Bitstamp has the best liquidity of all exchanges. Its where most people actually enter and exit the ecosystem. If you have or want cash in a bank account its most likely going to be based on that price. Bitstamp is also a very important hub for nearly all of bitcoin's commercial integration and services. The trendy thing to do right now is to integrate your service with bit stamp to perform all btc to fiat conversions.
By the same note I also consider bitstamp to be btcs single point of failure (centralization). Any FUD involving bitstamp would be really bad - much worse than even huobi/china. This is probably not how satoshi envisioned bitcoin working.
Just 1 year ago: MtGox has the best liquidity of all exchanges. Its where most people actually enter and exit the ecosystem. If you have or want cash in a bank account its most likely going to be based on that price. MtGox is also a very important hub for nearly all of bitcoin's commercial integration and services. The trendy thing to do right now is to integrate your service with bit stamp to perform all btc to fiat conversions.
By the same note I also consider MtGox to be btcs single point of failure (centralization). Any FUD involving MtGox would be really bad - much worse than even huobi/china. This is probably not how satoshi envisioned bitcoin working. So what? Gox is now dead and the price is increased by 40x. |
|
|
|
Somewhere I read Gavin said that there was a bug that allow everyone to spend everyone's coins (now fixed). Do you know which one he was referring to?
Hint: The OP_RETURN opcode used to return true, not false. Why is that a problem? I find your conversation with Gavin here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CANEZrP3qgo-VC5YHTSLOH5rGdv5PP4e2V6qECQVfvMgJXFbx-g@mail.gmail.com&forum_name=bitcoin-developmentIt seems to me that a script was always declared as true when it hit an OP_RETURN, and the rest of the script was ignored. So the fix was to make OP_RETURN returning false, and to execute the scriptSig and scriptPubKey separately. So even if the scriptSig is true, it still needs to run the scriptPubKey. So what will happen in this case now? : scriptSig = OP_FALSE, scriptPubKey = OP_NOT. As the scriptSig is false, will it stop there as false, or the scriptPubKey will make the overall outcome as true? |
|
|
|
Is this behavior intentional (with legitimate use) or unintentional (aka. bug)?
Definitely a bug. If SignatureHash() had returned 0 in that case rather than 1 you could use it to steal everyone's coins apparently due to how ECC signatures work. Somewhere I read Gavin said that there was a bug that allow everyone to spend everyone's coins (now fixed). Do you know which one he was referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Is there any easy way to broadcast non-standard transaction, more importantly, send to a miner who is willing to mine it? I think the blockchain.info API worked before but not now
|
|
|
|
Ok, but then if the signature is valid on the second input, how can the exact same signature be valid for a totally different transaction spending normal inputs? (the second one I provided, 315ac7d4c26d69668129cc352851d9389b4a6868f1509c6c8b66bead11e2619f)
Didn't you explain it in the OP? If one uses SIGHASH_SINGLE without a corresponding output, a signature for 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is valid Yup, exactly - come to think of it the example would have been better done by spending three outputs, with two valid-yet-the-same-signature ones. Is this behavior intentional (with legitimate use) or unintentional (aka. bug)? |
|
|
|
Gox: -10%
Btcchina: -10%
Huobi: -30%
Btce: -20% (altcoins: -90%)
Bitfinex: -15%
Bitstamp: -60%+
Volume is always low during price stability, just like the $5, $13, $120 stability we have seen |
|
|
|
Thank you for the answers. I think it makes sense. Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
1) The current difficulty of mining is 2,193,847,870 which is approximately 2^32
2) A valid transaction paired with the private key and converted into a 2^256 bit long hash. Hence, brute force approach to crack a password has a difficulty of about 2^256. Hence mining is 2^234 time easier than cracking a password.
