The Bitcoin Quiz!

[PenAndPaper]

Some of these answers need correction.

Time to send Bitcoins internationally
"Virtually instantly" one can certainly deliver a promise to send bitcoins, but this zero-confirmation transaction is just that: a promise. The transaction hasn't even been committed into one single block (which can potentially be revoked) yet, so it isn't even in the blockchain at all.

That said, when a promise to send bitcoins is considered sending bitcoins, then the answer is correct. But this is a slippery slope: is sending coins over CoinBase considered sending bitcoins instantly? After all, it's another promise...

Seizure of Silk Road
The actual amount seized from Silk Road is over the options presented, at around 171955.09292687 BTC. This was seized in two instalments.

Well,  if we're going to be posting spoilers in this thread, then I'll go ahead and mention that the answer to:

"What is the maximum number of Bitcoins that can be produced?"

is not 21 Million.

If there had never been any bugs in the software, the maximum would have been:
20999999.97690000

However, early on there were a few blocks where less than the maximum number of bitcoins were mined.  As such, the new maximum will be a bit less than 20999999.97690000, although I don't recall how many less.

You may want to correct bitcoin.org, wikipedia, bitcoin wiki and every other known site about bitcoin before correcting a quiz question.

[dree12]

A zero confirmation transaction is much more than a promise. It is:

1. Conclusive proof that you control the funds
2. You having to take conclusive action (with a non-100% success) rate to try to send the Bitcoins elsewhere to stop the transfer from happening

I usually accept 0-conf transactions when I dealt with the other party before. Otherwise 1 is fine.

I would say a zero-conf transaction is less secure than a CoinBase transaction. Why?

• You can sue Coinbase if they don't pay you. Good luck suing a Finney attacker.
• There are a lot of people behind Coinbase. They'd have to agree before stealing your funds.
• CoinBase has a significant reputation. That is worth far more than any average trader's reputation is.

A one-conf transaction is fine IMO, but three confs or six confs are necessary for any large (>1000 mBTC) transactions.

[wachtwoord]

A zero confirmation transaction is much more than a promise. It is:

1. Conclusive proof that you control the funds
2. You having to take conclusive action (with a non-100% success) rate to try to send the Bitcoins elsewhere to stop the transfer from happening

I usually accept 0-conf transactions when I dealt with the other party before. Otherwise 1 is fine.

I would say a zero-conf transaction is less secure than a CoinBase transaction. Why?

• You can sue Coinbase if they don't pay you. Good luck suing a Finney attacker.
• There are a lot of people behind Coinbase. They'd have to agree before stealing your funds.
• CoinBase has a significant reputation. That is worth far more than any average trader's reputation is.

A one-conf transaction is fine IMO, but three confs or six confs are necessary for any large (>1000 mBTC) transactions.

I disagree completely, I will always trust math more than "you can sue them". Suing someone sucks and often costs more than it's worth. No-one sued Trendon Shavers, no-one sued SAM THEOFANOPOULOS and probably no-one will end up suing TradeFortress either (yes they are still preparing).

[dree12]

A zero confirmation transaction is much more than a promise. It is:

1. Conclusive proof that you control the funds
2. You having to take conclusive action (with a non-100% success) rate to try to send the Bitcoins elsewhere to stop the transfer from happening

I usually accept 0-conf transactions when I dealt with the other party before. Otherwise 1 is fine.

I would say a zero-conf transaction is less secure than a CoinBase transaction. Why?

• You can sue Coinbase if they don't pay you. Good luck suing a Finney attacker.
• There are a lot of people behind Coinbase. They'd have to agree before stealing your funds.
• CoinBase has a significant reputation. That is worth far more than any average trader's reputation is.

A one-conf transaction is fine IMO, but three confs or six confs are necessary for any large (>1000 mBTC) transactions.

I disagree completely, I will always trust math more than "you can sue them". Suing someone sucks and often costs more than it's worth. No-one sued Trendon Shavers, no-one sued SAM THEOFANOPOULOS and probably no-one will end up suing TradeFortress either (yes they are still preparing).

That's the thing with zero-conf transactions. There's no math protecting them.

If not math, at least the legal system will help you with Coinbase.

[wachtwoord]

A zero confirmation transaction is much more than a promise. It is:

1. Conclusive proof that you control the funds
2. You having to take conclusive action (with a non-100% success) rate to try to send the Bitcoins elsewhere to stop the transfer from happening

I usually accept 0-conf transactions when I dealt with the other party before. Otherwise 1 is fine.

I would say a zero-conf transaction is less secure than a CoinBase transaction. Why?

• You can sue Coinbase if they don't pay you. Good luck suing a Finney attacker.
• There are a lot of people behind Coinbase. They'd have to agree before stealing your funds.
• CoinBase has a significant reputation. That is worth far more than any average trader's reputation is.

A one-conf transaction is fine IMO, but three confs or six confs are necessary for any large (>1000 mBTC) transactions.

I disagree completely, I will always trust math more than "you can sue them". Suing someone sucks and often costs more than it's worth. No-one sued Trendon Shavers, no-one sued SAM THEOFANOPOULOS and probably no-one will end up suing TradeFortress either (yes they are still preparing).

That's the thing with zero-conf transactions. There's no math protecting them.

If not math, at least the legal system will help you with Coinbase.

There is, they signed the transaction right? They also distributed the tx on the network.

The first proves they have the funds, the second that it would take considerable effort with a sub-100% chance to succeed to NOT transact is to you.

