Could you elaborate on the potential security risks this may present?

Is it possible to encrypt a message to a public key and have it be only decrypt-able by the person that owns that bitcoin address? What about multiple addresses like PGP? Any way for someone to use the RIPEMD160 hash of their public key to encrypt the message (assuming the recipient has access to the private key?)

If you want 'anonymity', you have to use Tor like everyone else.

Here's a tip: Skip all of the "Evolutionary, next generation, etc etc stuff when pitching your idea. Buzz words aren't what most investors want to hear.

We need more nodes, and larger blocks. But not one without the other.

My concern is that every time something from satoshi's vistomail comes out, everyone is more concerned with the author of the message, instead of the content of the message.

Typical.

How trivial is it to make a program that interacts with a local bitcoin node, through a GUI, that would listen for a transaction that proves ownership of a private key (in order to allow access to an account, or permissions to do certain things) by requiring a transaction broadcast from a specific public key/hash ?

Would an API like blockchain's make this easier?

Thanks!

Danny comes in for the dunk!

Thanks Danny

The network "knows".

When you "send" coins, you're actually just changing the ownership of a previous input, by signing a transaction with your private key and creating/broadcasting an output.

Segregated non solution bandaid solution is not solution developer overhead.

I don't understand how this is any different than games incentivizing a freemium model by awarding players diamonds, coins, or whatever, while charging them to buy these in order to speed up an upgrade or building a something.

So I was thinking, if someone were to create yet another altcoin using SHA256 as the hashing algorithm, and the coins ended up being worth something before the hash power was high enough to secure the network from a 51% attack, what exactly would you be able to do with, say, 75% of the hashing power?

Choose which transactions go through, and do not. But what about the ability to double spend?

Thanks!

It is my understanding that SW is not a bad thing, however, as a soft fork shoved into the coinbase, it is messy.

To have my support it would have to be a hard forking implementation, and if it received consensus, why can't we pass an increase in block size along with it?

This is adding complexity to bitcoin, and overhead for developers.

Well, this isn't exactly 2014. But, It was my understanding at the time that Gox took the price down with it. In the week before Gox went down it had the lowest price out of all the exchanges and that caused fud because it was normally the leading exchange in both price and volume. Feb 8th is when news of bankruptcy was official and the price was downwards decent from there until now

Can't go down to much past 400. Have you seen the difficulty? Its going crazy and miners cant fine for free. They add hash power with the intention of selling for the price at the time that they added the GH/s. I think what we're seeing is organic upward pressure, increased positive news coverage, and amongst the financial community at that; those guys have money, right?.

Coupled with the fact that its's becoming more and more expensive to mine for a profit, especially since the halving is coming up.

Brace for launch long term (and great volatility 2016).

Here's a basic rule if you plan on holding your coins in order to become incredibly wealthy.

Don't ever "cash out". That is, convert the coins into fiat currency in order to make them more liquid.

Wait until you're able to spend them on everything, from insurance, to property, to groceries and etc. This is when their value will be realized by the world.

Hello All,

I am interested in creating an API to interact with a bitcoin node to send and retrieve OP_RETURN transactions for the purpose of putting data into the blockchain as well as pulling the data from the blockchain

The process I had in mind went something like this: Insert text string, make string into variable(n),  convert variable to hex(x), make hex as a variable within API, push variable to Bitcoin within OP_RETURN script.

and on the other end for interpretation: Pull txid from blockchain containing output script "OP_RETURN" with the data. convert (x) back to (n).. (HEX TO STRING) and display the original text string.

I assume the calls would be data.push and data.pull respectively.

If I want to interact with a Bitcoin node, would the most convenient(easy) language to program the API in be Node.js?

also, How do I go about creating and issuing API Keys? 

I guess more questions to come, thanks for your help on this cool project Smiley Does anyone think this would be difficult?

As a matter of fact,

Is BitcoinJ even the easiest, best way to do something like this, and if so, is Node.js still a viable way to implement the process I just described?

Is it possible to just use Bitcoin-cli to process the calls from the API assuming it's written in Node.js?

Hello All,

I am interested in creating an API to interact with a bitcoinj node to send and retrieve OP_RETURN transactions for the purpose of putting data into the blockchain.

The process I had in mind went something like this Insert text string, make string into variable(n),  convert variable to hex(x), make hex as a variable within API, push variable to BitcoinJ within OP_RETURN script.

and on the other end for interpretation: Pull txid from blockchain containing output script "OP_RETURN" with the data. convert (x) back to (n).. (HEX TO STRING) and display the original text string.

I assume the calls would be data.push and data.pull respectively.

If I want to interact with a BitcoinJ node, would the most convenient language to program the API in be Node.js?

also, How do I go about creating and issuing API Keys? 

I guess more questions to come, thanks for your help on this cool project Does anyone think this would be difficult?

Can you help me understand how it is possible to produce empty blocks, or what the incentive would even be to do so, when there are still unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?