Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 184 results by cheako
I was surprised to receive an invitation to be a dev, mainly because I don't have nice things to say about PoS (Notwithstanding that I have zero experience in software development, and limited knowledge in most programming languages.). PoW has it's problems but it solves a large range of issues that the PoS community are usually oblivious of.
1.) DoS resistant
2.) Free Entry
3.) Trustless
4.) Temporal (Monodirectional)
5.) Irrevocable (resistant)
PoW discovered for the first time that we can arrange information along a path of unreproducable work, and in that manner make the information it secures irrevocable without requiring any trusted party. That technology, to this day, has found no replacement.
I disagree, however, with the idea that altcoins damage Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency space in general. Markets naturally cater to multiple feature sets when there is no apparent ideal, as is the case now. Having more experimentation and options is always good for any market that will bear it. The only way altcoins will stop is when a cryptocurrency is found that has no conceivable successor in any niche. So if that outcome is desirable, it's furthered by more innovation, not less of it. If history is any indication, then we know humans are extremely iterative and innovate best in plastic environments.
So I wish you the best of luck, even though I think you're misguided.
I also wanted to make sure I'm not being misunderstood. When I'm pessimist and/or critical about Bitcoin, it's not because I support PoS.
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
1.) DoS resistant
2.) Free Entry
3.) Trustless
4.) Temporal (Monodirectional)
5.) Irrevocable (resistant)
PoW discovered for the first time that we can arrange information along a path of unreproducable work, and in that manner make the information it secures irrevocable without requiring any trusted party. That technology, to this day, has found no replacement.
I disagree, however, with the idea that altcoins damage Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency space in general. Markets naturally cater to multiple feature sets when there is no apparent ideal, as is the case now. Having more experimentation and options is always good for any market that will bear it. The only way altcoins will stop is when a cryptocurrency is found that has no conceivable successor in any niche. So if that outcome is desirable, it's furthered by more innovation, not less of it. If history is any indication, then we know humans are extremely iterative and innovate best in plastic environments.
So I wish you the best of luck, even though I think you're misguided.
I also wanted to make sure I'm not being misunderstood. When I'm pessimist and/or critical about Bitcoin, it's not because I support PoS.
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
There are also social issues with PoS, the biggest being the unfair advantage given to early members of the community. I can't say for sure if these issues include this project, but It's clear the dessicion to start another block chain was one of the initial mistakes of this project, not having a large enough userbase to be self sufficient became the result.
This coin is already doomed, stop this nonescense already.
I'm concerned about wallet validated purchases.... Burn to play. DRM systems have traditionally been closed source, but in-wallet closed source is going to turn away much of the tech croud. Without them your project will not only suffer from lack of good developersbut also a community who finds that the coin is broken/bad everytime they seek support.
Also note that application liscensing has long been a target for hacking, so the likely-hood of building a copy protection off interacting with another app will simply result in a clone of the other app. As for in-wallet applications that are closed source.... are you stupid! Torjan a maleware will quickly make this a no-go.
Take it easy. That part is just a small thought and is not even part of our official roadmap..Also note that application liscensing has long been a target for hacking, so the likely-hood of building a copy protection off interacting with another app will simply result in a clone of the other app. As for in-wallet applications that are closed source.... are you stupid! Torjan a maleware will quickly make this a no-go.
We are a very welcoming and supportive community and we have no intention to smear the image of crypto
I don't think making another alt coin should be taken so lightly. Many have tried and they are all still considered a group of alternatives to something else. A hand full of alternatives can be a good thing, but when just plain anyone starts another project simply because they can it might undermine the validity of the project they are alting.
Having a clear set of goals for improving bitcoin would be a positive thing, but you should only fork from the main project after making an effort incorporate your goals and having been rejected on more than a number of occasions.
I'm concerned about wallet validated purchases.... Burn to play. DRM systems have traditionally been closed source, but in-wallet closed source is going to turn away much of the tech croud. Without them your project will not only suffer from lack of good developersbut also a community who finds that the coin is broken/bad everytime they seek support.
Also note that application liscensing has long been a target for hacking, so the likely-hood of building a copy protection off interacting with another app will simply result in a clone of the other app. As for in-wallet applications that are closed source.... are you stupid! Torjan a maleware will quickly make this a no-go.
Also note that application liscensing has long been a target for hacking, so the likely-hood of building a copy protection off interacting with another app will simply result in a clone of the other app. As for in-wallet applications that are closed source.... are you stupid! Torjan a maleware will quickly make this a no-go.
Re: Nine9.ninja - [PonziGame] ★ 400+ BTC Input ★ Altcoins ► Automated ► 125% Return
Looks like the game started up again, a few ppl are taking the gamble. Like all investor based games early adopters have the best chance the pass ROI.
