Whether you like the idea or not, bitcoins are benefiting from people who want to use them to buy drugs.
And from publicity provided by those who would want to stop people from buying drugs. |
|
|
|
Good luck with that.
WU is actually foolproof, just send the BTC once his money clears at the office and the money is in your hands. PayPal on the other hand... Total shit due to chargebacks. WU is not foolproof. |
|
|
|
If you mean non-listening nodes, they don't matter because to take the network offline all you need to do is take out the listening nodes.
No, I don't mean non-listening nodes, but those would qualify also because they are intermittently listening. The network is a very fault tolerant, self-healing system. |
|
|
|
Short answer: your balance goes down, you get poorer and everyone else (that holds bitcoins) gets richer
The client tries to protect you against putting in an invalid address (there is a checksum in the address that will protect against simple copy/paste errors). But if you send money to some address for which no one holds the keys to spend, the bitcoins go to bitcoin heaven. The supply of bitcoins shrinks, and hence, assuming constant demand, all other bitcoins in existence increase slightly in value.
this is interesting. so if i understand you correctly, one could set up a script to install new bitcoin clients - thousands upon thousands of them, one after the other - have a downloaded blockchain ready for them, and -rescan... eventually you would create a client with an address that someone had mistakenly sent some bitcoin to? Yes, and your average time to success would be, on average, something only a couple millenia after the Sun engulfs the burnt crust of the Earth as a red giant. But, yes. It's technically possible. is there a limit coded into the client on the -keypool (key pool size) function, creighto? No, but that's not really going to save you a great deal either. |
|
|
|
Determining which chain got widely accepted first seems like a good solution to determine which one is the legit one.
Keep up the research. There is a mechanism that the protocol uses to determine for itself which chain was first. also, those checkpoints are hard coded so far. It's not unreasonable for one or more clients to have an automatic checkpointing method, wherein they will refuse to accept a new chain beyond a certain point; thus forcing a chain split until human users resolve the issue. |
|
|
|
Short answer: your balance goes down, you get poorer and everyone else (that holds bitcoins) gets richer
The client tries to protect you against putting in an invalid address (there is a checksum in the address that will protect against simple copy/paste errors). But if you send money to some address for which no one holds the keys to spend, the bitcoins go to bitcoin heaven. The supply of bitcoins shrinks, and hence, assuming constant demand, all other bitcoins in existence increase slightly in value.
this is interesting. so if i understand you correctly, one could set up a script to install new bitcoin clients - thousands upon thousands of them, one after the other - have a downloaded blockchain ready for them, and -rescan... eventually you would create a client with an address that someone had mistakenly sent some bitcoin to? Yes, and your average time to success would be, on average, something only a couple millenia after the Sun engulfs the burnt crust of the Earth as a red giant. But, yes. It's technically possible. |
|
|
|
i'm not sure i understand how that could happen.
addresses are all cut & paste - how do you screw that up?
and if you send to an address that doesn't exist (by typing it in? holy god!), yet satisfies the address format, would the blockchain even accept it? i don't know - just asking.
If you type in a valid address, there is no way for the blockchain or other nodes to know that it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Nobody smart would attempt to DoS Bitcoin by outrunning the chain. That's not a threat worth worrying about. You can knock nodes offline without any expensive computation and because all nodes are discoverable that means you can take the network temporarily offline, until people upgrade to a new software version that is more DoS resistant.
Not all nodes are discoverable. |
|
|
|
People who yell "Ponzi scheme!" clearly have no understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. Clearly. This is a "bitcoin scheme!" Just because the variables are tweaked doesn't mean the end game isn't the same. Clearly, indeed. You and your bearish compatriots should tell this to the many other forums, warning others from bidding up; uh, I mean from buying bitcoins. I guess I'll just have to take that risk, myself! Oh, the burden of being an advocate! |
|
|
|
I think that instead of coming up with names for 0.001 and 0.000001 bitcoins we should seriously consider changing the value of 1 bitcoin. I propose that what now is 0.000001 bitcoins becomes the new bitcoin. If we want bitcoin to be widely used we have start thinking about how to make things simple for Average Joe. So, a couple of reasons why this would be better: - Bitcoin sounds like a small amount.
- While milli- and micro- is very simple to understand for a scientific community, "a thousand" and "a million" is understood more intuitively by Average Joe. So instead of having "a microbitcoin", "a millibitcoin" and "a bitcoin" in everyday use it would be better to have "a bitcoin", "a thousand bitcoins" and "a million bitcoins".
- No currency that I have used have smaller amounts than 0.01 main units. Using the new definition of a bitcoin the smallest possible amount would be just that, 0.01 bitcoins.
I don't think that it's too late to make a change like this. I would have to agree, but if we are going to move the decimal point, we need to do it sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Can you show me how difficulty affects price?
Here is the correlation between difficulty and price. They have been VERY closely correlated historically. People who say they are not related are misinformed That's not what he asked you to show. He asked you to show how difficulty affects price. We have long known of the corrolary between price and difficulty, but difficulty changes lag price. It's impossible for the effect to come first, so logically, price affects difficulty. It's also sensible, since as the price rises, mining becomes relatively more profitable and more people compete. |
|
|
|
|
Collecting currency notes is one of my many OCD habits.
|
|
|
|
Difficulty limits supply
False. I understand what you are saying. The overall supply is the same. But supply of 50 bitcoins going to 10 miners is very different from 50 bitcoins going to 1000 miners. If difficulty goes down it means there are fewer miners, as such supply of bitcoins going to each miner goes up. The supply per miner is directly affected by difficulty, and it's really more important than global supply in this case. If difficulty drops, more miners jump back into the game. Difficulty goes back up, marginal miners drop back out. It's a s self balancing market. |
|
|
|
Price is 20 bitcents per bill. Free shipping. Have a few quadrillion. offer up
Interested. |
|
|
|
thank you for your transcription, TraderTimm.
this is actually the best researched and most informed article i've read, from a main-stream economic publication.
I think that is a sad statement. |
|
|
|
Nobody knows exactly what those calculations are for, but the consensus seems to be they're progressing
the encryption mechanism for the currency.
Some of us know what the calculations are, and what they are for. All you had to do is ask. That number will grow at a slowing pace over the coming years until around 2040, when it's
expected a final limit of 21m units of currency will be reached.
Where does this BS number keep coming from? No, the 21 M limit is something that can never be achieved, only approached. If we are still using a 64 bit integer to store the bitcoin values in 2130, then the block reward will drop to zero around that time. Blocks will continue to be created forever. some Bitcoin traders tell me
they generate a new string for each transaction, making it impossible to track them down.
1) it's not impossible and 2) the bitcoin client provides a new address for each transaction by default. The user has to willfully reuse addresses, otherwise. |
|
|
|
I heard about this on irc last night.
I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, felt a little worried, and then I checked Mt.Gox
There was a big drop and then a swift recovery at this news, and we've been fairly steady since. What this means is, that the market (the wisest among us) was spooked for a short time, and then after a little analysis dissmissed it. It's as free a market as there is, and it has spoken.
Check the timing a little more carefully. I'm pretty sure the sell-off had already started before the Schumer story, and was mostly finished by the time the story broke. It actually started recovering around the time the story went to press. cbw... Basicly, the overall market doesn't seem to care. |
|
|
|
What is the status now? Has anyone thought of embedding bitcoinj ( http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/ ) in a full Android Bitcoin client? Of course generation does not seem to make much sense on devices with limited computing power. The problem is that the standard way the Bitcoin does things overwhelms Android. Not enough memory or data storage, too much storage access. |
|
|
|
Schumer co-authored the AWB. Do yours. The what? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
