You can either increase your connection limit so that you have more available connections than people are likely to connect to you, or you can use an external firewall software to manage this for you.

If you use an external firewall, you could have it set so that you allow 21 connections (30 connections total - 8 outgoing connections - 1 for your wallet) on the default port from external sources, and then have another firewall rule on a different port which forwards traffic to the Bitcoin node port (8333) internally (so as to bypass the earlier firewall rule). You then connect to that other port with your SPV wallet.

Guys we need to gear up and finish the next version of Bitcointalk. Reddit, slack or whatever are private companies which can be handled by governments really well. Don't try to change them, make Bitcointalk great again and any sucker will fall behind it

Have a read.

Please do not donate to this unsophisticated ancient website.

Any respectable modern website would recognize modern convenient means of donation.  I'll tell you what Wikipedia, if you publish your address, I'll send you a check.  Remember checks?  LOL!!  Morons.

I recently activated my yubikey for blockchain.info.
So, I am wondering, if I would have fallen for that, would I have a problem?

We will come with a test build in the upcoming weeks, but there is no guaranty the new wallets will be ready by then. Our short term goal is to improve the robustness of the new backend, and then the new wallets when they are ready, so we won't be implementing support for Trezor while we aren't satisfied with the solidity of all this new code.

Complete guff

I just woke up and had this thought in my head.

In the highly unlikely scenario all miners cooperated and...

1) All miners are taken off the network at the next difficulty re-target.
2) In the following two weeks difficulty is re-targeted to zero.
3) All miners then come online and exploit the difficulty.
4) Nobody attempts a 51% attack during the process.

...would the following be possible?

The introduction of 280 PH/s into a low difficulty network allows for greater than 4032 blocks to be mined at the end of two weeks following the re-target (the estimate of how many blocks would be found in 4 weeks had nothing changed is 4032 unless I've mistaken something). The entire process is repeated until all blocks are mined.


I would think that it would be possible since the network can only miss out on 100% of the 2016 blocks that would be mined in 2 weeks with nobody on the network, but the network can mine much greater than 100% of 2016 blocks for 2 weeks with a hash rate many orders of magnitude greater than the difficulty.


 

Sorry, missed this one.

The PSU we are using was designed for the telecom and communication market by Emerson, one of the most respectable PSU providers in the world. It meets all the required safety certifications and it's MTBF (mean time between failures) is over 50 years.
In addition it supports over-current shutdown and over-heating shutdown, hence there is no fire or any other hazard risks.

Screenshots from the data-sheet:
http://take.ms/R08dn



Answer from the team:

Perhaps few disagree that Bitcoin can be improved by a plan for block size maximum adjustment.  My issues with the proposals are less what it achieves (a good thing) but what it doesn't (preventing this from happening in the future).

There are myriad external realities that we can not know about.  The development of the telecom technology is perhaps less the issue than what the world has in store for us in the coming decades.  I don't know, and no one else does either, but that shouldn't stop us from striving to achieve what has not been done before.

Undersea cables are cut accidentally, and by hostile actions, economic meltdowns and military conflicts halt or destroy deployments, plagues, natural disasters etc, OR new developments can accelerate everything, robots might do this all for us.  We can't know by guessing today what the right numbers will be.  We could be high or low.  I am just hoping that some more serious thought goes into avoiding the need to guess or extrapolate (an educated guess but still a guess).  We do not have a crisis today other than some pending narrow business concerns (some of which are on the board of TBF and possibly suggested that Gavin "do something").  I am also thankful that he is doing so.  This is an effort that deserves attention (even with the other mitigating efforts already in development).  Gavin is a forward thinking man, and is serving his role well.  We should be all glad that he is not alone in this, and that no one person has the power to make such decisions arbitrarily for others.

The difficulty adjustment algorithm works without knowing the future.  We should similarly look for a way that can also work for many generations, come what may, and save Bitcoin from as many future hard forks as we can. 

This is our duty, to our future, by virtue of us being here at this time.

There's an idea I haven't heard before.   I might just try that.   Even though I assume your private keys are BIP encrypted .... splitting them in half and putting them in two different locations is a pretty sick idea.

-B-

Honestly, I don't think he did come from a financial background.  Had he come from a financial background, block rewards would not be adjusted downwards in 50% increments.  In fact the kool-aid in the financial industry is universally that mild continuous inflation is a good thing, so if Satoshi were educated in that industry, then block rewards would probably eventually start going *up* by a few percent a year to keep the capital dedicated to hashing (ie, block chain security) in a constant proportion relative to the bitcoin money supply (ie, the value that must be secured), and we wouldn't be looking at a 21M coin maximum.  

I am concerned that down the line the sudden drops in hashing reward are likely to create dislocations of  capital and hashing infrastructure.  Meaning, that at some point the financial return on miners' invested capital suddenly justifies only about half of it, and then what do they do with the rest?  

The thing about ASIC hashing infrastructure is that the thing that's required to secure the blockchain -- that is to say, hashing power -- is the very same thing that's required to attack it.  And the weirdo economics here have caused a huge amount of it to be built -- much more than will be financially justified three or four more halvings down the line.  The miners have sunk costs in dedicated equipment, so that equipment is not going to just go away because there's not a financial justification for the amortized expense of acquiring it.  And it's ASICs, so they're not going to be able to switch it as general computing power to any other purpose.

I'm concerned that when the profits from hashing go down suddenly, a bunch of people looking for the most profitable use of their dedicated sunk-cost in hashing infrastructure will start to consider attacks.  Way back when we were working on this, I took it for a lark.   I never *imagined* the current value of Bitcoin or the idea that eventually dedicated farms of ASICs that literally cannot be used for anything else except supporting OR ATTACKING the blockchain would exist.

So I would be much less nervous with a very gradual adjustment to keep the miners in something closer to a steady state.  Gradual adjustments make gradual dislocations, with plenty of time for equipment to wear out, turn into doorstops, blow power supplies, etc.  and keep the amount of active usable infrastructure close to the amount that's financially justified by the declining block rewards.

it will die itself, because the cost of supporting decentralized technology is too high comparing with the alternatives