Hmm... I'm pretty sure my network code puts a checksum on those messages.
mine too and they are working. putting checksums on anything, but version and verack |
|
|
|
I suppose this argument would be equivalent to saying in BitTorrent, that there is "no incentive" for people to seed files, therefore, eventually nobody will seed files and that BitTorrent will soon fail.
I am not sure that that'll be a problem in practice. For normal transactions, maybe not. But if I ran a miner, and got a transaction with a fee of 50 bitcoins, I would surely keep it to myself. Which is a bit counterproductive, given that such a high fee is intended to get fast verification... problem: you can't keep it to yourself. why: its broadcasted. also the bitcoin network its in its baby state right now. in the future, we might see that we are connecting directly to miner pools, are send them the transactions. or sending txs to hubs, that are connected to alot of miners. remember that bitcoin has just begun. |
|
|
|
I suppose this argument would be equivalent to saying in BitTorrent, that there is "no incentive" for people to seed files This is exactly what my wife is doing. She stops seeding to save bandwidth and to increase download speed. therefore, eventually nobody will seed files and that BitTorrent will soon fail. The incentive for bittorrent is getting copyrighted stuff for free. This why it won't fail. However, this is not the case with bicoin network! somebody still need to seed. and not just leech. the seed are getting nothing from it. |
|
|
|
Any recent word on this project?
dead. |
|
|
|
WHY!!!!!!!?  solidcoins are begining to looking more like a game then a currency. for shit sake! its not a scam anymore. its a way to entertain very very stupid people. I DON'T LIKE IT. |
|
|
|
|
vanilla client, can't do it(well sometimes...).
modify and compile your own.
|
|
|
|
|
to ensure your safety, you would have to wait a hour anyway.
it does not matter if you wait 6*10min or 30*2min.
its the same security, the blockchain is only proof of time.
|
|
|
|
My inner parent wants to send both Atlas and Matthew to their rooms and cut off their internet access until retirement age.
+1 |
|
|
|
Afik DNS Servers normally have TCP support (Bind does) and I think this is even in the RFC - for clients or network that cannot support UDP to use TCP instead.
you are right: All general-purpose DNS implementations MUST support both UDP and TCP transport. |
|
|
|
then delete the wallet file after putting back back keys from memory. for unencrypted keys on freespace on disks: sudo dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. I seem to remember seeing some software at one point that securely overwrites all empty space in a filesystem. That was for Windows and I no longer even remember the name of the program. Something like that would be ideal to suggest to people who wish to secure their hard drives. Would anyone happen to know the names of programs that can do this? well you could: dd if=/dev/random of=/junkfile
sync
rm /junkfile
it will consume all free space on your root fs. |
|
|
|
What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.
That might be a little more complex than it sounds. For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure. Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.
But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.
I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something. Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.
dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns. or you could just proxy the whole shit. Sorry if I misunderstood, but we both understand that UDP doesn't work over Tor, right? I am not sure that having a full-blown namecoin client will be consistent with the goals of Tor - at least to the extent such a client participates in the block chain. It certainly can be an option, the same way power users can run relays and bridges... but I think the Tor development community will consider it a non-starter if using Namecoin depends on every user downloading a large block chain file. yes UDP does not work on TOR. it is stream based. my idea: unknowing client app -> namecoin dns server: give me the address of "something.bit" namecoin dns server resolves this, if it point to a ip, return it. if it points to a .onion address. ask tor to map it, to an fake ip address(often 127.0.X.X), and return that. if it is not ending with .bit, resolve it as normal. namecoin dns server -> client app: "something.bit" is at 12.34.56.78 client app connects to ip(12.34.56.78). works as usual. there is no udp packets going out of your computer. |
|
|
|
Yeah don't pay fees. They're a fucking scam and totally not needed. We already have measures in place to stop flooding such as prioritisation of txs. This whole fee business is the mainline client trying to set network policy instead of the miners who run the hardware.
i does not agree with the scam thing, but anything else: +1 |
|
|
|
fix:
load all keys in to memory.
delete wallet file.
make new encrypted wallet.
put back keys from memory.
That will of course leave behind unencrypted copies of the keys in the unallocated space on the disk - not to mention the risk of data loss if Bitcoin or the computer crashes at the wrong moment - but it might be better than nothing. then delete the wallet file after putting back back keys from memory. for unencrypted keys on freespace on disks: sudo dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. |
|
|
|
WHY THE FUCK ARE WE ALREADY SENDING FEES?
the idea about fees, are when miners does not get a high enough reward. they will not accept txs without fees.
miners are fucking getting 50btc, every fucking block. AND THEN YOU WOULD PUT FEES ON IT TOO?
FUCK NO!
wait till the block reward is about 12.5 btc, before even discussing fees. and how to implement them.
/sorry for my bad behavior.
That's just not feasible. Remove all fees and then there's nothing stopping 'bad people' from flooding the network with millions of tiny transactions. With the current limits in place, they could add about 1 GB of data to the permanent blockchain every week (about 150 MB per day). It's not just for rewarding miners, it's also a security thing. The current fee schedule is actually designed for this purpose, instead of for rewarding miners. hmm. im not paying, using a modified version of the client. and my txs are going though. |
|
|
|
Nice idea. With that attitude I guess NMC will soon rise to 0.1 BTC
Who thought of giving BTC miners free NMC and who thought of MM ? They deserve a double facepalm right now. Price is utterly miserable and network is not really that much safer.
no they don't the namecoin network, is as secure as the bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
|
WHY THE FUCK ARE WE ALREADY SENDING FEES?
the idea about fees, are when miners does not get a high enough reward. they will not accept txs without fees.
miners are fucking getting 50btc, every fucking block. AND THEN YOU WOULD PUT FEES ON IT TOO?
FUCK NO!
wait till the block reward is about 12.5 btc, before even discussing fees. and how to implement them.
/sorry for my bad behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
fix:
load all keys in to memory.
delete wallet file.
make new encrypted wallet.
put back keys from memory.
|
|
|
|
What really needs to happen is for the TOR project (or actually, the projects that provide DNS resolution for Tor installations, which would be Vidalia and/or Polipo) to implement namecoin DNS resolution support into their software.
That might be a little more complex than it sounds. For example, the DNS resolution needs to be secure. Tor is also for TCP, not for UDP, and normal DNS only UDP, so implementing it might require adding support for DNS over TCP.
But yeah... if this gets done right and adopted, namecoins might have a reason to shoot up in value.
I swear I read somewhere that someone had patched the sources of Polipo to support Namecoin resolution, it's a fork or something. Lobbying for this patch (or some derivative of it) to be included in the standard build might be a worthy goal for Namecoin enthusiasts if they want to see their coins increase in value.
dns over tcp is not neccesary. the namecoin client could provide a udp dns server, that is pointing to a .onion address, or directly map the address to a virtual host that tor assigns. or you could just proxy the whole shit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
