Most of this is still highly experimental technology so there's no sense in marketing it to the masses (yet). Also, once these technologies are ready for the masses (in terms of maturity and usability), if all goes well they won't be aware that they are using these technologies to begin with.

Case in point: You have never heard of OMNI but you're probably aware of Tether. Well, it's an OMNI token.



Lots of wallet projects working on that front. And it makes sense, because that's the part that is facing the user. Smart contracts, DApps? Your average user couldn't care less.




Well one should be aware of at least layer 1 if the router is supposed to work

I think OP might be interested in Simplicity:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/simplicity

It's still a long way out but should eventually offer the capabilities of Ethereum-like smart-contracts without the pitfalls that turing-completeness brings.

(keeping in mind that a language does not necessarily need to be turing-complete to be powerful and expressive. matter of fact most critical infrastructure such as military and aeronautical applications follow code conventions that explicitely try to avoid patterns usually associated with turing-completeness such as recursion)

Because:



It is also worth noting that:


...the above can not be ensured. Outages happen. DDoS attacks happen. In the scenario in this thread the correct order of events is not known and not consistent across nodes (e.g. what happens if a node receives a transaction that spends the outputs of a transaction it hasn't seen yet?).


In general this approach reminds me very much of what we see in DAG-based coins. Problem being even these coins have to rely on some form of central coordination to prevent things from going awry (eg. IOTA's coordinator and ByteBall's witnesses) despite being far more fleshed out.

What if only part of the network sees the double-spend attempt? Now part of the network will lock the outputs and part of the network will accept it as valid.

What if there's a double-spend attempt using outputs that are already spent? In the network you describe you have no idea whether everyone has the same ledger state so while one node may accept a transaction based on what they deem a "confirmed" output another node may flag it as a double-spend, lock the coins and therefore invalidate all subsequent transactions.



The block interval only keeps the orphan rate at bay. In itself it does nothing to prevent double-spends.

What prevents double-spending is cooercing miners to cooperate into cryptographically sealing the ledger state, creating a tamper-proof time-stamped history of transactions that all nodes in the network can agree upon.

Because it doesn't resolve conflicting ledger states.

The challenge is not to share a consistent ledger state across multiple nodes -- the challenge is to solve this in a way that still works even when someone is actively trying to manipulate the ledger in their favour.



There can be millions of IP addresses per node though. Attacking a network by pretending to be millions of IP addresses is fairly easy comparing to attacking a network by obtaining a decent amount of hashpower. Which is one of the reasons why PoW has been invented to begin with (even before Bitcoin, look up Hashcash).

Find ich tatsächlich gar nicht mal so schlecht.

Für Endnutzer die auf ein Custodial Wallet bestehen ist es meiner Meinung nach eine positive Entwicklung wenn da zumindest eine gewisse Rechtssicherheit geschaffen wird. Bisschen KYC wird die da nicht jucken, ist ja bei Banken auch nicht anders. Alle anderen können ja wie gehabt weiterhin ihr Ding machen und richtige Wallets verwenden.

Für Firmen in der Crypto-Branche mit Sitz oder Kunden in Deutschland ist es natürlich Kacke, aber das die Finanzbranche regulatorisch ein Minenfeld ist ja nix neues.



Datenschutz und Datensicherheit werden zumindest im EU-Raum schon relativ ernst genommen und sind ja u.A. Teil der DSGVO [1], bzw gibt's z.B. für Kreditinstitute noch mal verschärfte Anforderungen [2].

[1] https://www.wko.at/service/wirtschaftsrecht-gewerberecht/EU-Datenschutz-Grundverordnung:-Datensicherheit-und-Daten.html
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindestanforderungen_an_das_Risikomanagement_(BA)

Insofern sind persönlichen Daten in einem Europäischen Daten-Center das den entsprechenden Auflagen folgt besser aufgehoben als in irgendner Bude in Panama. Das diese Daten am besten gar nicht erst aufbewahrt werden sollten steht natürlich außer Frage, aber man wird ja nicht dazu gezwungen ein Custodial Wallet zu verwenden. (im Gegensatz zu Bank-Konten um die man nicht wirklich rum kommt)



Mal schaun wie lange :X

With a consumption of 1500W you're looking at I = 1500W / 12V = 125A which according to the table is at an efficiency of ~94%

This means that with the miner you mentioned you'll look at a power draw of roughly 1500W / 0.94 = 1595.74W

Looking at the chart the PSU's peak efficiency is 95% at 60A * 12V = 720W

This is assuming an input voltage of 200-240V as per the Bitmain chart.



For reference:
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/electric/Watt_to_Amp.html

And yet it's still highly experimental technology

I guess Bitcoin staying at 0.x is a reflection of there still being a lot of work to be done. Increasing the major version would also imply a certain amount of incompatibility between releases so the question becomes how big of a change would warrant a bump of the major version. SegWit was probably as close as it got in this regard but yet again it seems more like work is just getting started rather than being wrapped up.

