresses: 3329 Holly Lake Trail, Raleigh, NC 27604

Quote from: snapsunny on March 19, 2013, 09:21:10 PM

The engraving isn't obvious, so as long as he doesn't tell the world he has money on his finger, he'll be safe.

Doh!

Who would keep their money at a centralized website, rather than a decentralized wallet?

Quote from: eleuthria on March 19, 2013, 05:26:06 PM

Wow, what a crazy 24 hours. Price breaks $50, and BTC Guild goes up another 2 TH/s almost. I'm going to wait 24 hours to see if this speed settles in (current 24h estimate is 1.6 TH/s lower than current speed), at which point I'm going to work out a plan to break some speed away from BTC Guild. Nobody wants a pool to get too close to 51% again.

Just turn off getwork.

Ok, I'm kidding. Ok, half kidding.

Quote from: conv3rsion on March 19, 2013, 06:22:50 PM

All MSBs have to register and are then subject to expensive fees and regulatory practices by their states.

This part ("are then") is not quite correct.

The state and federal laws are disconnected, even if they are intentionally similar in many cases. Becoming an MSB or MT at the federal level does not immediately trigger a state requirement. A state requirement to -- for example -- undergo a background check or provide a surety bond is not triggered by becoming an MSB. The state requirement is triggered by... your transmitting money in a regulated fashion.

A couple US states do not require money transmitter/MSB-like licenses, leaving only the federal requirements to handle.

Quote from: mot7 on March 19, 2013, 05:09:22 PM

I would argue that the protocol "creates" the coins, and USA based miners are just claiming them.

This is a fair point (not that my opinion is relevant, as no court case or other precedent has yet established either way)