This site has 544,647 members. it can't possibly ensure that every one of them is not a scammer. I guess this advice is too late for you: Don't trust random anonymous strangers on the internet. They may try to steal from you.
|
|
|
it may be possible in the future(very far away future) if something new emerge from the scienze or universe, for example the dark matter is still unknown, you don't know its interaction with something else still collisions are far away from being impossible, so who know maybe it could happen one day
That's a silly thing to write. The odds of an address collision are less than the odds of two people selecting the same molecule of water. still so far away from being impossible, not even funny, it does not matter how hard or how unbelievable low are the odds, if it is not impossible it's possible It's silly because every probability is far away from being impossible, and because a collision is so unlikely that it is not worth even considering.
|
|
|
it may be possible in the future(very far away future) if something new emerge from the scienze or universe, for example the dark matter is still unknown, you don't know its interaction with something else
still collisions are far away from being impossible, so who know maybe it could happen one day
That's a silly thing to write. The odds of an address collision are less than the odds of two people selecting the same molecule of water.
|
|
|
-snip- All these points are based on probability. But I want to know how sure a repeated bitcoin address is prevented? I knew bitcoin address can be generated in offline too. I guess a time based and System ID or/and IP based coding must be there to prevent a repeated address.
What you say is: I know dice are random, but I want to know what prevents people from rolling a 6 a trillion times in a row, there must be some system in place to prevent that. You are exaggerating. 2 160 is approximately equal to 6 62, so the real probability is the same as rolling a 6 62 times in a row. But that is the probability of generating a particular address. The chances of generating any address that someone has a private for is more like 6 50, give or take a few orders of magnitude.
|
|
|
If you look in Bitcoin Core's menu, you will see the Backup feature. It is that easy.
|
|
|
Ooops a daisy, kind of kills the coin that doesn't it lol
That coin was dead on arrival and has been dying ever since.
|
|
|
I didn't want to bother logging in to comment, so I will do it here.
The author makes the same mistake that so many others make: the belief that the halving decreases the supply of bitcoins. Then he makes the mistake of comparing bitcoins to consumable commodities like oil and wheat.
First, the supply (as in money supply) of bitcoins is increasing. After the halving, the supply of bitcoins will continue to increase. The supply of bitcoins does not decrease.
Second, unlike oil and wheat, the supply of "new" bitcoins is not important because, unlike oil and wheat, bitcoins are not consumed. All bitcoins are available as supply, not just the new ones.
Here is what actually happens:
The increasing money supply of bitcoins creates a constantly increasing market supply of bitcoins. More precisely, the supply curve shifts to the right as the money supply increases. After the halving, the supply curve will continue to shift to the right, albeit at a slower rate. Shifting the supply curve to the right causes the equilibrium price to fall (assuming that the demand curve is constant).
In order to maintain a constant price in the face of increasing supply, the demand must rise (or more precisely, the demand curve must shift to the right) at the same rate as the supply curve. Otherwise, the price will rise if demand increases more quickly than supply, or the price will fall if demand increases more slowly than supply.
Next, we see the price go up and down despite the constant increase in supply. That means that the demand is constantly changing. We know that the demand does not rise at a constant rate, so it is naive to assume that a slower increase in supply will cause a rise (dramatic or not) in price because it assumes that the demand continues to rise at a constant rate.
Finally, it is really much more complicated than that. Not only do the supply and demand curves shift, but their slopes change due to things like propensity to save, the velocity of money, and other significant factors, including the price itself. The whole system is very complicated, chaotic, and difficult to predict. It is ridiculous to assume that the halving will cause a dramatic rise in price. It is much more reasonable to assume that the halving will put less downward pressure on the price.
|
|
|
Ok, we get it.
21 Inc. has big plans.
Big deal. Their big plans don't seem very well thought out to me. Consider the plan disclosed in the article: how does an embedded bitcoin node/miner in every toaster facilitate planet-wide cloud computing?
|
|
|
no offense but that is the dumbest conspiracy theory ive ever heard. Copernican Revolution goes back 500 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolutionunless you believe the earth DOESNT revolve around the sun, the sun has to be much much more massive than the earth based on the laws of gravity. That's just common sense. The Earth is flat, the Moon and Sun orbit above. EDIT: We're drifting way off topic here. I impressed by the number of people you have trolled here.
|
|
|
The camera would most likely need some kind of ASIC (Application Specific integrated-circuit) to process that many frames every second.
