Как с вами связаться? Телеграм не находит ник

Биткоин сейчас явно нужно сливать и покупать другую крипту. Менял тут. Всё получилось и достаточно быстро. Рекомендую!!!

Главное, чтоб обмен происходил быстро. И желательно, чтоб не было регистрации, верификации и прочего гемора...

Сам менял на chby, в целом очень норм, можешь глянуть, как их сайт устроен. Вбиваешь сумму, указываешь реквизиты, подаешь заявку, в общем и все. Тут точно никаких надстроек лишних не надо!

Essentially, you're proposing to build a system where 1BTC = 1USD. When the Fed prints a new $Gazillion, the same amount of BTC will flood the market. The Fed would control BTC which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin and makes it dependent on constant human intervention whereas now it needs no human input at all. Robots could use Bitcoin to trade between themselves.

I started writing this post thinking that I agree with ascent but couldn't articulate the agreement.

Then I imagined the world where a car costs 0.00000001BTC. Then I imagined a news report that 10 BTC has been discovered by someone finding an old wallet.dat on grandpa's old computer. What would a discovery like that mean when all the bitcoins have been minted and the market has adjusted to the limited supply (including the lost coins)? Most likely that would result in inflation. As the supply of bitcoins increases, the prices will rise. We'll be where we are now with USD and other currencies. As coins get lost the system will have to adjust because there will be not enough coins to go around. As coins get more expensive, the hoarders will release them into the system, thus stabilising the price.

What ascent seems to object to the most is the fact that nobody knows how much currency is available. Everyone knows that there's no more than 21M, but no exact numbers. Supposedly, this leads people to be uncertain about the currency. As long as the algorithm is strong and new money cannot appear from nowhere, there's no uncertainty. Just because you know that I have 1K BTC, doesn't mean you can be certain how I will use it to take advantage of the market. When the story unfolds in such a way that earning 0.01 BTC per year is enough for you, the fact that I gained 10BTC will have no radical immediate effect on you. I'll just be able to employ 1000 of you which would keep you feeling happy. There will not be an overall uncertainty, just like not everyone thinks that there will be a war tomorrow.

When 10BTC is enough to employ 1000 people for a year, I believe I will take all the necessary steps to make sure I, or my descendants, do not lose the funds. Any coins lost today, will have such a big bounty on them in the far future, that it may be the biggest driver of innovation in cryptography with an aim to recover lost/inactive coins. Inactive wallets that are not kept up-to-date with technology will be more easy to compromise and the BTC will enter the circulation again.

I know there are wallets being lost today and I'm not uncertain about BTC. I think BTC is still good.

He'd need to list all input transactions from blocks N... N+3 as a source of funds. This will allow the network to verify the transaction without having to do a search.

What I don't understand is how do they know which transaction is in which block. Do they build a mega map of all transaction-to-block relationships and look that up? This would grow like mad.

Seems as the number of transactions grows the cost of looking up the validity would become more than the cost to compute the hash. Maybe there would be separate parts of the network responsible for each task and they would split the transaction fees.

I'm not talking about going back in time to replace a block that existed in the past to cover up the tracks, then having to catch up with the legit chain. The attack chain would start as just a fork of the existing chain and proceed forward without any handicap. Because it would be a shadow chain, it would not affect the difficulty of the overall network.

I think I understand your solution: The node compares the hash difficulties of blocks in each chain and chooses the one where difficulty sum is higher as that would be a sign that it's a chain from the real world where competition is high. Counting the overall transaction volume and diversity of origin bitcoins would help identify a fake as well.

Legitimate network partition problem will have to be solved. If bitcoin depends on uninterrupted internet, then it could be considered a weakness and may bring a new meaning to words "economic blockade" or "trade embargo".

I wish there was an easy way to find all the past discussions grouped by topic: complexity, block chain, attack, etc.

I imagine this situation:
An adversary does nothing but generate new blocks without including any network transactions for 50BTC reward block after block in an effort to outrun the main block chain. They could take their time because unnecessarily increasing block output would only increase their complexity and they don't need to make it harder than they have to. They do it long enough to collect sizeable booty.
They don't participate in the rest of the network and don't announce their chain. They increase their network capacity without letting the network know. In one 2 week window when they are certain that their chain is longer than the official chain they release it out to the public and it is adopted as the main chain (invalidating lots of legit transactions along the way). They then try to quickly cash this out like it was done on MtGox. Even if they didn't want to cash out, kids like LulzSec may decide to do this just for fun.

Are there any mechanisms in place that stop clients blindly adopting the longer chain if the differences are too great? Would some damage control algorithm kick in? Is there a way to detect a "bastard" chain that sprung out of nowhere?

I know this sounds unrealistic, and nobody would compromise their investment into economy in this way. But what if someone had a reason to do this anyway.

Hopefully by the time BTC becomes mainstream it would require a google-size mob to do this kind of damage and they wouldn't be interested in any of that. What's stopping "The Fed" from doing it now?

Would such an attack be possible today?
I would imagine that something like this has been discussed already.

I'm surprised how many people think that mining (i.e. doing it just to get the coins) is the most important thing.

100 blocks take about 17 hours to generate. I'm talking about longer dropouts due to natural disasters, etc. It's easy to say "should suspend the acceptance of new coins created", but hard when you're faced with economic reality of supply and demand in a 24/7 economy of a busy city/country.

