只要是用https的網站, 不管是不是銀行, 都應該行得通 |
|
|
|
every single other poster in this forum I've seen who uploads his variant of a log linear regression chart (including well known Finnish investors clowns) post their pretty picture with a straight line, saying proudly "look, how close price is at all times to that line!", only showing how pathetic their understanding of TA is. The point, as exemplified by your second graph, is that you need to look at the *running* calculation of a regression, based on the data *available at the time*. And then it becomes clear that, at least in 2011, price stayed for a long time deep below the trendline predicted by regression.
Your rant is based on a wrong understanding of my model. It has always featured a monthly recalculation of the trend (which for practical purposes does not differ from a running calculation). Also as you can see from the same link, my model which has the price data from 1/2009 (unlike all the models that arbitrarily ignore the data prior to Mt.Gox, including the one in OP) does very well with the 2011 slump, giving a buy signal at $2.28 (similar signal was given at $71 last summer and at $460 in 2014-3-31). And, as opposed to the aforementioned Finnish clown, whether that happens (bull or bear market in the meantime) is *not* answered by regression.
Either I have subconsciously changed my mind and started to support you, or you have been misunderstanding my stance all along. If there were reliable valuation of bitcoin before MtGox, I'm happy to include that in my model. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to include Jan 2009 as the price was 0 and (log 0) is undefined |
|
|
|
Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't know this. I think eventually we will need this as we have more transactions. This could be done as soft-fork, anyway. Revisting this topic. While changing the protocol to allow transactions with implicit public key recovery is worthwhile it would be a breaking change so I understand not moving on this. However there is absolutely no reason for the Bitcoin-Core client to require an address when verifying the signature. The PubKey can be recovered from the signature the PubKeyHash produced from that and then the address generated from that.
Can anyone think of any reason why the Bitcoin client requires the user provide the address (something it can and already does compute)?I would add the UI in the core client for this section is not user friendly. A user verifying signature has to copy and paste three separate components into three different boxes (one of which is pointless). How about a unified copy and paste of a single signed message block? Why not have the user supply the message & signature (preferably in a unified encoded form (i.e. similar to PGP signed message) and then the client verifies the signature and computes and displays the results? An example which puts it all together. Input -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an example of a signed message.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
HHfUi9n72BxXottUu+AbU4iS0QQLxPtAtuydgRcjc+XoY9Hzw8u6Z+wbzDV+owVLiQR85OwioPcUVJcT+LHjqCE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
and the client responds with either Message verified to be signed by 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1Tor Message not verified. Please double check signed message is copied in it entirety including the BEGIN and END lines.Brainwallet.org has something similar and is more intuitive than the Bitcoin Core client. Still even the brainwallet website adds a "warning" that is pointless and vague. Message verified to be from 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T (but address was not found in the signature!)-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an example of a signed message.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
HHfUi9n72BxXottUu+AbU4iS0QQLxPtAtuydgRcjc+XoY9Hzw8u6Z+wbzDV+owVLiQR85OwioPcUVJcT+LHjqCE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Is that bad? Should I be worried? Am I being scammed? To most users, yellow is a color of caution. The expected outcome would be a definitive "SUCCESS" (and green) but instead there is this ambiguous partial success. The "yellow" response is pointless as anyone can add the address in after the signature is created to remove the warning. So what is is warning about. Adding the address 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T just above the signature looks like this and provides the expected "good" response. Message verified to be from 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an example of a signed message.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T
HHfUi9n72BxXottUu+AbU4iS0QQLxPtAtuydgRcjc+XoY9Hzw8u6Z+wbzDV+owVLiQR85OwioPcUVJcT+LHjqCE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
The "caution" response only undermines the point of even allowing signatures that don't include the (unnecessary) address. Imagine you are a company which sends out signed messages to customers. Lets use the 80/20 rule. If you exclude the address 80% of your users will understand the "warning" is pointless however that means you are going to confuse 20% of your customers and that means extra cost and work. So why not just include the (pointless) address so it shows up as green. Still the behavior isn't as bad as the core client which refuses to validate the signatures and throws an error. |
|
|
|
|
It is well known that reusing the k in different signatures will leak the private key. The reuse of k is very obvious as the r for different signatures will be the same.