And this still underestimates the difference because the ECDSA takes much more steps to calculate than SHA256 |
|
|
|
Also, here's another fun puzzle: 61d47409a240a4b67ce75ec4dffa30e1863485f8fe64a6334410347692f9e60e
How is the byte string 000080 not true, yet any other non-zero bytestring does evaluate as true?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ScriptThe stacks hold byte vectors. Byte vectors are interpreted as little-endian variable-length integers with the most significant bit determining the sign of the integer. Thus 0x81 represents -1. 0x80 is another representation of zero (so called negative 0). Byte vectors are interpreted as Booleans where False is represented by any representation of zero, and True is represented by any representation of non-zero. so 000080 = 0? |
|
|
|
Ok, but then if the signature is valid on the second input, how can the exact same signature be valid for a totally different transaction spending normal inputs? (the second one I provided, 315ac7d4c26d69668129cc352851d9389b4a6868f1509c6c8b66bead11e2619f)
Didn't you explain it in the OP? If one uses SIGHASH_SINGLE without a corresponding output, a signature for 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is valid BTW, there is a typo on the wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKSIG#Procedure_for_Hashtype_SIGHASH_SINGLEThe transaction that uses SIGHASH_SINGLE type of signature should not have more outputs inputs than inputs outputs. |
|
|
|
Compare the scriptSigs against the one in this transaction: 315ac7d4c26d69668129cc352851d9389b4a6868f1509c6c8b66bead11e2619f
I can't read C++, but it seems it works like this: - For the first input, it is an invalid SIGHHASH_SINGLE signature, so the overall script is valid (with OP_NOT)
- For the second input, for the same reason as 315ac7d4c26d69668129cc352851d9389b4a6868f1509c6c8b66bead11e2619f, it is valid
|
|
|
|
Here's a good test if you think you have a hope of re-implementing Bitcoin exactly: a59012de71dafa1510fd57d339ff488d50da4808c9fd4c001d6de8874d8aa26d
Tell me how that transaction got mined in detail.
The HASH160 of 0xac91 is 0x827fe37ec405346ad4e995323cea83559537b89e so it is valid? EDIT: The HASH160 of 0xac is 0x17be79cf51aa88feebb0a25e9d6a153ead585e59 So actually there is no CHECKSIG done here You need to learn how P2SH works: BIP16Yes, I was wrong. For the second input, the serialized script is simply OP_CHECKSIG. So one can use ANY public key with a correct signature to redeem it, right? (normally, the public key is part of the serialized script) For the first one, the serialized script is OP_CHECKSIG OP_NOT. So one can use any public key with a WRONG signature to redeem it. I didn't check the validity of the signature but obviously they use the same signature and public key...... So there must be something wrong in my interpretation.... |
|
|
|
Here's a good test if you think you have a hope of re-implementing Bitcoin exactly: a59012de71dafa1510fd57d339ff488d50da4808c9fd4c001d6de8874d8aa26d
Tell me how that transaction got mined in detail.
The HASH160 of 0xac91 is 0x827fe37ec405346ad4e995323cea83559537b89e so it is valid? EDIT: The HASH160 of 0xac is 0x17be79cf51aa88feebb0a25e9d6a153ead585e59 So actually there is no CHECKSIG done here |
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't they claim it BEFORE the forfeiture order is made? They have more than 2 months to make the claim. The court made the forfeiture order because no one claimed the bitcoin. Isn't it too late now?
p.s. DPR's personal coins are not (yet) forfeited because he made a claim
|
|
|
|
but to be honest, if it weren't to Gox, Bitcoin wouldn't be at what it is at today.
If there were no Gox, we would have Box, Cox, Fox, whatever to make bitcoin to be at what it is at today |
|
|
|
|
Updated. Around 1300XBT bought last week
|
|
|
|
|
It really depends on how many bitcoins one is holding now. If one holds 1,000,000BTC now, obviously he should sell all at $5000 for 5 billion. I one is holding 0.01BTC now, there is no reason to give up the opportunity to acquire more bitcoin just for $50.
|
|
|
|
It is obvious to me that with the BTC China bank deposit re-acceptance news, people began to buy BTC at there.
Immediately, someone sold those exact amount just to keep the price stable. What a trade volume!
Being successful, people gave up making short profit. Significant volume down.
I call it price control... but who and why? when does this "project" finish?
The moment it finishes, price would start to move. I don't think it would be downward.
I think it's just some bot testing |
|
|
|
|
I read the whole thing. He deserves it if the complaint is true and complete
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
