|
I like an idea where EVERYONE mines to ensure EVERYONE has secure transactions. the fees should be low, only high enough to stop large amounts of spam and to cover the costs of electricity and in the long term ~3-6 months, pay off a rig.
|
|
|
|
|
But there is an issue, and from what you describe, clients can not connect, and upnp is not exactly an exact thing either.
|
|
|
|
|
do you know how to properly forward ports? you could try manually forwarding port 8333. if you need more instructions on how to do this post or look it up on portforward.com.
|
|
|
|
|
did you test the port while the peer was connected?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have multiple computers running on the same public ip with bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
something is blocking connections, software firewall?
|
|
|
|
http://canyouseeme.org/ check for port 8333. if you get the green light then id just reformat, but if you don't, try port forwarding or temporarily hooking your modem into your computer to see if it starts updating.
|
|
|
|
|
What I want to do is after I am done, just double click on an icon on the desktop to open bitcoin and it connect remotely to another bitcoin installation.
But is it possible to use the original bitcoin gui client for this? or am i stuck using the CLI for this.
|
|
|
|
Does this patch give any sort of warning if bitcoin isn't being used through a proxy?
I worry that a user will be REALLY careful keeping all their addresses separated so their ordinary transactions are separate from their fund-the-oppositition transactions, and then will get busted by the Secret Police who were eavesdropping on their bitcoin IP traffic at their ISP.
I see what you're saying although I don't think that's really a fair criticism of the patch. Obtaining any really high level of anonymity is a very complex endeavor that no patch alone will get you. This patch and a tor patch and an integrated laundering patch would just about cover it. It may even be worthwhile to make a network almost exactly like tor, except only for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
To the people that buy stuff with their BC, do you prefer to talk directly to the seller via chat software or do you prefer just dumping your coins in a wallet with no contact?
To the sellers, do you prefer talking to your customers personally? or just take the BC and send the product?
|
|
|
|
|
i would be willing to try it if someone can confirm that it is safe.
|
|
|
|
would i die if i made that
Only if you were hanging around when it was running. The polywell, and it's derivatives, are not that hard to make, really; and have been used as a neutron source for medical experiments for decades. The hard part is getting the deutritium, and getting over-parity out of one. Neither goal is trivial. yeah, i knew the second they mentioned D, id probably never make one  |
|
|
|
|
the more garbled the sound gets, the longer it will take to reliably send. on dialup you only get 56k on a good day, and your hooked directly up to the line. but its not much text so it may only take like 1-2 seconds to get. but i dont see why it would not work, thats pretty much just like dial up, changing data into sound, then changing the sound into data on the other end. that's how this and dial up work.
|
|
|
|
|
The solution is simple, integrate gpu mining directly into the client, that would easily jack up hash rate if millions of people were using the client. you could also integrate pooling in too. make a new protocol where you select the pool you want in a drop-down box. then you send your BC address to the pool, and the pool automatically sends your coins or when you press send in the client. you could also put in the address of a pool you wanted as long as it is compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
like dialup? that would work, it transfers data like any other type, just really slow, slower than 56k so like 10-30 seconds per block or more even.
|
|
|
|
|
you mean hold your device close to a terminal and it plays a sound it picks up? i could see that working.
|
|
|
|
Don't fuck with the URL format - there's one already established, it should be used (but moreso, it should be damn-well implemented in the client so people stop getting the idea to fuck with it).
What does putting it in a <link> element do that putting it in an anchor won't? Is it for a browser plugin's benefit or what?
mine or his? steam does what i said, thats were i got the idea from, also magnet links work the same way. |
|
|
|
|
it would be better and easier to do this instead
bitcoin://public key
bitcoin://send/amount/public key
bitcoin://about
then the browser would pass that off to the default program. then you only need to mess with bitcoin instead of html.
|
|
|
|
|
would i die if i made that
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