What about the case for BIP32 deterministic wallet? Let say an attacker knows the root public key and the chain code. If the private key holder signs 2 different messages using the same k, with 2 different addresses in the same (or different) branch of the deterministic wallet, is it possible for the attacker to detect it and deduce the private keys for the singing addresses (or even the root private key)?
|
|
|
|
现在在BTCC充值页面依然能够看到银行汇款的通道 可以看到仍可以通过招商银行汇款来充值
这两天又是周末 14号是周一 怎么回事 不过最后一家银行账户被关停也应该是时间问题了
随着中国这个巨大不确定性因素的消除，相信以后比特币的海外发展会顺风顺水。
乾脆向各大銀行舉報他們吧, 中國 (不是中國人) 愈快滾出這個圈子愈好 平台本身没有错 使我们的政府一直捣蛋 對平台本身沒有錯, 錯的是銀行不守央行的命令 我換個講法: 要向央行舉報仍然為平台提供服務的銀行 |
|
|
|
虽然方法很不错 也是应对政府的对策 但是政府封禁 我们再绞尽脑汁想出对策 突然觉得真是历史的倒退！
這不但是為了應對政府, 也是為了令交易去中心化. 在這種交易方式下, mtgox般的情況但很難發生 |
|
|
|
听起来不错，这个东西有实际使用的吗？还是说目前处于理论状态
我们自己试验成功了，但是现在只有代码可以下载，还没做成二进制。 雖然原理很簡單, 但實在太聰明了 |
|
|
|
把查询密码给别人 这样又涉及到公司跑路问题了
只能查詢, 可以如何跑路? 我要改500次的查询密码啊 其實支付寶, 財付通都有查詢密碼功能, 而同一人可以開無限個支付寶, 財付通賬戶. 如果只為財務私隱, 只要雙方都新開設一個新賬戶專門用作交易就可以, 不用改密碼 |
|
|
|
由于人工审核交易，成本提升，要收取交易手续费，庄家不能再肆意买卖了。 其實只要雙方沒有爭議, 就不需要人工審核 (就像淘寶一樣, 沒爭議的話是可以自動化的). 需要人工審核的時侯, 犯錯一方需要罰款 (可以按交易額, 先向平台交付按金) 更可以加上交易誠信評價機制 |
|
|
|
On 11 Apr 2014, the price/trend ratio was the lowest since Feb 2013 (y-axis is ln(price/trend) )  |
|
|
|
现在在BTCC充值页面依然能够看到银行汇款的通道 可以看到仍可以通过招商银行汇款来充值
这两天又是周末 14号是周一 怎么回事 不过最后一家银行账户被关停也应该是时间问题了
随着中国这个巨大不确定性因素的消除，相信以后比特币的海外发展会顺风顺水。
乾脆向各大銀行舉報他們吧, 中國 (不是中國人) 愈快滾出這個圈子愈好 |
|
|
|
|
554XBT net selling yesterday
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a new bug but is not get fixed. I can import 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 as private key (which is invalid), and the address will be shown as 16QaFeudRUt8NYy2yzjm3BMvG4xBbAsBFM. When I try to spend the bitcoin in that address, Armory crashed.
