One question: In the long term, how do you manage transaction inclusion rules?
Technically, miners only take the pool's address and build up the block header on their own, so they can include any transaction they want.
Unlike now where pools can use any rules they want and their miners wouldn't easily know, this would REQUIRE the pool to publish their rules. The pool can then simply reject any shares that don't follow their rules. A VERY nice side-effect of this publishing requirement is that bitcoin clients can directly fetch these rules from large mining pools and use the information to more accurately predict what fees are needed to get a certain transaction in a block within a certain timeframe if a majority of the network's hashing power is coming from these pools. Two birds, one stone. |
|
|
|
|
Just so you know, there is a graph on every YouTube video that displays that information.
|
|
|
|
Why not, as a fallback, we have a central secure site that stores a public key for a domain/email, and then the user just signs the file with their private key and uploads it to their own unsecure site? Of course, to get on this central secure site, you'd need to verify that you control the location when the file would be on your server (Or maybe just the email address for emails?). |
|
|
|
|
I hope I wasn't too slow...
|
|
|
|
Here I race home in a panic to warn you as the flaw dawns on me and someone beats me too it!  \ Wow, now I feel bad... This flaw was so glaringly obvious that I just assumed that it was taking advantage of the fact that it's hard to send a small amount of bitcoins without fees from a personal wallet. |
|
|
|
So, I just became aware that apparently Paypal sucks for these sort of transactions, but I'm willing to pay extra to anyone willing to take the risk. I'm still a newbie and that must be a big red flag, but honestly the last thing I want to do is ruin my chances for building a good reputation. If you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, please send me a PM. (As for why I'm looking for 0.63, it's honestly all I can afford at the moment, and my OCD is nagging me to make my balance a nice round number.  ) I'll be willing to do it provided that you have a verified PayPal account and you send as personal payment owed. You pay any fees if you use a credit card. My OTC rating: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=Maged&sign=ANY&type=RECVEDIT: I second that below success. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Very much like the other day, I'm once again selling an Amazon giftcode! ^^ This time though, the ante is a little higher... $7, so a little more expensive. I'm asking 1.80BTC for the code this time. If interested, just post here and we'll take it from there in PMs. (:
And just as before, here's proof of:
I'll be willing to take it. My OTC rating: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=Maged&sign=ANY&type=RECV-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNyDaDAAoJEFmmB2syczYgyEUP/j/8FUb0LOJDM9j6q2CKs75e x0DLQ5xA6C1/1mnPBOpx8yepMsl879jO4xf+Z0FFEADfLWNH00JfmW0i5G2vYBgQ BWLeSRewST0se8YdSgAH0sxT8DM8YRxKv8rAXMUGPj46YUYn1ip3FkUpx+QBxpeb 2/DvEMyGCeGJNle3IDM+Fx/ayeEl4PHSKf4NIaDY7AkM4s6BAQZna98Ua+bxJvC6 Sd0g9gY0Nt5auBWmxFMeJGR5qQUXKhMUzenk+T3UIevnMIEg8eCyWq9q8+9mXHka vf/hJCLelW2TTLKVpLeH3t9gLj9Bz8ek5dhjkTBxbmgrX0ycF0Z3IgT80iNAIAkH Jk625DobGFwxgsVs9ouhg2gdw4JGiZvGSjLLg39vFHV5Swj5dkq0HnLYvV7zw655 LQLKrBUruCeUT6l6chlfQsF6dIBAlga9UUFtXRr2bC/6BmKWfvgEiA/byXvf4BEd AN4wMlRn5pAZqgal6KtUrHbuQwoDzOFIINbJWDqtYKniEGMkV8hb3k4OIbeZUVog IbTd/LsRd/PqmTHi26wNTQc4tseBVw7GRe6ch0EetOhF1O7Ju3LZRtyFbidDXqlN cLUTCdMLOmMX+BmD77fnJBRnF6X6AI27VWPsbzxyIpwhu6M6F4nKWx5jqsFIvOlK qK7gkF79QNe2/y8+XZZH =rkho -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
|
Why don't we just take a leaf from all the Web 2.0 (3.0?) sites out there, and instead of not linking anonymous sites, hide them behind another link. That way, it is clear that we still support anonymity for merchants, but it is discouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see the issue. With Google's code, they aren't given any context as to what you use LR for, just that you visited. However, I'm suprised that LR would want this information logged at all (through Google or otherwise), given that it opens legal liabilities.
As for the Amazon script, it is of no concern. If Amazon were to tamper with that script, they would literally lose almost every AWS customer they have, many of which are large companies. This would amount to millions of dollars lost. This is BEFORE you take into account the damage to their brand.
|
|
|
|
I don't find the source (I read about it somewhere here in the forum) but I think it works like this:
The attacker has to mine for a valid block for this. When he found one, he must not yet submit it to the network. He sends you the coins and plays on your site. When he won, he's fine, no need to perform the attack (wouldn't be possible as you delay the payouts). When he lost, he's using the block he already found and adds a transaction to it to send the coins you currently 'have' with 0 confirmations to another address (one controlled by the attacker). He then submits the block to the net. Your coins are gone.
This of course requires that nobody else finds a block while the attack is performed, but there's a very good propability for this to not happen (I assume playing a bet on your site doesn't require much time, maybe not even a minute).
That would be the Finney attack. And yes, it's a valid concern. |
|
|
|
I think the client doesn't say who it's from because too many people would think they can send money back all the time. There are other reasons, too. For one, there could be several "From" addresses. In fact, there are several examples of this in the lotto account. Which address will you send the money to? (Currently, it doesn't really matter, but it's a valid question) The other reason the "From" address isn't displayed is because they might actually be temporary addresses that were used for change in a previous transaction. Although these addresses are currently not treated any differently than normal addresses in the client, it's possible that future clients will purge these addresses once they've been emptied. If too many people became dependent on the "From" addresses, this will become impossible to implement. That being said, there is no immediate concern in using the "From" address. |
|
|
|
THEN, my hard drive failed and I lost access to my Skype ID and lost these new Skype contacts. Hard drives rarely fail completely and without warning. Have you tried any methods of recovering the data off of there? |
|
|
|
|
Your safety is completely relevant to the community. Are there contingencies in place should you be imprisoned/killed?
|
|
|
|
Well, as a temporary way to catch up, you can download the most recent nightly copy of the block-chain here: http://bitcoin.bluematt.me/bitcoin-nightly/blockchain-nightly/However, this will not check the validity of the blocks, so you'll have to trust that these are valid. Also, you'll then want to restart you client with the -rescan flag so that it finds the transaction (assuming the nightly mirror you download is more recent than the transaction). |
|
|
|
|
There hasn't been a block in over an hour, so that's what is holding this up.
|
|
|
|
|
Umm... Have you tried Google Voice? It meets every single one of those requirements, as far as I can tell. Unless you need an 800 number?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
