Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 138 results by ThePurplePlanet
Re: BTC-E.com exchange - BTC/NMC/LTC/NVC/TRC/PPC/FTC/XPM - USD\EUR\RUR (fee - 0.2%)
I am trying to contact the btc-e support but since the ticket turned to private, the support stopped responding. How can I get help?
They are bit slow in response. I guess they do reply once in every 48 hours . And the only way is wait sadly .
I have been waiting for five days. Is this normal?
Hello
Write the ticket number?
Here is the ticket id: WUG-928-93529
Re: BTC-E.com exchange - BTC/NMC/LTC/NVC/TRC/PPC/FTC/XPM - USD\EUR\RUR (fee - 0.2%)
I am trying to contact the btc-e support but since the ticket turned to private, the support stopped responding. How can I get help?
They are bit slow in response. I guess they do reply once in every 48 hours . And the only way is wait sadly .
I have been waiting for five days. Is this normal?
Re: [LTBc] The most profitable alt coin to mine is...
Is it only traded at https://counterwallet.co ?
Does armory offer dice generated wallets? If yes does the randomness of dice wallets remain with deterministic wallets? What other threats?
It's not really built into the program, but you can use dice to generate your wallet. This thread talks about using real world entropy (card decks, dice, etc.) in Armory:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673035.0
As long as you roll the dice the appropriate number of times (100 die rolls; more needed if you roll by pairs and count them in a predictable way), it should be highly secure.
You can follow these instructions using the utils at https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/armoryengine/ArmoryUtils.py (but with dice rolls generating the string instead of cards, if you prefer):
My recommendation is to use a deck of cards. Shuffle it to your heart's content, then type in the order of the cards into a string, such as "Ah9d3s3h...". Hash that and use the resulting 32 bytes as your seed. You can use armoryengine to do the conversions: hash256() to hash the string, and "makeSixteenBytesEasy()" to convert each half of the string to a line that can be entered into the wallet restore window.
The order of a deck of cards has 225 bits of entropy, which is plenty big enough. I tried the dice thing before, but it's a lot of dice rolls and it makes a lot of noise. The deck of cards is much more pleasant
The order of a deck of cards has 225 bits of entropy, which is plenty big enough. I tried the dice thing before, but it's a lot of dice rolls and it makes a lot of noise. The deck of cards is much more pleasant
Is this program trusted?
Re: Proof of Stake Mining and NXT's and PPC's Implementations
Here is the main problem with Proof of stake
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
This problem doesn't exist as the NXT blockchain wouldn't accept re-organization attempt by someone from the past. The assumption of DeathAndTaxes is a false one.
You probably dont understand the problem. In fact NXT devs responded to that with creating something called economic clustering which is a web of trust solution. If you have a web of trust you just trust some people and dont need proof of something
Re: Proof of Stake Mining and NXT's and PPC's Implementations
Here is the main problem with Proof of stake
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
PoS need some form of trust like checkpointing or web of trust solutions to solve the problem which undermines the trustless nature of cryptocuncies. IMO opinion we should aim for algorithms that make crryptocuncies more trustless i.e. removing dependence of pools etc
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
PoS need some form of trust like checkpointing or web of trust solutions to solve the problem which undermines the trustless nature of cryptocuncies. IMO opinion we should aim for algorithms that make crryptocuncies more trustless i.e. removing dependence of pools etc
Re: Seeking fellow investor for new sportsbook + dice venture
1.6 btc dont look like a problem for you https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613750.msg7383510#msg7383510
Who said it was a problem? I'm looking for an additional investor. I have already invested what I am willing to risk in this project.
Fair enough
Re: Seeking fellow investor for new sportsbook + dice venture
1.6 btc dont look like a problem for you https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613750.msg7383510#msg7383510
If all miners start cheating the pools like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441465.msg7282674#msg7282674 that will force everybody to solo mine. Isn't it?
But bitcoin needs to reduce block intervals to decrease the variance for solo miners. It just makes sense to me. Any devs to comment on the matter?
But bitcoin needs to reduce block intervals to decrease the variance for solo miners. It just makes sense to me. Any devs to comment on the matter?
You have to reduce the block intervals to a ridiculously low level to make variance acceptable to small solo miners. So I don't think it would work.
I understand.. There is a tradeoff. Reduced block intervals give more oprhans but increase centralization due to variance. It must be tuned to a better number than 10 minutes. Even 5 minutes has better variance than 10 minutes. There must be a sweet spot.
If someone implements this software for all miners http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/280gln/bounty_01_btc_for_a_bitcoin_mining_client_capable/ it will force people to solo mine. with 10 minutes we can have 5k solo miners? with 2.5 we can have 20k with 1 minute 50k and so on. It is something to think about and question at least. At which point it centralizes the miners due to orphans I dont know but there should be further analysis of that with respect to current networking technology (which in 10 years the current networking speed might seem like snail mail) and transactions (which is kind of unknown but some analysis with respect to certain upper bounds is an approach to analyse the transactions effect).
If all miners start cheating the pools like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441465.msg7282674#msg7282674 that will force everybody to solo mine. Isn't it?