Re: Looking for anyone wanting a chance to gain 0.0007605450BTC from Nine9.ninja
Looking for anyone wanting a chance to gain 0.0007605450BTC sending 0.00304218 to 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o from an *actual wallet.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
awesome dude, thats not balance sending 0.003 for 0.007605450 its a lot coin dude, enough for own your ponzi script and hosting,domain and promotion wow u rich now!!
I just don't want the only other player of the game to go out with an Expier. It's my goal to build myself a challenger.
Looking for anyone wanting a chance to gain 0.0007605450BTC from Nine9.ninja
Looking for anyone wanting a chance to gain 0.0007605450BTC sending 0.00304218 to 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o from an *actual wallet.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
Re: Nine9.ninja - [PonziGame] ★ 400+ BTC Input ★ Altcoins ► Automated ► 125% Return
Looking for anyone wanting a chance to gain 0.0007605450BTC sending 0.00304218 to 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o from an *actual wallet.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
* Like the kind from blockchain.info or one wallet from a downloadable app.
Re: Nine9.ninja - [PonziGame] ★ 400+ BTC Input ★ Altcoins ► Automated ► 125% Return
@1Ji5wc97dTGRXJWrQaw3hBEn1KK9Njjbdu
Currently N9N is a game of recruiting new players, this is the case of all Ponzi like games. If you aren't able to attract new users to the game then you'll most certainly lose. In that event you should play off your own deposit, that's the key aspect of this game.
Currently N9N is a game of recruiting new players, this is the case of all Ponzi like games. If you aren't able to attract new users to the game then you'll most certainly lose. In that event you should play off your own deposit, that's the key aspect of this game.
Yes the current meta for design is that the currency tokens itself funds the contracts, providing a self fueling ecosystem.
I wonder if this will be leveraged to create an inflation based economy.
Conservationism here is justified especially so in that one can simply set the key-pool to an arbitrarily high value and obtain most of the values of the fancier schemes; without many of of their costs.
I think a reasonable compromise would be to have wallets refuse to use new keys without explicit authorization. If you backup the wallet.dat file, you are safe unless you hit "Yes" on the dialog box confirming that you have backed up.
The client could still generate the keys and add them to the wallet in advance of running out of old keys.
The sequence could be something like.
- When keys low, generate new keys and inform user that the wallet needs to be backed up
- When keys expire, ask user if they have backed up their new wallet.dat file
The user might hit ok, remembering a backup 2 times previously, so it isn't fully secure.
User interaction is only possible in the qt variant, on the server side it'd just stop working?
An example of good key handling practices?
Actually, this doesn't work with the new 0.10. I had to switch out using a regular file, less secure, instead of the FIFO this code uses and worked with previous versions.
After looking at a few of the backups, I've decided that bitcoind needs a keypoolrefill prior to making the backup.
The default value is 100, but I feel that the code could auto-scale up for large sites if it recorded the number of records that were dumped each time.
The default value is 100, but I feel that the code could auto-scale up for large sites if it recorded the number of records that were dumped each time.
Replace the two occurrences of YOUREMAIL.
bitcoin.PL contains.
Code:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use common::sense;
use Fcntl qw(O_RDONLY O_NONBLOCK);
use POSIX qw(mkfifo);
use File::Temp qw(mktemp);
use File::Copy qw(copy);
my ( undef, $api ) = do '/home/btc/.bitcoin/bitcoin.PL';
my @fh;
my $unopened_file = mktemp("/home/btc/.backup${$}XXXXX");
$SIG{INT} = sub { die };
END { unlink $unopened_file }
mkfifo( $unopened_file, 0600 ) || die "mkfifo $unopened_file failed: $!";
sysopen( $fh[0], $unopened_file, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK )
|| die "open $unopened_file failed: $!";
open( $fh[1],
'|gpg --batch --trust-model always -e -a -r "YOUREMAIL"|mail -s Bitcoin_Backup YOUREMAIL'
) || die "|gpg|mail failed: $!";
$api->call( 'dumpwallet', "$unopened_file" );
copy($fh[0],$fh[1]) || die "copy $unopened_file |gpg|mail failed: $!";
use common::sense;
use Fcntl qw(O_RDONLY O_NONBLOCK);
use POSIX qw(mkfifo);
use File::Temp qw(mktemp);
use File::Copy qw(copy);
my ( undef, $api ) = do '/home/btc/.bitcoin/bitcoin.PL';
my @fh;
my $unopened_file = mktemp("/home/btc/.backup${$}XXXXX");
$SIG{INT} = sub { die };
END { unlink $unopened_file }
mkfifo( $unopened_file, 0600 ) || die "mkfifo $unopened_file failed: $!";
sysopen( $fh[0], $unopened_file, O_RDONLY | O_NONBLOCK )
|| die "open $unopened_file failed: $!";
open( $fh[1],
'|gpg --batch --trust-model always -e -a -r "YOUREMAIL"|mail -s Bitcoin_Backup YOUREMAIL'
) || die "|gpg|mail failed: $!";
$api->call( 'dumpwallet', "$unopened_file" );
copy($fh[0],$fh[1]) || die "copy $unopened_file |gpg|mail failed: $!";
bitcoin.PL contains.