Either way, Gmail stayed in beta for what, 5 years? So I guess we can give Bitcoin Core a bit of leeway in this regard.

I think dkbit98 is referring to privacy in terms of obfuscated transactions that make blockchain-analysis and corelating users / transactions harder. MEW is explicitly warning about this issue in their privacy policy so it doesn't seem like they have any functionality in this regard.

Thank you for 10 years, happy birthday, Bitcointalk! In the days of modern social media I'm very happy to have a place such as this, despite all the shitposts, spam and scams one has to circumnavigate at times.



I found that image funnier than I should.

Because it always bears repeating:



3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG

No worries, banks don't shy away from that kind of service fee. They just usually hide them by splitting them up into monthly fixed costs as well as penny and diming you for every bit of service on top.

Take a look at this price sheet, for example:
https://www.raiffeisen.at/eBusiness/services/resources/media/1021497204966-NA-1279548085059316048-1-30-NA.pdf
(the numbers will differ depending on the branch, but the pricing structure is usually pretty much the same)

Including taxes and ignoring compound interest they already charge you more than 0.5% in service fees for storing investments fonds by chipping away 0.039% plus tax on a monthly basis.

Luckily there are banks that focus on investments and charge much much lower fees. But most people simply get screwed over by their banks on a regular basis, no matter if they stay in cash or stocks.

Bonds are even worse than just keeping money in the bank right now. Bitcoin is... well, gotta love Bitcoin, but one also has to admit that it currently doesn't fit everyone's risk profile.



I think a lot of the general populace still sees stock investments as a form of gambling. Even when investing conservatively via index funds you still might wind up with your funds being held up in a negative position over a prolonged time when a bear market strikes. This is further aggrevated by everybody and their dog expecting the next bear market being just around the corner especially since the current global boom cycle is already lasting for an above-average timeframe.



Investing in real estate takes money. Like in most countries, real estate ownership has become pretty much non-achievable during the last 10 years. In most areas the cost of real estate has more than doubled during the last decade or so, with disposable income staying pretty much the same. Not a good recipe for increasing home ownership. Especially with the middle class being squeezed through all age groups. The young are fucked because they were born too late for fetching good real estate prices. The old are fucked because the pension system is failing them. I think most people do want to achieve home ownership. It just has become pretty much impossible for most.

So much stuff to learn
encryption, trading, mining
Bitcointalk dot org

Do not invest more
than you can afford to lose
Bitcointalk dot org

Keep private keys safe
Don't leave coins on an exchange
Bitcointalk dot org

Be careful with alts
because most of them are shit
Bitcointalk dot org

Thank you for 10 years
it's been a rollercoaster
Bitcointalk dot org

Sorry for this post
it is not a good entry
3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG

tfw you start reading up on that bitcoin thing



Happy 10th Bitcointalk Anniversary everyone!

3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG <3

What wallet are you using? If you're using Electrum, you should be able to sign a message as described by o_e_l_e_o with the caveat that your counterparty has to use Electrum as well to verify your signature. They don't need to use Electrum as their main wallet, they only need it for verification.

If the address belongs to an exchange or similar custodial service then no, no you can't use this address to sign a message.

Yes, and don't upload your private keys or recovery seed. Ever.

Have you tried logging into your router to see what devices are connected?

Maybe the new miner is trying to use the same IP address as one of your other machines or maybe it is in a different subnet.

If it's trying to use the same IP address as one of your other machines you'll probably have to temporarily disconnect your machines one by one to see which IP address is conflicting. Alternatively Connect the troublesome miner on a router of its own and see what IP it requests.

If you find that the miner is in a different subnet (say 192.168.2.xx instead of 192.168.1.xx) you'll need to change the local IP address of your PC to the same subnet as the miner (192.168.2.xx in this case) so as to access the miner and correct its IP address to the correct subnet.

CounterEntropy is correct as well.

Strictly speaking, the seed is just a big number. So are private keys, public keys, etc... any kind of digital data. Seed phrases are just a way to express those big numbers in a human readable way.

Ah... sorry, now I get what you mean. Yes, that sounds about right.



Let's not forget though that assuming Moore's Law applies to this hypothetical technology we'd only have about 70 years until computation time will be reduced to a single universe worth of time.

Just sayin'

(70 years of computation power doubling every two years => 2^35 = 34,359,738,368 times the computation power you started with. Yes I'm aware that technically that's neither what Moore's Law states nor how any of this works.)

No, it's straight up 2^160 addresses, no need to divide. RIPEMD-160 is used to hash the SHA-256 hash of the corresponding public key [1], reducing the P2PKH address space from a potential 2^256* to 2^160.

*slightly smaller, ECDA's private key space does not cover the full 2^256 [2]



There's also P2SH and Bech32 Bitcoin addresses, so any private key corresponds to at least 3 valid Bitcoin addresses.



[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses
[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key