In my opinion, Elliot Wave is nothing more than numerology for traders. |
|
|
|
If I understand it correctly, the problem arises when someone decides to spend some UTOs on one of the chains. An attacker may intercept and use the same transaction signature to spend the equivalent UTOs on the other chain.
A solution that comes to mind could be to spend the UTOs on both chains at (nearly) the same time with high enough fees to ensure that both transactions are mined as soon as possible.
The problem of replay is not necessarily due to an attack. Without some sort of replay protection, if a node is connected to nodes on both sides of the fork, then any transaction it relays will be executed on both chains. Your proposed solution will not work. |
|
|
|
|
The block header contains a time value that will overflow in 2106. It is possible that somebody's mining software might set the value incorrectly as of 2038, but I'm sure they would fix that bug very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
It can be as simple as posting an address on the website, but the problem is that you won't know who paid you. Integrating a processor such as BitPay or Coinbase is pretty easy too, so I would recommend doing that.
|
|
|
|
I understand that logic. But it doesn't change my mind when I bought at 45 and sold at 82 It seems I should have almost doubled instead of dropping by 50%. I will try it as you say.
My previous post was wrong, but I guess I don't understand the numbers you are giving. It looks to me like you bought STA when the price was 0.000083 BTC (0.0113 / 136.8 ) and sold STA when the price was 0.000040 BTC (0.0054 / 136.8 ). |
|
|
|
|
The article assumes that the primary use of a cryptocurrency is trading for other cryptocurrencies. If that is true, then cryptocurrencies are doomed because they are useless, and it really doesn't matter who is on top. If it is not true, then the article is simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
I found several problems with the article.
It perpetuates the flawed reasoning behind the belief that price is determined by hash rate.
It suggests that Bitcoin will die because all mining will stop as profits approach 0 due to competition.
It suggests that Bitcoin will die when the subsidy goes to 0 because all mining will stop as high fees preclude all transactions, which results in no fees.
It perpetuates the myth of mining pool concentration, apparently not understanding that mining pools are made up of of thousands of participants who choose which pool to join.
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get a base-58 address with 35 characters starting with "Mo", you must encode a value between 0bb52c7e52dc7d16d2a362767fe633fe3751b8d2e73c00000000 and 0bb7a8b59e7fb242c83304156096cabfce80b3ab9875ffffffff (hex). Note that these are 26 bytes long and don't fit the standard version byte + 20 bytes + 4-byte checksum format. The simplest fix would probably be to extend the version byte to two bytes with a value of 0bb6 (hex).
Likewise, "Ro" would require a value between 0df5be9adec4aced5ccdda721feed36f39e50d3383cc00000000 and 0df83ad22a67e219525d7c11009f6a30d114080c3505ffffffff (hex), or a 2-byte version with value of 0df6 or 0df7 (hex).
Note:
I computed the "Mo" range as (20x58+46) x 5833 to (20x58+46+1) x 5833 - 1
and the "Ro" range as (24x58+46) x 5833 to (24x58+46+1) x 5833 - 1
Also note: My original numbers were wrong due to a miscalculation.
|
|
|
|
|
A rank is not a measure of the time you have spent or the dues you have paid. A rank is a measure of how much you have contributed. It hasn't always been that, but I believe that it has always been intended to be that.
|
|
|
|
hello, i want to send my wallet.dat to my friend, but i want he only can access my wallet to get information (cant send out my coins), anyways to security my wallet before send it to my friend ?
Perhaps you could explain why you want to send your wallet.dat to someone. It is probably a bad idea, and there is probably a better way. |
|
|
|
|
More than 200 replies and only a few people have questioned the validity of the chart. That is very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
I cut down the number of posts to read by ignoring anyone who is a member of a signature campaign, which is about 80%-90% of the posts. I also don't give merit to Legendary (what would be the point?) Unfortunately, it is still hard to find posts that deserve merit, but I have given some.
|
|
|
|
Be very careful about downloading this unknown software. It is probably malware.
