They look very suspicious. In the Chinese forum they always claim they are "coming from Wall Street", and have been "dealing with derivatives 1000 times more complicated than BTC margin trading (offered by OkCoin and Huobi)" .....
我们LakeBTC华尔街出身，比融资融币复杂1000倍的结构化衍生产品都做过无数，为
......
|
|
|
|
My guessing already is MtGox will be up and running again, not far from now, all balances preserved, but with a lot of "measures", "to avoid a bank run" and some "we apologize"s. Shielded by the bankruptcy protection.
People will be happy to see their balance has recovered and be patient one more time (the only alternative by then). Willing to withdraw everything, of course, and will do that ASAP, but still better the full balance there than only 1% or 10% right now. "So let s wait a little more."
In the mean time, new team, new stuff... Money blocked, will start exchanging again. New people or speculators arrive. The 200 K are the gas to move the machine. Civil recovering in its course....
Slowly, old balances are withdrawed, new balances arrive, all fine again. FucKarpeles alive, guaranteed at least by the time money is blocked...
Strategy Crisis plan achieved in full.
Question is: will it keep being MtGox? Gox? Goax? ;-)
Who the hell is going to deposit money to gox? |
|
|
|
In general there is no safe way to include revoke&replace in the same operation, since it would make the revocation certificate exactly as sensitive as the private key itself. However, you scheme actually makes the private key of the pay-to-revoke bitcoin address exactly as sensitive as the (PGP) private key itself. If I could safe keep a bitcoin private key, I could do the same for the revocation and replacement cert. |
|
|
|
Because bitcoin doesn't work as you think
You have 5 inputs from the same address because you have received fund with the same address for at least 5 times. The concept of "balance" does not exist in bitcoin.
Ok. What is the reason for "fracturing" the balance on an address? In my false understanding of the bitcoin address paradigm, I had assumed the sender proves that an amount is transferred to an address, and the balance of that address is determined by the public ledger of the blockchain as a sum of the valid inputs to and outputs from transactions -- thus the owner of the address can generate a valid transaction with a single input that can contain up to the balance of the sending address. BTW, thanks all for explaining this. You shouldn't use the term "balance" at all. As I said there is no "balance" in bitcoin protocol. Consider it is like gold bullion. As you put 5 pieces of gold into one bag, they won't magically merged into 1 piece. You may spend them in 5 occasions, or you may melt them to create a bigger piece of gold. But if you want to melt them, you need to tell people which 5 pieces you want to melt. That's why you will see 5 inputs from the same address (5 pieces of gold from the same bag) |
|
|
|
|
Armory can do this in a much better way. It allows you to create m-of-n paper wallet with virtually any m and n
|
|
|
|
Hey, the trust updated the "liquidity" paragraph on their page: REDEMPTIONS/LIQUIDITY:
Redemption offered on a limited basis with plans for being publicly traded on OTCQX®*
*Redemption of shares will be allowed on a limited basis as of April 2014 with expectation of qualifying for public trading of the shares via the OTCQX® under the Alternative Reporting Standards.
It used to say "no later than March 2014", which of course meant March 31st. Now "as of April 2014" surely means April 30, and "limited basis" presumably means only some investors may be allowed to take out only some of their money. And they seem to be hoping to avoid liquidity altogether by implying that it is equivalent to allowing investors to sell to other investors on that specific market. What a surprise, yawn.  Full of FUD "As of April 2014" means 1st April. The limitation for redemption must have been mentioned in the contract. Obviously, one can't request to redeem 10000BTC at the current market price as there won't be enough buyer |
|
|
|
>50% permanent reduction in mining
Whoptie do, blocks are expectation 20 minutes for a month. Difficulty being hesitant to change improves security against isolation and decreases the amount pumping of difficulty by variance. Would this work better or worse than the current system?: Let the last difficulty change happened at block X MT(Xi,Xj) = median timestamp (in days) of block Xi, timestamp of block Xi+1 .... timestamp of block Xj-1, timestamp of block Xj If for any positive integer n < 2016, [MT(X-10+n,X+n) - MT(X-11,X-1)] > 14 With the smallest n, difficulty is multiplied by difficulty factor DF = (n / 2016) starting at block X+n+1 If there is no such positive integer n, Difficulty is multiplied by DF = {14 / [MT(X+2006,X+2016) - MT(X-11,X-1)]} starting at block X+2017 We may put further restrictions on DF, for example 0.5 <= DF <= 4 In case of increase in hashing power, the difficulty will always increase before the 14th days, just like the current system In case of decrease in hashing power, the difficulty will always decrease on the 14th day. If the hashing power decrease to 50%, the difficulty will halve on the 14th day. Average block time will be 20 minutes in the first 14 days, and will be 10 minutes after difficulty adjustment. With the current system we will have 20 minutes block time for 28 days. If the hashing power decrease to 25%, (with the lowest DF restriction) the difficulty will halve on the 14th day, and halve again on the 28th day. Average block time will be 40 minutes in the first 14 days, 20 minutes in the next 14 days, and 10 minutes after the 28th days. With the current system we will have 40 minutes block time for 56 days. |
