Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 92 results by jib
Buyrun alicak varsa mesaj atsin ozelden ilgilenirim. dedigim gibi 100tl adet.
Negative trust yok.
Hesaplar yillardir kullanilmamistir. son yorumlar 2013-2014-2015gibi yillarda yapilmistir.
Edit: 60tl gibi teklifler sunmayin..
Ingilizlere zaten 60dolara satiyorum sr member hesaplari. 100tlyi cok gormeyin.
Tanesi 100tldir. pazarlik yoktur.
Escrow kullanilacaktir.
Negative trust yok.
Hesaplar yillardir kullanilmamistir. son yorumlar 2013-2014-2015gibi yillarda yapilmistir.
Edit: 60tl gibi teklifler sunmayin..
Ingilizlere zaten 60dolara satiyorum sr member hesaplari. 100tlyi cok gormeyin.
Tanesi 100tldir. pazarlik yoktur.
Escrow kullanilacaktir.
How can you be so stupid? You can't even scam properly. You sell 5 bytes for $20+
Although, of course, it is possible to find a more stupid buyer than you.
Although, of course, it is possible to find a more stupid buyer than you.
A newbie troller here. i already paid for this and everything is working fine.
If your hash size is less than the input size, there will be collisions. There will be multiple states with the same hash, in which people have different balances. So it will be impossible to unambiguously tell whether a transaction should be allowed or not
Economy cannot reasonably work when there is constant deflation. No one is motivated to invest and take risks.
How can we know without trying? We have never had an economy where the main currency is in constant deflation.
The reason people invest is that they benefit more from investing than from not investing.
With Bitcoin at the moment, this is not the case. As the value of Bitcoins keeps going up, there are very few things I could do with a Bitcoin that are better than holding it.
Governments (aside from the insane despotic ones, perhaps) won't literally "shut down" the internet, because communications infrastructure is a necessary part of a modern society. Our economy wouldn't function without it.
Regulating the internet more heavily is certainly a possibility, though. e.g setting up a Great Firewall and banning anyone from running a public web or email server without a license. (Justified by preventing phishing, preventing spam, protecting the children, monitoring terrorist communication, etc.)
In Australia the government has already shown their willingness to set up a blacklist of blocked sites (although that proposal doesn't look like being implemented any time soon).
Regulating the internet more heavily is certainly a possibility, though. e.g setting up a Great Firewall and banning anyone from running a public web or email server without a license. (Justified by preventing phishing, preventing spam, protecting the children, monitoring terrorist communication, etc.)
In Australia the government has already shown their willingness to set up a blacklist of blocked sites (although that proposal doesn't look like being implemented any time soon).
This would give users a false sense of security. It would offer very little protection against viruses or hackers who know what they are doing.
Then how come every competent person uses passphrases for their SSH keys and GPG keys and considers it a good thing? I guess we should remove the feature from those programs because it provides a false sense of security?
Large pools are bad for the security of the network because if a single pool gets more than 50% of the network's total power, the person who controls that pool can control the network and be able to spend the same coins twice.
Please change the "Linux" entry into "GNU/Linux".
Why single out GNU? There are a lot of other components of the system that are equally necessary to make it useful. The GNU stuff isn't such a critical thing anymore. We might as well call the system Firefox/KDE/Xorg/Linux or something.
A host that hadn't been upgraded wouldn't be able to communicate with anything that uses your new IP address format. What you're proposing wouldn't be any more backwards-compatible than the current solution of running dual-stack IPv4/IPv6.
Without a traditional IPv4 address you can't communicate with IPv4-only hosts except through some sort of relay. This will always be true no matter how you design the new addresses.
Without a traditional IPv4 address you can't communicate with IPv4-only hosts except through some sort of relay. This will always be true no matter how you design the new addresses.
seriously if bitcoin is destined to go mainstream then it's bound to happen regardless of 'image'. quite simply because it's so unique and there's nothing else like it.
I really don't think "bitcoin has an immutable destiny therefore we shouldn't try to avoid problems" is a great philosophy.