It's safe and I have tested it. Unfortunately, you have no credibility here. You, iceylm, and peterstrong007 are all newbies and every post the three of you have made on this board so far have only been to promote this download. It smells like scam to me. |
|
|
|
|
Be very careful about downloading this unknown software. It is probably malware.
|
|
|
|
Only the chip creates and controls the private key, it's impossible to export or import the key. The firmware is audited and the chip is highly certified. So the blockchain address is accessible, but the private key is not? If so, there's a flaw in your model, and you've misunderstood how cryptographic keypairs work. There's no way for anyone holding a Tangem Bitcoin note to prove that they own the money at the respective Bitcoin address on each note. How can you prove that the money at these addresses is money sent to the address by Tangem, and not just any random bitcoin blockchain address with 0.01 BTC contained? How can people be sure Tangem didn't use the same address twice, three, four or a hundred times on different notes? Are you going to release videos of Tangem workers sending each transaction to every Tangem note ever made? Will that be enough for people to trust the funds are really unspendable by Tangem, or that you aren't re-using addresses over multiple notes? I have found no information on how they are supposed to work. My guess is that the chip will cryptographically verify its authenticity and it represents some amount of BTC held by Tangem. That would not be very appealing to me but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If I understand this correctly, the chip within the card can be read by a mobile phone and the mobile phone is connected to their APP which links to the Blockchain. So you are not accessing the companies own ledger, with some tokens linked to the card. You have access to the coins that are linked to the Blockchain. You need a phone with NFC enabled to access the information on the card. The site recently added more information, including this: The value can be extracted at any time by signing a transaction from the Tangem Note to an arbitrary Bitcoin wallet. This requires a compatible NFC–enabled Android phone and is protected by a 60–to–120–second security delay. Faraday wallets recommended for additional security.
Private keys cannot be imported or exported from Tangem Notes under any circumstance. No backup possible — by design. Each Tangem Note creates its own private keys and can never disclose them. The value is completely tied to the physical chip. Loss, theft, or destruction of a Tangem Note will result in loss of funds.
It looks like the chip will sign transactions, so it is like a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
Only the chip creates and controls the private key, it's impossible to export or import the key. The firmware is audited and the chip is highly certified. So the blockchain address is accessible, but the private key is not? If so, there's a flaw in your model, and you've misunderstood how cryptographic keypairs work. There's no way for anyone holding a Tangem Bitcoin note to prove that they own the money at the respective Bitcoin address on each note. How can you prove that the money at these addresses is money sent to the address by Tangem, and not just any random bitcoin blockchain address with 0.01 BTC contained? How can people be sure Tangem didn't use the same address twice, three, four or a hundred times on different notes? Are you going to release videos of Tangem workers sending each transaction to every Tangem note ever made? Will that be enough for people to trust the funds are really unspendable by Tangem, or that you aren't re-using addresses over multiple notes? I have found no information on how they are supposed to work. My guess is that the chip will cryptographically verify its authenticity and it represents some amount of BTC held by Tangem. That would not be very appealing to me but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. |
|
|
|
|
I think that all of the people here who are disparaging Warren Buffet are being arrogant and naive. He has made more money than any of us will ever make. We must strive to be more like him if we want to achieve anything close to his success.
|
|
|
|
But Bitcoin is not a stock nor a commodity. It may be illegal at regular exchanges like CBOE or Nasdaq, but how is that illegal at Bitcoin ones? We don't even know what these exchanges are doing themselves, and whether they are not doing things like front-running the orders of their clients or similar stuff. Bitfinex is rumored to be printing virtual dollars out of thin air just like that. I don't know how legal that could possibly be. Though I agree that P&D groups are mostly scams, but I still don't get what's wrong with a tightly-knit group of people to exert influence on prices by massive buys or sells.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement. I agree that P&D in this case is not necessarily illegal because cryptocurrencies are not regulated securities (at least in the U.S.). However, I am not talking about a tightly-knit group of people. The intended victims of a P&D group are the members themselves. |
|
|
|
I download a wallet and let it generate the private keys for me.
Why do you believe so much in the download. is not that your personal data, why are you so sure? It is true that if you let the wallet generate the private key, you must trust the wallet developer (unless you have the source code), but consider this: Even if you generate a private key offline using an extremely secure method, at some point you must still give that private key to a wallet in order to spend the bitcoins that it holds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