Code:
use Finance::Bitcoin;
my $wallet = Finance::Bitcoin::Wallet->new(
'http://bitcoinrpc:blahblahblah@127.0.0.1:8332/'
);
( $wallet, $wallet->api );
my $wallet = Finance::Bitcoin::Wallet->new(
'http://bitcoinrpc:blahblahblah@127.0.0.1:8332/'
);
( $wallet, $wallet->api );
Actually, this doesn't work with the new 0.10. I had to switch out using a regular file, less secure, instead of the FIFO this code uses and worked with previous versions.
...and at the first complaint of a successful attack the price drops to near-zero, making the attack unprofitable in the end.
It's interesting to think that the economics required to attack the network successfully are made even worse if the attack succeeds.
It's interesting to think that the economics required to attack the network successfully are made even worse if the attack succeeds.
I wouldn't be so sure, it depends on how far the knowledge of a successful attack travels. If the word drops like a stone hidden on page 15 of this mornings paper, then you'll likely not see a whole lot of movement of the market.
Conversely if it's front page news then a hard fork, miners recompile or change options to mine the correct chain in an attempt to orphan the attack. Also note that the seller would offer incentives to the operators of the biggest pools, who should already be honor bound to ensuring that such an attack does not succeed. After all that's why we've been paying them the big bucks.
I wouldn't count a price drop as something the miners would just ignore and a near-zero one at that is laughable. It would effectively end their business and if it means mining one chain where the future worth of 25BTC is 0USD and mining another, the choice is clear.
Re: Nine9.ninja - [PonziGame] ★ 400+ BTC Input ★ Altcoins ► Automated ► 125% Return
-0.00177937 / 0.01385000
Does that look correct?
Does that look correct?
Yeah it's just miner fees, only 1 is checked, usually happens when a larger sum is deposited
that clears out a large quantity of low deposits.
So the latter number includes miner fees, IIRC but the former does not?
One of the suggestions for reducing the UTXO set is to put a cost on holding lots of UTXOs. If there was a limit on the total number of UTXOs (like with the blocksize), then transactions which reduce the UTXO could be free.
A miner might be allowed to add 1000 UTXOs to the output set per block. If he has already reached his limit, he could include a transaction which spends 10 UTXOs to a single address and then include 9 transactions which increase the UTXO set by 1 each. The 9 transactions would be fee paying, but unless he includes the first transaction, he can't include them, so he may include it for free (or lower fee).
A miner might be allowed to add 1000 UTXOs to the output set per block. If he has already reached his limit, he could include a transaction which spends 10 UTXOs to a single address and then include 9 transactions which increase the UTXO set by 1 each. The 9 transactions would be fee paying, but unless he includes the first transaction, he can't include them, so he may include it for free (or lower fee).
How are DoS attacks prevented? Say the network is flooded with these output creating tx.
If I'm not mistaken you'r not a UTXO until after some time you remain unspent. We already have the more confirmed tx as input is priority and can even be sent with zero fee, so I don't see the advantage here.
One issue with UTXO is old transactions never being spent and thus not prune-able on partial-nodes. Though this form of check-pointing adds to the overall blockchain size and this doesn't help at all on a full-node.
What are the other issues output script combining with transaction to self meant to solve? They add more issues with wallets not knowing the txids of the spendable outputs.
You can reverse a block with 25BTC worth of hashing power. That means each block costs around $6000 to reverse.
Not sure where you got this from... but to effectively reverse a block, you need to create a longer chain, faster than the one with the block you want to reverse.
Last time I've checked the global hashrate, 51% of the network costs much more than $6000...
51% isn't even correct, that'd be what on average you'd need to beat a zero confirmed transaction. Even that is assuming you posted the tx around the time the last block was created.
Looking for decentralized communication?
Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmessage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
Offers Email via Freemail plugin and...
https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Sone
http://jtcfrost.sourceforge.net/
Micro-blogging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(software)
https://twisterio.com/
Forums? Never used, but sounds promising.
http://getaether.net/
Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmessage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
Offers Email via Freemail plugin and...
https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Sone
http://jtcfrost.sourceforge.net/
Micro-blogging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twister_(software)
https://twisterio.com/
Forums? Never used, but sounds promising.
http://getaether.net/