And in order to restore using the wallet.dat file? I assume you simply replace any wallet.dat(fresh install) with my backup wallet.dat and then I can use the rescan feature to retrieve any transactions that were done previously?
Yep, if it's a new installation you might not even need to use -rescan. |
|
|
|
Awesome!
Also, which files can I save to have a "compact" version? I copied all appdata & bit coin folder to my encrypted drive, but I would rather a smaller version I could upload online. Not my main one, but a back up in case I end up losing everything. I probably wouldn't ever update this one unless I needed to replace my main encrypted key that has the block files.
Thanks again.
If you're only doing it as a backup, you only need to back up one file: wallet.dat However you should probably encrypt it with something like True Crypt first before uploading online. |
|
|
|
- Saving separate from Loan/investment : Any savings/investment are in a separate reserve which is protected and paid back in case of collapse (no risk to savers)
What would be the point of paying interest on people's savings, if you can't use their deposits to earn interest yourself (via lending)? |
|
|
|
Ouch, it really hurts when you realize you sold Bitcoins that would be worth more 70 000USD now for 20 USD a year ago.  Anyone else here who know how it feels? Or anyone here happy to have done so? If you had 10,000 BTC now, would you actually sell them for 70,000 USD? Or would you wait another year and sell them for $1m? |
|
|
|
So, to be absolutely clear, if you borrow $100 for 7 days, you will repay me $100*1.05 = $105. If you borrow $100 for 45 days, you will repay me $100*1.05^2 = $110.25
This isn't clear at all... how much is 8 days? |
|
|
|
i understood that part of the argument... but my point was, hiding your true operating power in multiple pools so it doesnt look like a single entity is coming ahead... is a danger.
It is already conceivable that slush and tycho are the same person. |
|
|
|
the biggest loss is going to come through death... people's wallets will vanish most often when the person dies and some idiot doesnt manage their computer....
or some one leaves bitcoins in a 'bank', and if they just float there, waiting for a dead owner to never retrieve them? :p though thats less serious, as most banks would have an activity clause.
No amount of computer management or 'activity clause' will do much good if the dead person is the only one that knew the password to an encrypted file container. |
|
|
|
why didn't the designers pick some truly huge limit like 16 instead? That would have tided us over for some hundreds of thousands of years I'm guessing.
I'm reminded of a time when everyone though that IPv4 was more than enough...
 I just got reminded of that too! Specifically when you wrote that 16 digits should 'tide us over' for thousands of years |
|
|
|
the bitcoin software doesn't allow you to transact in less than 0.00000001 units.
...yet. Why do you doubt theymos when he says precision can keep being increased? |
|
|
|
@doood
You can't divide a bitcoin into more than 100 milliion units. Just imagine the whole world sharing just 100 million cents. There won't be enough for everyone to possess even 1 unit!
Contrary to what is being said, you can't run the world economy on just one bitcoin since bitcoins are not infinitely divisible. If they were, then there would be no problem.
But they're not.
Why not? Is your computer incapable of storing a 48 digit number? Even my old rusty PC from 5 years ago can do that. The 'global economy' isn't infinite, so bitcoin's divisibility doesn't need to be either. |
|
|
|
In a period of 10 years or so, this is going to add up leaving us with very few bitcoins - ever.
Forum member 'asdf' said it best I think... if we lose a massive 50% of the coins EVERY year, will we ever have 0? Even if 140 years later there's only one Satoshi in circulation (0.00000001 BTC), then we'll just divide that up among everyone no problem and continue to transact with each other in some smaller units. 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 for two pizzas anyone? |
|
|
|
|
It had such a rapid ascent but can't seem to make it to #1.
|
|
|
|
Just curious: does anyone still have the bitcoin address so I can have a look and see if he spent his bitcoins?
Just search the block chain for 13.37, 3.14, 1.41, etc. Anyway elewton above already said he did: "But it payed out to 150 to and address and 50 to another, then misc." |
|
|
|
|
Really old thread, but I couldn't find this discussed elsewhere...
What I am finding is that simply having 'accounts' isn't actually detailed enough and I'd love to be able to have subaccounts and subsubaccounts, etc.
Example:
[Australia]
[Australian Web Site #1]
[Bruce]
[Kylie]
[Australian Web Site #2]
[Jack]
[Nicole]
[New Zealand]
[Kiwi Site #1]
[Kiwi Site #2]
Reason being that I'd like to know Bruce's balance for example, but the best I can do is find out the total balance of 'Australia'.
Currently to get Bruce's balance, I have to check his address with getreceivedbyaddress, and then keep track of any outgoing funds from this customer using other means such as SQL.
|
|
|
|
it's easy to do this if you can parse wallet.dat yourself. but without doing that, there ought to be a relatively straightforward way to do what you want:
keeping the 'large' wallet off of the public internet, connect a new, private, uncompromised node to it alone and make an ip-address (public key) payment of the smaller amount you want to spend. then disconnect the 'large' wallet's node, connect the recipient's node to the public internet, confirm the receipt, and spend the coins from there.
obviously you can't spend coins without attaching something to the network at some point, but the goal is to segregate your large holdings from the public internet.
if this method is too complicated, you could of course generate arbitrarily many private wallet.dat files and store small amounts in each of them, then move them over one by one. it wouldn't be hard to write better software tools to avoid the need for these steps, though.
Well, since it'd be a (long term) savings account, I wouldn't need to actually worry about it for a while, so hopefully when the time came to spend it (maybe 2 or 3 years), there'd be a lot more sophisticated wallet-parsing tools around. So I could split off a few BTC at a time and transfer to a net-connected PC via flash drive. |
|
|
|
3) If you were extremely wealthy, would you prefer storing your bitcoins in a single address or spread it out evenly over 100 addresses, making it 100 times more likely for a collision to happen but only being able to lose 1% of your wealth at a time?
even if that happened you would not lose any coins, as I understand it. You absolutely could lose coins if a collision occurred. The new 'owner' of the relevant keys could spend your money. So to John's question, it would simply be a matter of individual preference. Both setups would have the same chance of money being taken via collision, but one is 'all or nothing' while the other is more gradual. @Vladimir, it's possible to have a savings wallet that has NEVER been online, but how do you securely SPEND from such a wallet? |
|
|
|
I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents.
Putting a child in a cage long enough to result in the child eating it's own skin in an attempt to survive is enough criminal negligence to require complete removal from society, imo. At this point the parents have clearly expressed their ability to initiate force against others and should have no expectation of gentle treatment at the hands of others. I agree, I wouldn't handle them gently if they came anywhere near me or my family. But I wouldn't go out of my way to have them whacked either. |
|
|
|
what if another neighbor considers you a threat because they don't see it the same way as yourself.
Then I have a big problem obviously. In reality though I would never have acted in the first place if I wasn't sure I'd have the support of the rest. If the rest instead supported the caging of children then it means I'm in hostile territory and should get the hell outta there. I'm not in support of caging children, or murdering the parents. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