I don't mine and I don't intend to mine.
I'm beginning to believe that bitcoin reward for mining is a bottleneck that will inhibit the growth and performance of the block chain and will be the cause of inefficiencies and complexity that is bordering on insane considering how hashing power is growing daily. I don't have a solution for this, but I'm actively thinking about it.

Yes, I read the white paper (Satoshi's PDF) and it doesn't talk about the economic reality. It's more like a spherical horse in a vacuum - technical proposal suited for ideal situations.

The idea discussed by OP would be easily possible if the retailer dealt with the customer indirectly, i.e. via Google Wallet for example. Google would provide insurance and would handle all the trust issues while taking a small cut of the transaction. It would be up to Google to verify the identities of payees and ensure they have enough funds available to them.

Thanks for looking at it. I'll update the article to say that this is what is currently happening.

If this is already happening how does it handle long delays i.e. one month.
What happens to bitcoins created and spent in this case? Obviously the transactions are voided, but the economic activity has already taken place and the money would have been distributed through the network as wages, purchases or gifts.

Seems that for areas of frequent connectivity dropouts it may be better to have their own currencies and block chains with an exchange rate.

Is there any documentation for how block chain management works?

Here's a conceptual approach for merging two or more block chains that are created as a result of lack of network connectivity between parts of a network.

http://bitcoinery.tumblr.com/post/6731628999/how-to-merge-bitcoin-block-chains

Essentially, the suggestion is to not simply discard smaller chains, but to merge the differences back into the longest chain. This maintains all existing properties of bitcoin.

if I have two wallets and keep transferring money back and forth it will never rot by your formula.

that kind of money must self destruct without exceptions. it should keep its value until it destroys itself after a period of time. just like a tomato that you forget to eat becomes rotten and has to be thrown away.

with BTC, the network can claim the money back after it has expired. this way you don't need to limit the BTC supply by 21 million. if each 50 BTC generated had 1 year or so to circulate from the point of minting, then everyone will be forced to keep the money moving. this would also solve the problem of forgotten wallets and coins lost in hardware and software failures.

Nuclear argument is an extreme example. If you disconnect a city from the net for 24 hours the chain will be forked enough to make it unusable (by current propaganda). This is not acceptable if the aims are to be "the currency" of the world. If 10 minute transaction delay is bad, imagine 24 hours or a week.

But the block repackaging problem can be fixed without much pain and without voiding bitcoin warranty (i.e. no double spend, all still valid etc). There's so much mining power now, we can repackage anything in no time.

If the incentives are right we can have transactions approved within milliseconds because the network is very strong and can can be in a constant state of (useful) hashing and making blocks. Right now a lot of resources are wasted searching for random numbers by increasing the complexity of the hash.

The 51% computing power balance ratio will still hold true. You need to make lots of reasonably secure blocks all the time by a diverse group of packaging agents.

Hi Guys,

I've written a blog post about Bitcoin's problems as I see it.
There may be a few misconceptions because of my only recent introduction with the subject.

Please feel free to suggest answers or corrections if you have any.

http://bitcoinery.tumblr.com/post/6653365245/bitcoin-problems-that-need-to-be-fixed

Cheers!

For this to happen, other currencies need to run on a similar model to bitcoin, i.e. blockchain and all. Mt.Gox in this case is not just the exchange, it's also a store of money - both bitcoins and USD. Would you give someone 10BTC on the promise that they will give you cash?

Trust is an important part of the bitcoin puzzle important as far as exchanging is concerned.

Hi All,

Please commit to starting a new StackExchange Q&A website for Bitcoin.
You know how useful Stack Overflow is, let's get the same for Bitcoin.

Please go here and vote for starting a new Bitcoin site:
http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency

This would solve the troll problem and the newbie restrictions would not be needed. We'll also get a better interface.

The fact that smart (new) people can't participate in other discussions doesn't do any favours to this forum.
When I see a nice comment, I'm not going to the Newbie forum to post a reply.
I guess this attitude is the reflection of the 'early adopters are superior' mentality that is not the good side of the bitcoin idea.

I agree.

As bitcoin matures there will be a client war, just like we have Chrome, IE, FF, Safari today.
These clients would compete on security, usability and web commece integration. Maybe the web browser will become your wallet and Bitcoin protocol will be more like HTML where only the features agreed upon by everyone are used.

Has anyone started writing a bitcoin extension for FF or Chrome?
Are there alternative clients for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is only one piece of the puzzle. If shops showed prices in whatever currency they find most liquid to keep the business running, to pay by bitcoin you'd need on-the-fly currency conversion without having to go to the exchange and buy bitcoins.

Speculators and Traders play a very important role in the bitcoin economy. They make sure there's always come bitcoinage available for purchase. Otherwise you'd have to knock on doors of miners to beg people to sell you some (if you knew where to knock).

If you want stability, I'm sure you'll be able to find people who could provide a good stream of bitcoins at prices well above current market rates that are almost constant. For example, if there was an imaginary exchange that only sold USD for BTC at a constant rate of 60USD/BTC (much higher than market value) would you be happier because of stability?

Lack of exchange rate stability only stops people from having fixed BTC prices, which is probably a good thing - hardly anyone has an intrinsic "feel" for how much things should cost in BTC, so a conversion/comparison will be necessary for quite a while.