Ok, I recommend that you read the article to see how it is actually done. Nobody is processing a trillion frames per second. The camera is not even recording a trillion frames per second. It’s impossible to directly record light so the camera takes millions of scans to recreate each image.
|
|
|
You are simply in denial. Nobody is talking about breaking any of the laws of nature, the universe, or physics. The idea of a camera that could be made to photograph light waves was an impossibility a decade ago. Now we have it. Why can't we trick nature into breaking the Bitcoin code in a similar way? LOL. Think about it for a second. If cameras could not photograph light waves a decade ago, then what did they photograph? Also, the camera being discussed here does not work the way people think it works. Do you know why wagon wheels look like they are turning backwards in old movies? That is how this camera works. For some perspective, according to New York Times writer, John Markoff, “If a bullet were tracked in the same fashion moving through the same fluid, the resulting movie would last three years.” And they would have to fire a billion bullets.
|
|
|
The reason I think the idea is abhorrent is that somebody has to control the blacklist.
It is doable if you can get 51% of the miners on board. The miners simply refuse to accept transactions and blocks involving blacklisted addresses. Even mixers can't get around that.
Anyway, it is an old idea that will never happen, but if you are still interested, look up "bitcoin red list".
|
|
|
I am not arguing for competing rules. I am arguing for competing implementations of the rules.
In which case, divorce yourself from Gavin Andresen's claims; he is part of the XT/BIP101 contingent that is arguing for competing consensus rules. That's what he means when he says "Bitcoin Core Won’t Make the Consensus Rules in the Future"; he wants different sets of rules and also presumably the potential chaos and value collapse that could bring. I guess I was just arguing semantics, but I think you are missing the point. The point is that the rules should not (and eventually will not) be dictated by one person or group. Competition allows a super-majority to change the rules, whereas with the "one" implementation, only the group controlling Bitcoin Core can change the rules. Bitcoin XT is a major step in that direction. It has been a treacherous step, but babies fall down when they learn to walk.
|
|
|
seem unnecessary in my opinion Trezor already more than enough to save your bitcoin.
with trezor. you cant just press a button on the device while walking around town to send a TX. you cant even just plug it into any random persons computer and use it instantly, you need to download the browser extension and log in.. which is a security weakness. (imagine a virus that can detect a trezor/webextension and replace it with a malicious version to send funds to them blackhat instead of the address the user types in) i think phone app wallets are pretty much on par with a trezor.. no better, no worse. however we are still in the innovation stage and things will get better and more independent, away from third party services It is safe to use a Trezor on a compromised computer. The private keys are never revealed, and a transaction cannot be modified because it is signed by the Trezor and verified by you. A phone wallet is not as secure.
|
|
|
Andresen's point is that as long as Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules, the few people that control Bitcoin Core control Bitcoin, but their status won't last forever. The good news is that the oligarchy is already starting to crumble. There now are a few independent implementations of the consensus rules and their influence is growing. Bitcoin XT wasn't the first alternative, so I don't feel that Andresen and Hearn can claim that they started the movement away from Bitcoin Core's control of the consensus rules, but they certainly have publicized the issue.
Someone has to define the rules, and of course it won't be the same group of devs for ever (it's changed a few times since Satoshi already). But there can only be one set of rules to govern a concept called "consensus" (the hint's in the name...) You seem to be arguing for competing sets of consensus rules. May I suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the implications: very serious adverse consequences for the network. Disagreement between nodes on which chain is valid will cause unplanned blockchain forks, and competing consensus rule invites this explicitly. That will manifest in an experience for the user somewhere between inconsistency and serious confusion, and that will damage confidence (and the exchange rate). I am not arguing for competing rules. I am arguing for competing implementations of the rules. Multiple implementations is better than one because one implementation means centralized control. Nobody can unilaterally change the rules or break the network. Also, keep in mind that when there is a change to the "one" implementation, the result is two implementations (which was the source of the fork in 2013). I agree that a scenario with only two implementations is risky. Ideally, no implementation would have a majority so that if a change to one implementation is incompatible, only that implementation suffers. I think that four or more is sufficient.
|
|
|
Andresen's point is that as long as Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules, the few people that control Bitcoin Core control Bitcoin, but their status won't last forever.
