Wie/womit hast du denn die Checksumme berechnet?
So Adressen wie die in meiner Sig kannst du dir mit Vanitygen erstellen. Wenn du nur eine Adresse mit einem bestimmten Inhalt willst ohne den Private Key zu brauchen, sollte das um ein vielfaches schneller gehen. Ein Tool dafür weiß ich allerdings nicht. Edit: Senden kann man an jede Adresse. Die Bitcoins können nur mangels dazu passendem Privatekey nie mehr benutzt werden. Das Netzwerk wird keine Adresse per definition ausschliessen, es überprüft nichtmal. Es schaut nur nach, ob dieser Publickey grundsätzlich passt. Dazu reicht aber die Länge zu überprüfen. Würde es ermittlen können, ob es eine Privatekey zu einem Publickey gibt oder nicht, wäre es nicht mehr sicher, sondern könnte geknackt werden. Der Beweis ob ein Publickey gültig ist darf nur über den Umstand beweisbar sein, ohne Kenntniss der privatekeys entschlüsseln zu können.
Nein, ist so nicht korrekt. Adressen sind Checksummen geprüft. Bitcoin wird nicht an jede beliebige Adresse senden. Ich hab auch nie behauptet, dass Bitcoin prüft ob ein Private Key existiert. Zu 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE existiert (bzw. besitzt keiner) einen Private Key. |
|
|
|
Ich biete auch einen ASIC Gruppenkauf mit fantastischen Gewinnaussichten. Was wir kaufen überlegen wird noch. Ein Anteil kostet nur 0,1 BTC an 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE. Das wird der Hammer.
Disclaimer: Bitte nichts an die Adresse senden liebe Kinder, das Geld ist danach sicher für keinen mehr zugreifbar!
Ich hoffe doch, das in der Adresse Checksummen versteckt sind, die solcherlei Vertipper verhindern, oder? Oder könnte ich mir ernst eine Adresse/ein Wort ausdenken, ne 1 davor machen und dort BTCs versenken? Wer traut sich das zu testen? Es geht nicht jede beliebige Adresse. Aber natürlich gibt es Wortkombinationen die zufälligerweise eine Valide Adresse sind. Das ist eine davon. |
|
|
|
... merge the two and submit shares to the pool.
what is a share here? Arbitary data with hash less then target? How does the pool check if the share is for valid block ? Not sure how a regular pool could do this, but P2Pool is quite well explained in the Wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool |
|
|
|
|
Oh ja. Wird wirklich nie langweilig hier.
Bin dann auch wieder dabei.
|
|
|
|
Da saugt und bindet nix, dat Geld fliesst ja trotzdem weiter.
Proof of Burn? Um BTC zu bekommen muss man Fiat Geld im Krematorium verbrennen  |
|
|
|
|
Wenn der Stein erst mal ins Rollen gebracht ist...
Gleich mehrer User haben mir heute geschrieben das ihr Refund Antrag die 14 Werktage überschritten hat und mir durch weitergeleitete Mails / PMs glaubhaft bestätigt das dies korrekt ist. Diese User bestehen diesmal darauf, Candoos Daten zu erhalten.
Deshalb erkläre ich Candoo hiermit im Rahmen der getroffenen Vereinbarungen für vertragsbrüchig.
Alle Anteilseigner die die Daten möchten schicken mir bitte eine Mail Adresse an die ich diese schicken kann per PN.
Candoo ist nach eigener Aussage umgezogen. Auf jeden Fall stimmt die Adresse auf den Dokumenten die ich habe nicht mit der Adresse auf dem Vertrag überein.
|
|
|
|
Irgendwie vermisse ich Seeder ja.  (Mir grad aufgefallen beim Thread lesen.) |
|
|
|
PPC actually has a stronger pressure to become centralized. Don't get me wrong, I really like that he is trying something new and is looking for a alternative to mining. But Proof of Stake is not the answer. With Bitcoin you always will get competition when you mining becomes to profitable. With PPC once you have you share of the Networks Proof of Stake it remains constant or even increases due to tx fees. The only way to get into POS and get a share of the Network is to get them from other PPC holders. Therefore big holders have high entry barriers that only allow competition to arise when they allow it. Therefore POS actually has a Trend towards centralization "build in". But altcoins are Off Topic here. |
|
|
|
|
Thx.
Never mind my post then.
|
|
|
|
Also you should consider this Show new replies to your posts. thing. Even if I unwatch the thread I still see them there. I don't know if it's possible but it would be good if there is a button like unwatch, for not seeing unwanted threads there.
Just enable "Automatically watch Threads I posted in" in you settings and use the Watchlist. Forget the "Show new replies to your posts." Function. IMO it should be removed entirely and "Automatically watch Threads I posted in" enabled set as default. |
|
|
|
Und ich dachte unser Trollproblem wäre kleiner geworden , nicht größer...
Keine Sorge, das Deutsche Forum zu trollen ist zu unergiebig. Nicht genug verzweifelte Idioten mit hochfliegenden Träumen und keiner Ahnung von nix. Du bist wirklich nicht oft hier, oder?  |
|
|
|
LOL Da bei den Dingern wahrscheinlich akute Explosionsgefahr besteht gibts dafür ja auch einen guten Grund. |
|
|
|
Wir schicken die hardware an Akka ok? Wer ist dafür?  Super! Ich bastle dann kleine Boote aus den Gehäusen und lass sie den Neckar entlang treiben. |
|
|
|
|
Außerdem steht auf dem "Wertvolle Snacks". Wertvoll
Da muss es den Aufpreis ja wert sein!
|
|
|
|
IMO wäre der Vertrag vor Gericht auch ungültig. Der Vertrag ist unklar in wesentlichen Teilen.