[dree12]

A zero confirmation transaction is much more than a promise. It is:

1. Conclusive proof that you control the funds
2. You having to take conclusive action (with a non-100% success) rate to try to send the Bitcoins elsewhere to stop the transfer from happening

I usually accept 0-conf transactions when I dealt with the other party before. Otherwise 1 is fine.

I would say a zero-conf transaction is less secure than a CoinBase transaction. Why?

• You can sue Coinbase if they don't pay you. Good luck suing a Finney attacker.
• There are a lot of people behind Coinbase. They'd have to agree before stealing your funds.
• CoinBase has a significant reputation. That is worth far more than any average trader's reputation is.

A one-conf transaction is fine IMO, but three confs or six confs are necessary for any large (>1000 mBTC) transactions.

I disagree completely, I will always trust math more than "you can sue them". Suing someone sucks and often costs more than it's worth. No-one sued Trendon Shavers, no-one sued SAM THEOFANOPOULOS and probably no-one will end up suing TradeFortress either (yes they are still preparing).

That's the thing with zero-conf transactions. There's no math protecting them.

If not math, at least the legal system will help you with Coinbase.

There is, they signed the transaction right? They also distributed the tx on the network.

The first proves they have the funds, the second that it would take considerable effort with a sub-100% chance to succeed to NOT transact is to you.

You are vastly overestimating the effort it would take. Even if the sender isn't a miner, there are still attacks available, the simplest of which involves no more than paying a large fee.

[LostDutchman]

Hi all,

I decided to make a quiz for fun and to try and spread knowledge about Bitcoin to people who don't know about it yet. Give it a try and let me know how you did.

If you see any errors please let me know so I can fix them.

Good luck, and please share it on Facebook etc!

Quiz: http://www.onlinequizcreator.com/en/bitcoin-quiz/quiz-5439

Tips appreciated: 1B6J76fNpcCk85YALdmPr2qJ1eVzsXq9Ms

Nice!

I goofed up one answer though, dammit!

Adult beverage at work?

Hmm..............................

[davedx]

Some of these answers need correction.

Time to send Bitcoins internationally
"Virtually instantly" one can certainly deliver a promise to send bitcoins, but this zero-confirmation transaction is just that: a promise. The transaction hasn't even been committed into one single block (which can potentially be revoked) yet, so it isn't even in the blockchain at all.

That said, when a promise to send bitcoins is considered sending bitcoins, then the answer is correct. But this is a slippery slope: is sending coins over CoinBase considered sending bitcoins instantly? After all, it's another promise...

I'm not sure how to fix this one, since AFAIK the transaction fee affects the speed you get confirmations. Is this correct? What would you say the average time to get 1 confirmation is with default transaction fees? I've read 10 minutes on Bitcoin.org, but it also says "Insant" there too...

Seizure of Silk Road
The actual amount seized from Silk Road is over the options presented, at around 171955.09292687 BTC. This was seized in two instalments.

Fixed, thanks for the feedback!

[davedx]

Some of these answers need correction.

Time to send Bitcoins internationally
"Virtually instantly" one can certainly deliver a promise to send bitcoins, but this zero-confirmation transaction is just that: a promise. The transaction hasn't even been committed into one single block (which can potentially be revoked) yet, so it isn't even in the blockchain at all.

That said, when a promise to send bitcoins is considered sending bitcoins, then the answer is correct. But this is a slippery slope: is sending coins over CoinBase considered sending bitcoins instantly? After all, it's another promise...

Seizure of Silk Road
The actual amount seized from Silk Road is over the options presented, at around 171955.09292687 BTC. This was seized in two instalments.

Well,  if we're going to be posting spoilers in this thread, then I'll go ahead and mention that the answer to:

"What is the maximum number of Bitcoins that can be produced?"

is not 21 Million.

If there had never been any bugs in the software, the maximum would have been:
20999999.97690000

However, early on there were a few blocks where less than the maximum number of bitcoins were mined.  As such, the new maximum will be a bit less than 20999999.97690000, although I don't recall how many less.

Fixed with more subtle wording. Thanks for the feedback!

I'm not too worried about spoiling it. People can Google the answers too if they really want to cheat....

[PenAndPaper]

bitcoin.org ought to know better.

I think bitcoin.org knows better. My guess is that they want to communicate informations to ordinary people.
And by ordinary i don't mean 40 years old guys that still live in their mother's basement.

[PenAndPaper]

bitcoin.org ought to know better.

I think bitcoin.org knows better. My guess is that they want to communicate informations to ordinary people.
And by ordinary i don't mean 40 years old guys that still live in their mother's basement.

Certainly, which is why I suggested that they be correct without being complicated.

Any of the following phrases would be just as simple as the incorrect information they currently have (with the added beneit of actually being correct):

• will never exceed 21 million.
• nearly 21 million
• approximately 21 million
• no more than 21 million
• less than 21 million
• almost 21 million
• a bit less than 21 million

They don't need to correct it and obviously they will not because if they adopt one of your suggestions people will start having follow up questions. Follow up questions that are both way technical and altogether meaningless.

[davedx]

Anyway. Almost 500 plays now! Glad people enjoyed it.

[subcoin]

Time to send Bitcoins internationally

I got this one wrong.
... supposedly 

Would be correct to have "it varies" answer.
But I could see how it would be confusing to noobs.

[davedx]

Time to send Bitcoins internationally

I got this one wrong.
... supposedly 

Would be correct to have "it varies" answer.
But I could see how it would be confusing to noobs.

Yeah. Plus, the idea is to promote BTC to people who don't know about it