But bitcoin needs to reduce block intervals to decrease the variance for solo miners. It just makes sense to me.
But bitcoin needs to reduce block intervals to decrease the variance for solo miners. It just makes sense to me.
its really difficult to tell whats going on here. Clearly there is a concerted effort to spook this market down in BTC. why?
-bm
-bm
Shorting bitcoin maybe?
Is PoS based directly on wealth? I'm not sure of how it works and would appreciate a link related to this.
Proof of Stake means that the greater "stake" a person has (i.e. the greater number of coins), the greater chance of forging the next block and reaping the transaction fees. There are 1 billion NXT and if you own one, you have one chance in one billion to forge the next block. It's not exactly done like that but the result is about the same. Also, if you have a large stake and try to force a fork by not forging a block when you get elected to do so, your forging power drops to zero temporarily which allows others to pickup the slack. Again, I'm a novice at the exact mechanisms of NXT forging.
Keep in mind that you can forge even if you don't own currently one and you owned one in the past by starting at the block before selling. Reorganize the chain and attack the coin
interesting that this keeps coming up
Has any POS ever been forked? esp NXT or PeerCoin
even if there was "nothing at stake" for other chains, so what for the main chain its just becomes like merged mining. So nothing wrong here.
it seems that POS or not mining will eventually come to dominate as it avoids the mining issue. The technical issue of security is just a matter of time.
Has any POS ever been forked? esp NXT or PeerCoin
even if there was "nothing at stake" for other chains, so what for the main chain its just becomes like merged mining. So nothing wrong here.
it seems that POS or not mining will eventually come to dominate as it avoids the mining issue. The technical issue of security is just a matter of time.
There has been plenty of forks with PoS. None of them have really solved the issue of the History attack( not found in Bitcoin) and the solutions thus far all depend upon using centralized checks and checkpoints which somewhat defeat the whole purpose of a decentralized currencies key advantages.
Perhaps there is a solution to this security dilemma, but I haven't heard of any valid hypothetical whitepapers proposing one as of yet. Until their is some proposed decentralized solutions that could work the point is rather moot.
Bitcoin's greatest weakness is also its greatest strength and solves the consensus problem where it takes a great amount of resources to perform an attack unlike with PoS where either an early stakeholder can perform an attack or a later investor can make a sizable investment, sell the coins , and than perform the attack with no risk.
You guys keep repeating about bitcoin and waste of resources
First let's put things into perspective
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/27d793/research_is_the_bitcoin_network_sustainable/
Second mining energy will turn into a feature. There is lots of energy wasted. Electricity utilities waste excess power during nights. They can use bitcoin to earn income with that wasted power. Same for geothermal. For solar panels people will replace batteries to store excess energy value with bitcoin. Lower cost for them. It is not feasible now because chips are very expensive but once competition heats and hashing chips prices drop to the ground all the mining will move to energy waste resources. Even biking has excess energy that we don't have a commonly used battery to store. Why not store it in bitcoin. Cars harness wasted energy into expensive batteries costing thousands each. Storing in bitcoin will be cheaper. All the wasted energy can be stored in bitcoins
interesting that this keeps coming up
Has any POS ever been forked? esp NXT or PeerCoin
even if there was "nothing at stake" for other chains, so what for the main chain its just becomes like merged mining. So nothing wrong here.
it seems that POS or not mining will eventually come to dominate as it avoids the mining issue. The technical issue of security is just a matter of time.
Has any POS ever been forked? esp NXT or PeerCoin
even if there was "nothing at stake" for other chains, so what for the main chain its just becomes like merged mining. So nothing wrong here.
it seems that POS or not mining will eventually come to dominate as it avoids the mining issue. The technical issue of security is just a matter of time.
I think NXT had a fork problem in the beginning and then they added checkpoints. As for peer coin I don't know if they ever removed the checkpoints. I believe these technologies will either have checkpoints or some other web of trust type of solution that . makes proof of something unnecessary you can just trust someone or a group of people instead of proof of something
Someone is already doing that
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0
However
Here is the problem of PoS .
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
which basically means current holders will depend on the goodwill of past holders not to attack or if you want to avoid that dependence you create centralized trust which is something subject to government/bankers attacks by coercing those individuals holding the trust
Even if you exclude the history attack problem which is fatal large stakeholders will never be able to avoid government influence
If you can identify the minters which are clearing the transactions you can ask them to obey all govs regulations and money transmission rules. It is far easier to identify stakeholders than miners
Those are some reasons I am personally against PoS fork of bitcoin proposed in the first link
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0
However
Here is the problem of PoS .
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334
which basically means current holders will depend on the goodwill of past holders not to attack or if you want to avoid that dependence you create centralized trust which is something subject to government/bankers attacks by coercing those individuals holding the trust
Even if you exclude the history attack problem which is fatal large stakeholders will never be able to avoid government influence
If you can identify the minters which are clearing the transactions you can ask them to obey all govs regulations and money transmission rules. It is far easier to identify stakeholders than miners
Those are some reasons I am personally against PoS fork of bitcoin proposed in the first link