Die eine Absicht aber, nämlich der Übergang aller Pflichten gegenüber den Anteilseignern ist kaum falsch zu interpretieren.
Und genau hier liegt der Grund dafür. Candoo hat vor Übergabe des Verrags zumindest mit dem Rückkaufrecht einen Wichtigen Punkt aus den Pflichten entfernt. Und eine Menge seiner Posts aus dem Thread gelöscht. Das könnte IMO schlimmstenfalls als arglistige Täuschung angesehen werden. |
|
|
|
You arguments against this account for competitive advantages that one (big) operation can realize against another.
Except the own chips argument, the arguments don't account for small operations
2. Big operations have additional expenses to handle waste heat and inventory that easily account for any el. cost advantages.
If Hax0r B0b doesn't add his AC costs to his tally, doesn't' mean they're not much greater, per GH, than those of large mining farms. They are. Le me try in terms even you should understand. Bob runs is small miner in his basement/free room etc. he doesn't need a AC at all, nor does he need to rent a place to host them. 3. Thanks to headcount cost the hobbies don't have.
 Hobbyist don't need to hire people. The chips argument crumbles due to the fact that chips only suppliers will be forced to sell their chips cheaper and cheaper until any cost advantage is lost.
Thus far, chip manufacturers have successfully mined their chips, while selling to the "hobbyists" at quite a nice markup So nice, in fact, that the majority of ASICs purchased are proving to be unprofitable to the "hobbyists."  With all the buthurt aimed at BFL & Avalon, one could mistakenly assume that the "hobbyists" expected to make money from their "hobby."
Yes, they do. But who cares about them? If they would do simple economics they would come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make long time serious money in a marked that works like Bitcoin mining. As soon as the price rises to a level where it becomes more profitable new miners will join until it is barely providable again. That's how every marked with no entry barriers works. Bitcoin mining is a business with no entry barriers. No special skill, licences, ect. is required to become a miner. Like with every business tha falls into that are (run a copy shop, open a cafe, mown lawns) it will always be possible to do it privately. Of course there will be Organisations doing it. But they will never get such a advantage to completely suppress privae operators. Of course this also means profit will be pathetic. But nobody ever promised a free lunch with Bitcoin. If you don't put much stock into logical arguments, look around you -- GHash.io is a good example.
Seems like you have a strange definition of logic, looking at your posts. |
|
|
|
If miners mined to secure the network, completely disregarding profitability, you would be correct.
I think that many people are not interested in mining at a loss.
Perhaps i'm wrong.
So? The only way everyone could make BTC would be if infinite BTC would be crated each day. But then they would be worthless. If miners mine at a loss some shut down until it's profitable for the remaining ones again. Still has nothing to do with decentralization. Go back & reread a few posts, pl0x. The arc of this thread goes something like this (i know you won't take my "reread" advice because of my learningz): When small mining operations become unprofitable, large mining operations will account for the majority of the hashrate. This undermines the decentralized nature of bitcoin, Q.E.D. If my TL;DR is not detailed enough, i'm afraid rereading the thread is the best solution. And we already had this. If it becomes unprofitable the large ones will be forced to shut down due to their running expenses. While the small hobbits can continue. You arguments against this account for competitive advantages that one (big) operation can realize against another. Except the own chips argument, the arguments don't account for small operations 2. Big operations have additional expenses to handle waste heat and inventory that easily account for any el. cost advantages. 3. Thanks to headcount cost the hobbies don't have. The chips argument crumbles due to the fact that chips only suppliers will be forced to sell their chips cheaper and cheaper until any cost advantage is lost. |
|
|
|
If miners mined to secure the network, completely disregarding profitability, you would be correct.
I think that many people are not interested in mining at a loss.
Perhaps i'm wrong.
So? The only way everyone could make BTC would be if infinite BTC would be crated each day. But then they would be worthless. If miners mine at a loss some shut down until it's profitable for the remaining ones again. Still has nothing to do with decentralization. And who cares if miners make a profit? Like I already have written it is designed to always be barely profitable. In both directions. |
|
|
|
How much coin does that mine you? Less than ever before.
Thank you for proving my point /thread This has nothing to do with decentralization. The pie is fixed in size. If more people want a piece your piece has to become smaller. This also happens if Bitcoin becomes more decentralized as more independent miners are out there. Not sure if you're responding to my quote, which is stripped from its context -- it was a reply to heyek's claim that "mining is cheaper than ever." Mining is cheaper than ever if you denominate it in GH/s per BTC spent. If you, OTOH, wish to mine at a profit, the picture changes  Still this changes nothing for decentralization which is the OT. This is not about how profitable it is to mine. Off Topic: Mining can never be very profitable in the long term. It is a marked with virtually no entry barriers. Therefore as soon as it is more profitable to mine BTC than to buy them, new miners will appear and drive profitability down until it again makes more sens to buy them than to mine. The only reason this was untrue for a while was the transition to a new technology which crated artificial entry barriers due to the poor availability of the new technology. This becomes less true now day by day and the entry barriers disappear again, therefore mining becomes again barely profitable. Mining is not decentralized, when 3-4 people control >50% of network hash power.
ASIC miners in the hands of the masses mean nothing, when they abdicate their power by mining at a centralized pool rather than p2pool.
Also this! A real miner validates transactions by creating blocks and not only sells shares to a pool (a real miner). This is the true issue here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
