|
You should put the US Federal government on the list
|
|
|
|
|
Big action again. 730XBT was bought yesterday
|
|
|
|
Bump. Is this still being updated?
just updated |
|
|
|
One interesting note is that the genesis block in this code has a different hash.
Isn't this expected? Unless Satoshi was a prophet, he shouldn't know "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in November 2008 |
|
|
|
By the way, it is this transaction.
b4f02e34a2c5349930f92474e57a83670dec05b497ba08c09f982f511a96ab9c
I do not understand why there is a problem.
In the wiki it says.
A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10,000 bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
All the criteria are met.
No, the priority is very very low |
|
|
|
Still you need to try decrypting each nonce with each private key you have ever issued, in order to find out if a certain tx actually belongs to your wallet - did I get that part correct? What I mean is: if you have issued like 1000 stealth addresses and 50% of the transactions use stealth-type outputs, then I don't really envy your node. That is more like a designing of a disaster  My thinking is that a wallet would only use a single stealth address, so you only need to test tx's matching your adjustable prefix (a bandwidth/anonymity tradeoff) against the single key. Disambiguating payments could be done with a encrypted "payment ID", or just by value and time. (quite sufficient I think for individuals) After all, the whole point of stealth addresses is that you only need a single one! The idea came about when we were trying to figure out how to put a bitcoin address in a OpenPGP key yet still keep payments to that address private. What if I have multiple identities? Is it possible to have many different stealth addresses which are all controlled by a single private key, while no one could tell these addresses are related? |
|
|
|
The original title is "85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population" And you say "85 people now own 50% of world's wealth" Any problem with your reading comprehension?  |
|
|
|
|
As I understand, the payer has to generate a key pair, and lets the payee knows the public key. Without the public key, the payee is unable to spend the fund. There are 2 channels for the payee to learn the payer public key:
1. Including the payer public key as an OP_RETURN output. This will increase the transaction cost and may not be desirable. Could we specify a smaller key size, an therefore a smaller public key? Since the purpose of the key is not to secure the fund, a smaller key size should be okay.
2. Transferring the public key with other channel. This one is more blockchain-friendly. However, there is a risk of losing the public key so the fund is permanently locked. Should we recommend the payer to generate the key pairs in a deterministic way, and backup the root key?
|
|
|
|
|
No, you don't need to do it at the protocol level. (An actually, at the protocol level, all values are represented as integers in Satoshi)
|
|
|
|
Update:
1 2013-11-30 1132.29
2 2013-12-04 1111.56
3 2013-11-29 1065.36
4 2013-12-03 1050.57
5 2013-12-02 1000.49
6 2013-11-28 998.56
7 2013-12-05 975.06
8 2013-12-01 945.67
9 2013-12-10 941.56
10 2013-11-27 937.09
11 2014-01-06 936.62
12 2013-12-06 894.36
13 2013-12-11 890.42
14 2014-01-11 883.00
15 2013-12-13 882.99
16 2014-01-05 881.82
17 2013-12-09 867.49
18 2013-12-12 862.85
19 2013-12-14 860.41
20 2014-01-12 858.24
|
|
|
|
Good idea. I suggest to create a validatebitcoinwebservices.com to make sure bitcoinwebservices.com is not compromised, and a validatevalidatebitcoinwebservices.com to make sure validatebitcoinwebservices.com is not compromised, and a validatevalidatevalidatebitcoinwebservices.com to make sure validatevalidatebitcoinwebservices.com is not compromised, and a validatevalidatevalidatevalidatebitcoinwebservices.com.................. |
|
|
|
Update:
1 2013-11-30 1,132.29
2 2013-12-04 1,111.56
3 2013-11-29 1,065.36
4 2013-12-03 1,050.57
5 2013-12-02 1,000.49
6 2013-11-28 998.56
7 2013-12-05 975.06
8 2013-12-01 945.67
9 2013-12-10 941.56
10 2013-11-27 937.09
11 2014-01-06 936.62
12 2013-12-06 894.36
13 2013-12-11 890.42
14 2014-01-11 883.00
15 2013-12-13 882.99
16 2014-01-05 881.82
17 2013-12-09 867.49
18 2013-12-12 862.85
19 2013-12-14 860.41
20 2014-01-07 857.96
|
|
|
|
|
Some real action again on 9 Jan. 740XBT bought
|
|
|
|
娱乐归娱乐
楼主给点法律常识吧
什麼法律? 這裏是美國 |
|
|
|
3. Mining difficulty will increase, but unlike in the past year, ASIC technology will not keep up with the demand for new bitcoins. The new THs miners when they finally appear in late spring will be lucky to generate .5 BTC/day after a few months. I think the mining technology curve is flattening out which will only slow the increase of supply which will in turn drive bitcoin prices up.
Slow the increase of supply? I think you need to do a bit more research into how bitcoin works before i can take your predictive capabilities seriously, even though i agree with $5k and beyond. No, the OP is correct, think carefully. (yes, I DO know how Bitcoin works) OP is Correct but his Points are little uncapable, Bitcoin Supply will be decrease not because of THs Miners which are comming next few months but after the block reward will break dowm to 50%, Increase of Demand and Dicrease of supply. But untill block reward is same supply will be the same. Note: I agree with OP's 5K price, I am going to live my life untill Bitcoin hits 50K+No, the OP is correct even before reward halves. There are currently more than 2016 blocks in 2 weeks, which means the inflation rate is actually higher than the design. If the mining power stabilises, the inflation rate will be back to normal, which means going down |
|
|
|
这傻逼就是反向指标，他唱空大家就感觉满仓，他要上车，大家赶紧的准备抛，这尼玛的！以后我就专门关注你了，希望你的钱都到我的口袋来！
做空了沒有？有就恭喜了  |
|
|
|
3. Mining difficulty will increase, but unlike in the past year, ASIC technology will not keep up with the demand for new bitcoins. The new THs miners when they finally appear in late spring will be lucky to generate .5 BTC/day after a few months. I think the mining technology curve is flattening out which will only slow the increase of supply which will in turn drive bitcoin prices up.
Slow the increase of supply? I think you need to do a bit more research into how bitcoin works before i can take your predictive capabilities seriously, even though i agree with $5k and beyond. No, the OP is correct, think carefully. (yes, I DO know how Bitcoin works) |
|
|
|
|
What a stupid FUD. If ebay, an US company, banned bitcoin miner trading, does it mean the US banned bitcoin miner?
|
|
|
|
你一買就暴跌了 像這種對bitcoin全不理解的人, 只會追脹殺跌 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