The good news is that the oligarchy is already starting to crumble. There now are a few independent implementations of the consensus rules and their influence is growing.
Bitcoin XT wasn't the first alternative, so I don't feel that Andresen and Hearn can claim that they started the movement away from Bitcoin Core's control of the consensus rules, but they certainly have publicized the issue.
|
|
|
I'm curious about what the phrase "Bitcoin wealth inequality" means. I assume it mean that some people own a lot of bitcoins and a lot of people own none. Well, (assuming my description is correct) then I see no problem for these reasons: - Only a few people own Albanian leks, but nobody seems to care. Why is Bitcoin different?
- A person that wants to be in the top 10% of bitcoin owners, a "whale", can simply buy 1 bitcoin. That's right. You can be one of the Bitcoin elite for only $240.
How can 1 bitcoin put any of us in the top 10% of bitcoin owners? There's 15 Million bitcoins in "circulation"!? I don't think you're lying, i just want to see the numbers. I'm glad you questioned my numbers. It looks like I am out of date and new information shows that the distribution is not as skewed as previously thought. According to these estimates, as of April 2014, the distribution looked like this: #People | #Bitcoins | #TotalBitcoins | 70 | BTC10k+ | 3.6M | 930 | BTC1k-10k | 2.2M | 13k | BTC100-1k | 3.0M | 85k | BTC10-100 | 2.3M | 250k | BTC1-10 | 0.8M | 340k | BTC0.1-1 | 0.1M | 230k | BTC0.01-0.1 | 0.0M | 90k | BTC0.002-0.01 | 0.0M |
Total: 12.2M bitcoins (0.5M bitcoins assumed lost) So, you must have 10 BTC to be in the top 10% of bitcoin owners. That's still not as unreachable as people might imagine. Anyway, if you have any bitcoins, you have more bitcoins than 99.99% of the people in the world.
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand how these work. From what I understand so far the Trezor or KeepKey contain a "private key" that's used to sign a transaction.
I watched a couple of videos but most just show how the devices operate and don't give a high level view of what each actually does.
Can someone explain to me how this works in a few more words. Does the Trezor or KeepKey generate a wallet address for example. Also I understand if I lose either then I can restore if I know a set of words. But how does that actually work?
The word "wallet" means two things: - 1. A file that holds your private keys and/or related information. In the case of a hardware wallet, it also includes software that creates addresses and signs transactions using the stored private keys.
- 2. Software that connects to the Bitcoin network and creates and publishes transactions, and monitors the addresses in your wallet.
Most wallets are a combination of #1 and #2. They access the Bitcoin network and manage your private keys and the bitcoins that they hold. Hardware wallets, such as Trezor, Ledger, and KeepKey, are limited to #1, so they need software that does #2 in order for you to use them. Tezor and Ledger both have sites that you can use to spend the bitcoins in your hardware wallet. Hardware wallets generate their own addresses using the list of words that you write down. If you enter the same list of words into two different wallets, they will generate the same addresses. That way if you lose your wallet, you can enter the same list of words into a new one so that it will use the same addresses as the old one.
|
|
|
Hey OP i have the best investment for you.
Try buying altcoins at Yobit, you might make tons of money. Some altcoins give 999% returns /day, but its risky too, what do you think?
I don't think this is a pretty good suggestion for a newbie familiarizing himself/herself in bitcoins. Most altcoins are pump and dumps, yes, but still they do not offer guaranteed returns of investment and most of the time you are likely to suffer a loss from them. Trading is for the advanced users of bitcoins and shouldn't always be suggested to a newbie that's just starting his/her way on bitcoins. Yes its risky, i told that, but it could be worth it. I mean those altcoins make 999% returns, if you invest small amounts it should not be that bad. I hope i will make tons of money that way atleast. Altcoins also make -100% returns.
|
|
|
|