the 21 million bitcoin will be mined in 15 years... I will be certainly not dead. Well I hope so!
You might want to recalculate that. Technically we will never reach 21 million coins but it will be a lot longer than 15 years before the subsidy goes to zero. I thought the last coin wouldn't be mined until year 2140? At least that's the number I've been telling my friends. With the current protocol, the last satoshi will be mined in block 6929999, approximately in the year 2140. But at that point we will not have 21M bitcoins, only 20,999,999.9769. The minting will be completely insignificant a long time before that, of course. (We have until 2049 to decide if we want to increase the precision, thus making the final amount closer to 21M.) After 2060 less than 2 bitcoins will be mined in nearly 80 years.
You listed the amounts per day. There are 1441 days in 4 years, so actually, 2563.4553 BTC will be mined after 13 halvings. |
|
|
|
Stenography is a great example. Encrypt your data with world class encryption schemes like AES, and then use stenography to hide it somewhere.
You mean "steganography". Stenography means transcribing in shorthand. There's not a lot of entropy in your obfuscation process, so it can be brute-forced.
Okay. Can you explain in a few more sentences exactly what this means? I am genuinely interested to know if this system can be broken easily. However unique you think your method is, there is always the chance the attacker will think the same as you, The only thing giving you a guarantee of security is true randomness. If you randomly choose one method out of 1000, there's no way the attacker will pick the same one as you by thinking like you, because you didn't choose by thinking, but by leaving it to chance. It is mathematically impossible to guess your method without 500 attempts on average. "Entropy" is a measure of how much randomness there is in the process used to generate the method. (It is assumed the final choice is uniformly random among some options.) A process with x bits of entropy means there are 2^x different equally likely choices, and the attacker can't do any better than guessing until he finds the right one. Foxpup gives an estimate for the amount of entropy in your process. |
|
|
|
|
There's not a lot of entropy in your obfuscation process, so it can be brute-forced.
|
|
|
|
It says proposed ISO code for Bitcoin.
It says "proposed" because I edited it to say "proposed". If you looked at the edit history you'd see that before I got there it said "The ISO 4217 standard currency code for Bitcoin". |
|
|
|
Someone added an entry there that XBT is the ISO currency code for Bitcoin. Did this really happen? Or are we going to see the "Bitcoin is now a bank in Europe" story all over again? It's bad enough when clueless reporters misinterpret news and spread FUD, but when we do it ourselves it's worse. |
|
|
|
Just to make sure I'm not missing anything... Are there actually any "news" in http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gaining-market-based-legitimacy-xbt/? I just see that they mention a few places are using XBT, not that anything official happened... the BT in BTC means Bhutan. BTC will over time be used less and less as we adapt to the international standard.
The ISO currency code for the New Israeli Shekel is ILS, though NIS is more commonly used. I expect something similar will happen with BTC. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a of yet a decentralized crypto currency that is created via the hashing power of specialized hardware.
The people who use the specialized hardware to create the bitcoins are called "miners" and they "mine" with their equipment.
The difficulty of mining bitcoins increases with each passing day and this leads to bitcoins becoming more scarce and more valuable.
Bitcoins can be used once mined or bought online as frictionless payment without the need of a third party provider such as paypal.
Despite bitcoins being technically cryptographic keys their worth as of now is in the $120 range and increasing by the day.
The value of bitcoins is stored as cryptographic public keys and is as of now within the $120 price range per bitcoin.
I'm sorry but this is terrible. Most people won't have any idea what you're talking about and the others will think it's a scam. The term "mining" shouldn't be mentioned more than once near the end, if at all. Here it (and "hashing") appears 5 times in the beginning. See also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=296674.msg3185191#msg3185191. Also there is a huge focus on the potential for speculative gains from investment in Bitcoin, at the expense of discussing its actual merits. |
|
|
|
Meni, can you tell us a bit more at this time?
Not yet, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
The problem with this is that you have access to the keys as well as whoever buys them, which is unnecessary with split-key vanitygen mining.
Not to mention most of these addresses are so easy that anyone can generate them with Vanitygen at home, with a CPU, without a split-key pool. They're not even the firstbits for their respective prefixes so one would have to be a fool to buy them. It's not the first time someone tries to sell something worthless for BTC. |
|
|
|
As you note, the later to release could hold up if they see that they would lose.