|
|
|
|
到现在还是无法相信我们深爱的这片土地 这个国家 居然狠狠地拒绝了比特币
无法相信几天后我们就没法正常地在自己国家的平台上交易了 那些日子不再来了 那些群里的兄弟分享着今天的收益的日子
现在只看到一批又一批的人亏得连底裤都没了
无法相信我们国家也沦为泰国 越南之流
突然觉得自由离我们很远 一切都在国家机器的掌控之中 你無法相信, 因為你一開始就錯了. 你說你深愛這個國家? 難道你覺得這個國家深愛你嗎? 国家是国家 不是体制 ，政权 不是党~ 你不是這樣說的, 你說".......这个国家 居然狠狠地拒绝了比特币......". 究竟是你的國家拒絕了比特幣, 還是政權/黨拒絕了比特幣? 其實你自己也分不清黨/國吧? 我不是要挑戰你, 不過你應該想清楚你深愛的是什麼, 你所謂的國家又是什麼 有些东西不必咬文嚼字 含糊的語言, 例如什麼"不存在取缔不取缔", 就是控制人心的最佳工具 你無法相信你的國家拒絕比特幣, 是因為你的國家根本沒有拒絕比特幣, 拒絕的是政權/黨; 但可能你從小就被含糊的語言弄成黨國不分, 結果就出現了"為何我深愛的國家會拒絕比特幣"這種假問題. |
|
|
|
Jorge, Danny may have ponzi'd
I don't think he did. To me it looks like just incompetence and arrogance, at least until the failure became too obvious to ignore. But some foul play probably happened after that point. but the real idea about bitcoin is not to trust someone else with your money. I don't think anyone lost money from Danny unless they backed his business venture. To my knowledge they didn't get to the point where they had bitcoin savings accounts with deposits in existence.
That is correct, but the bare protocol is not enough. Even of bitcoin succeeds (in my definition, not just as a black market currency) ther will be a need for banks and such things. If you're not well informed yet Jorge you should know the U.S$ is the king of black market and that is unlikely to change. No.. we are our own banks...if you mean keeping our btc funds safe from thrives yeah maybe we will need safer places to access our bitcoin storage than our houses but this is no different that keeping cash at home. and its not we will see, its we're witnessing they're growth.
I see many promises. As for Silbert's fund, esterday I posted a rough analysis. It seems that the average investor lost money so far (although some have already made nice profits, and the rest may too if the BTC price goes up). On the other hand, SecondMarket will profit in any case from fees, and perhaps more if they can buy coins below market price, e.g. from a private mining outfit.
I don't trust your analysis of second market but that is just me. You don't need to trust him. It's just common sense as most bitcoins in BIT was bought over $400. Details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337486.0 |
|
|
|
定义为邮票之类的收藏品，你不觉得可笑吗？也太无视BTC啦！
他這句話註定會被歷史恥笑, 正如IBM總裁在1943年說全世界只需要5台電腦一樣 但或许他们的做法是对的 国民素质似乎还没到那种不需要监管和引到的地步 正像比特币 中国人表现出的则是疯狂 确实该降温 你這叫斯德哥爾摩症候群 |
|
|
|
定义为邮票之类的收藏品，你不觉得可笑吗？也太无视BTC啦！
他這句話註定會被歷史恥笑, 正如IBM總裁在1943年說全世界只需要5台電腦一樣 |
|
|
|
到现在还是无法相信我们深爱的这片土地 这个国家 居然狠狠地拒绝了比特币
无法相信几天后我们就没法正常地在自己国家的平台上交易了 那些日子不再来了 那些群里的兄弟分享着今天的收益的日子
现在只看到一批又一批的人亏得连底裤都没了
无法相信我们国家也沦为泰国 越南之流
突然觉得自由离我们很远 一切都在国家机器的掌控之中 你無法相信, 因為你一開始就錯了. 你說你深愛這個國家? 難道你覺得這個國家深愛你嗎? 国家是国家 不是体制 ，政权 不是党~ 你不是這樣說的, 你說".......这个国家 居然狠狠地拒绝了比特币......". 究竟是你的國家拒絕了比特幣, 還是政權/黨拒絕了比特幣? 其實你自己也分不清黨/國吧? 我不是要挑戰你, 不過你應該想清楚你深愛的是什麼, 你所謂的國家又是什麼 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
