Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 2,429 results by kokjo
Re: C-CEX.com Trusted, Secure & Friendly Exchange Since 2013. 100+ Alts,USD,Low Fees
Please consider to add IW to your exchange.
ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1687293.0
Source https://github.com/iwcoin/iw
ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1687293.0
Source https://github.com/iwcoin/iw
dev, any bouty for yobit request with proof (screenshot) ?
Ok 
5 000 IW , send me screenshot on inbox&adress
new iwcoin pool will soon be up.
i will post the link later today
seems like a nice coin!
Nice! Now we need yobit to add iwi will post the link later today
seems like a nice coin!
i don't assume that , i just know what most of Ukrainians want , you can't see this in news . people just want to be freedom living in Janukovych ukraine is like living in the half-free country , you can't criticize the government and the economy is ruined like never before
Oh. okay. You 'just' know. Well then it must be true.Some people in Ukraine want to join the EU, but this is still a long way to go.
don't assume that your own opinion is the right and only one.USA wants to protect the Ukranian democracy/Does not want Russian influence. They want to look like the good guys, while really only wanting the protect their own interests.
US wants to put missile bases in Ukraine. Russia is less than thrilled.the situation in Ukraine is pretty complex...
Russia wants to protect military interests, but pretents to help the russian population on Krim/Giving the people the opportunity the choose their leadership.
Ukraine was given Krim by Russia under the soviets, so Krim is not 'really' Ukrainan.
USA wants to protect the Ukranian democracy/Does not want Russian influence. They want to look like the good guys, while really only wanting the protect their own interests.
EU do not want WW3 to start(whatever that means, and which side to be on).
UN is powerless as Russia haves veto power on the security council, and Ukraine is not a full member of UN and thus not protected by UN.
Honestly the whole situation is a mess. It seems like the last few notes of the cold war, or the prelude for WW3.
Russia wants to protect military interests, but pretents to help the russian population on Krim/Giving the people the opportunity the choose their leadership.
Ukraine was given Krim by Russia under the soviets, so Krim is not 'really' Ukrainan.
USA wants to protect the Ukranian democracy/Does not want Russian influence. They want to look like the good guys, while really only wanting the protect their own interests.
EU do not want WW3 to start(whatever that means, and which side to be on).
UN is powerless as Russia haves veto power on the security council, and Ukraine is not a full member of UN and thus not protected by UN.
Honestly the whole situation is a mess. It seems like the last few notes of the cold war, or the prelude for WW3.
it looks like it's over now..
you think?! OP is only from 2011...So, first, to qualify as a *scam* coin would require extraordinary proof, but if it is determined to be a scam
Nope, altcoins should not get the benefit of doubt. This is not a legal system, this is a privately owned internet forum.No-one needs your opinion. STFU.
I do, and i like his opinion.https://inputs.io/ - MuHAHAHAH!
Tell me please! When?! Are people really stupid enough to put bitcoins into those services?
And you are the speakers of freedom and libertardism, and yet you prove over again that you can't even handle you own fucking money!
You deserve to get robbed and starve to dead. Darwinism always win!
And you are the speakers of freedom and libertardism, and yet you prove over again that you can't even handle you own fucking money!
You deserve to get robbed and starve to dead. Darwinism always win!
... leading ...
LOL YOU FUNNY!Trading across chains (e.g. Litecoin for Bitcoin) has actually already been solved. Take a look at CoinSwap; the algorithm works even if A->B and C->D are on different chains!
At this point it's just a matter of someone actually implementing the protocol.
That requires a trusted thrid party.At this point it's just a matter of someone actually implementing the protocol.
There is one main problem with that idea. "On-receive" scripts open a whole big can of worms that needs very careful security analysis.
Correct. That is why transaction scripts does not depend on a external state. Also new script opcodes are not introduced lightly, they are essentially hard forks.But how do you simultaneously reveal? That's the trick.
Trusted third party...Is it possible using pay-to-script-hash, to come up with an appropriate script for mutually conditional transactions?
What I mean is, you have the following scenario:
Alice and Bob want to make transaction A, but if and only if Carol and Dave make transaction B.
Carol and Dave want to make transaction B, but if and only if Alice and Bob make transaction A.
All four parties want both transactions to go through, or neither. But none of them wants to structure it as a single four-way transaction, because Alice and Bob are not allowed to know before both tx are broadcast which txouts Carol and Dave are about to use, and vice versa.
Nobody cares, though, if the other pair do instead a similar transaction (same amount transferred) involving *different* txouts. As long as it isn't exactly transaction A or transaction B, they don't want their own transaction to go through.
They can cooperate to the extent of giving each other identifying information for their transactions; they can give each other partial hashes of their tx (ie, their hash matches their tx if you zero the part of their script that contains your hash) before broadcasting the tx.
What I mean is, you have the following scenario:
Alice and Bob want to make transaction A, but if and only if Carol and Dave make transaction B.
Carol and Dave want to make transaction B, but if and only if Alice and Bob make transaction A.
All four parties want both transactions to go through, or neither. But none of them wants to structure it as a single four-way transaction, because Alice and Bob are not allowed to know before both tx are broadcast which txouts Carol and Dave are about to use, and vice versa.
Nobody cares, though, if the other pair do instead a similar transaction (same amount transferred) involving *different* txouts. As long as it isn't exactly transaction A or transaction B, they don't want their own transaction to go through.
They can cooperate to the extent of giving each other identifying information for their transactions; they can give each other partial hashes of their tx (ie, their hash matches their tx if you zero the part of their script that contains your hash) before broadcasting the tx.
A & B send to a 4-signature address and get a refund transaction from C&D that is timelocked in the future.
C & D send to a 4-signature address and get a refund transaction from A&B that is timelocked in the future.
Once all funds arrive, make a transaction that spends both going into 4-sig, invalidating the refunds.
If time expires, each pair can decide to execute a refund.
Quote
But none of them wants to structure it as a single four-way transaction,
there is no situation where this would be useful...
It cannot be done within bitcoin, as txscripts are not dependent on the blockchain, or any other external state for that matter. txscripts only decides whatever a transaction is approved by the owner(s).
It cannot be done within bitcoin, as txscripts are not dependent on the blockchain, or any other external state for that matter. txscripts only decides whatever a transaction is approved by the owner(s).
LoL...No!
It will be completely new code base, unrelated to Bitcoin & forks.
But yes, GPL is better for coders' cooperation.
PPC also said that...It will be completely new code base, unrelated to Bitcoin & forks.
But yes, GPL is better for coders' cooperation.