|
|
|
主要是安卓的系统原因。打个比喻来说。安卓作为操作系统，就相当于一个房间的大门，系统的性能就相当于大门钥匙的性能，而BTC手机钱包就相当于其中的窗户，钱包再强大，也只是窗户关得再严密，没有用，因为大门不够安全，小偷照样进得来。 那麼你要的東西根本不可能存在, 除非你自己開發一個手機OS |
|
|
|
现在BTC的钱包是以PC为主的，手机钱包该怎么实现呢？blockchain等在线钱包不在今天的讨论范围。
android系统本身问题多多，不宜使用。
我认为现在的钱包最好是在线钱包与本地钱包结合的。用在线钱包，不需要本地电脑同步，但安全性不能保证；本地钱包同步太慢，熟悉电脑的人觉得安全，不熟悉电脑的人也觉得安全（钱在自己手里）。能否设计一个共用同步数据的，比如同步Block由云端解决，本地钱包实际就是只有私钥/公钥，这样子就是完全轻量级的了。然后就是主攻钱包对公钥的保存的安全性保障能力了。
這個除了是android以外, 完全符合你的要求: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet至於你說不宜使用android, 我不知道除了iOS和android還可以有什麼選擇 |
|
|
|
|
1626XBT bought yesterday. I think we really have some good support at 500s
|
|
|
|
I have an imported address in my blockchain hotwallet. It came from a paper wallet that was loaded with one transaction.
As it lived in my hot wallet, it was used for several send transactions that were less than the amount on the address. The transactions that the blockchain wallet formed used the entire amount on the address as the single input, and sent the desired amount to the receiver as the first output, then on the second output, sent the change back to the input address.
There were several small transactions receiving funds.
On the final transaction, draining this address, blockchain generated a transaction that had inputs from 4 different address in my wallet, however, in made 5 different inputs to the transaction using amounts from earlier receive and change output from previous transactions.
The final transaction triggered a double miners fee because of the size.
Was there any technical reason why a transaction needs 5 different inputs from the same address?
Because bitcoin doesn't work as you think You have 5 inputs from the same address because you have received fund with the same address for at least 5 times. The concept of "balance" does not exist in bitcoin. (This is actually an FAQ which I think we should prepare some canned response) |
|
|
|
Cant believe my eyes in the front page of zerohedge The Nasdaq Biotech index is getting monkey-hammered this morning and is now 10% off its late-Feb highs. Crucially, this sector has been a major pillar of strength for the overall Nasdaq and that means the Nasdaq is also getting crushed did they actually just say that bitcoin has been propping up the Nasdaq?? lolol trolling? |
|
|
|
Did anyone catch this quote from the mtgox statement.
“Taking into account the existence of the 200,000 BTC, the total number of bitcoins which have disappeared is therefore estimated to be approximately 650,000 BTC.”"
So.. its basically official that M.K. is just a complete and utter retard right? Who moves 200,000 BTC to verify they have control of bitcoin and then forgets that they exist. Does this ultimately point to the more likely possibility that M.K. just lost the private keys but had an old database backup that he eventually went and fished these 200,000 coins out of after the community pointed them out?
also... how does 850,000 missing vs 650,000 missing affect the markets?
I think the market is affected by the now confirmed fake news about China banning bitcoin trading |
|
|
|
Does anyone have the updated number of the amount of coins that SecondMarket currently holds, including subtracting any sales?
Estimated: 90560XBT Actual number is published at the beginning of every month thanks for our work. Interesting and (slightly) bullish anyway The actual Holding is the estimated XBT,right ? Actual holding is ACTUAL holding. They publish it once a month |
|
|
|
As i said yesterday, we would need some fud to get to 550~ish, and bam, new china fud out of the blue, either a lucky guess, or someone who wants a crash had same thoughts
China Central Bank says in its official weibo that the news about #bitcoin trading ban is fake
The official weibo (Twitter of China) of PBOC: http://weibo.com/u/3921015143 |
|
|
|
Does anyone have the updated number of the amount of coins that SecondMarket currently holds, including subtracting any sales?
Estimated: 90560XBT Actual number is published at the beginning of every month |
|
|
|
my math says they bought about $1.3 million dollars worth of BTC today, yet we still have a size-able dip.
2073XBT bought yesterday. It could be an OTC deal. |
|
|
|
Updates?  updated but not much action |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