The loser could do this if they're not using iddo's protocol. The point is that if they use iddo's protocol, the loser can't hold up because he has more tied up (which he'll lose if communications stop) than he has riding on the bet. If you've found a flaw in the protocol, please share. |
|
|
|
Um... Wei Dai's paper is listed as a reference in Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper. It's well known that it served as a source of inspiration. Nothing new. Funny it uses the names Alice and Bob too, are those normally used in money transmit examples? Saw that with Bitcoin too.
As Edward explains, these names are used everywhere in cryptography. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob. |
|
|
|
The receiving node should verify with all its peers that they do not know of a conflicting tx. If the attacker does what you say he will fail this test. (You do this with 0-confirm but you can also do it with 1-confirm).
It seems to be a solution. I'll connect my node to 1000 different nodes and monitor incoming transactions. I wish Satoshi's client marked transactions as double-spent by itself, this would make life easier... You don't need 1000 nodes, 10 random nodes are a sufficient sample (e.g., if the attacker broadcast the good and bad tx 50/50, then there is a 0.1% chance that all nodes you connect to have heard only about the good tx and pass the test). As alluded to by davidgdg, version 0.9 of Bitcoin-qt is expected to have a feature to poll peers for potential double-spending, making 0-confirm easier. |
|
|
|
Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending might be relevant to your interests. If the double-spending transaction was broadcast to the network, you'll hear about it and refuse the transaction. So the risk is that the attacker will use its own hashrate to find 2 blocks, and he will need significant hashrate to do so reliably. Thx for the advice. But what is the chance to see a double-spending transaction? I believe honest nodes won't broadcast it if they know it's double-spending. True, nodes won't broadcast floating transactions which conflict with those they already know. Which again means that the attacker must rely on his own hashrate. The attacker could be connected to 1000 nodes and send a legit tx to 500 of them and non-legit one to the rest. I believe this gives 50% to succeed. The receiving node should verify with all its peers that they do not know of a conflicting tx. If the attacker does what you say he will fail this test. (You do this with 0-confirm but you can also do it with 1-confirm). Also, you say you're waiting for a confirmation. This means that the block you saw (with the legit tx) needs to have a tied block - that happens with probability of say 2%. You'll need the other block to have the bad tx, that's about 50%. And you need the next block to build on the other block, that's less than 50% (you're more likely to hear first about the block most of the network heard first). So all in all you have a sub-percent chance of success, if you don't do the listening test, and if the sender is an attacker in the first place - most people who pay you are not attackers. All in all, I think there is very little to worry about. |
|
|
|
Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending might be relevant to your interests. If the double-spending transaction was broadcast to the network, you'll hear about it and refuse the transaction. So the risk is that the attacker will use its own hashrate to find 2 blocks, and he will need significant hashrate to do so reliably. Thx for the advice. But what is the chance to see a double-spending transaction? I believe honest nodes won't broadcast it if they know it's double-spending. True, nodes won't broadcast floating transactions which conflict with those they already know. Which again means that the attacker must rely on his own hashrate, according to the analysis in the linked paper. |
|
|
|
Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending might be relevant to your interests. Double-spending transactions can't really happen "accidentally". You're only at risk if the sender is purposefully trying to execute an attack. If the double-spending transaction was broadcast to the network, you'll hear about it and refuse the transaction. So the risk is that the attacker will use its own hashrate to find 2 blocks, and he will need significant hashrate to do so reliably (but "significant hashrate" does not mean ">50%").
|
|
|
|
|
יש הגבלות על משתמשים חדשים בשביל למנוע ספאם/טרולים, עשיתי לך whitelist אז עכשיו אתה יכול לכתוב בשאר הפורום.
אתה מדבר על כריית לייטקוין? אם כן עדיף שתכתוב בסקשן של alternative cryptocurrencies מאשר בתמיכה.
מכיוון שאין לי ניסיון עם כריית לייטקוין (או עם cgminer) אני פשוט אפנה אותך לשם.
|
|
|
|
wasn't this the same guy who said he put everything into bitcoin back in late May 2011 or early June 2011?
Then he sold out his position and supposedly bought back again...
Now he's saying bitcoin is over valued? lol
Same guy. As long as this is mentioned, I'll ask - His statement that he put everything in Bitcoin is well-known. I've heard it rumored that he later sold most of it, but are there references for this? If he bought back later, is there a reference for this as well? |
|
|
|
Previously, Coinbase was taking days before actually broadcasting the transactions to the network, and it was causing a huge amount of trouble tracking down bitcoins that were sent so late, for orders that had long since expired. Bitcoinstore.com loves the guys at coinbase and supports what they are doing. This page will be updated ASAP. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know hosted wallets have such delays. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
