waiting on telegram...

Have msgd u..plz check n respond

Hello
Anyone who is looking to buy merits can contact me.
Thanks

Up

Up

Hello

I would like to sell Full & Senior Member Accounts at a very good price.

If you are looking to buy Merits then I can help you out.

You can send me PM for further details.

Thanks.

Bitcointalk Username : trout
BTC Address for Payouts : 12VJ6QhnbLuQXdmBQwbL1YmZx4JPeUpsVP

are there any other DAG coins now besides IOTA and Byteball?

The idea is kinda similar to firstbits (if you haven't seen, look it up - it's pretty neat), but the CRC part is a clear advantage.  Firstbits pretty much died off and I think it happened because of errors in calculating firstbit addresses by a popular service (blockchain.info) which resulted in some loss of funds.

However, I suppose the fact that you have to get a transaction in the blockchain before you can use an address, as well as the implied mandatory address reuse, could be a killer

AFAIU,   non-segwit-supporting wallets will still recognize transactions with segwit inputs. So no need keep creating P2PKH addresses in order to be able to pay to non-segwit wallets

nice work, but I'd like to add a couple of general  comments on steganography which are very important for anyone who wants to use it to store real money.

First of all, steganography for now is  not nearly on the same level of security as cryptography.  In fact, *every* steganographic method can be broken with currently available stegoanalitic methods(which are typically statistical methods).  The only question is whether there is enough data, but practical amounts are sufficient (no astronomical figures like in crypto).
While it is easy to hide something in an image so that the image with hidden data looks the same to a human eye, it is so far practically impossible to hide anything from statistical analysis methods.


The only practical use of steganography is obfuscation. If you want to hide the fact that you are storing private keys on a machine from someone who is not too much intent on finding them, then it's useful. Otherwise it's not.  For example, a security agent at the border which decides to do a "random" Check of your laptop will probably not find anything. If there was a "tip off" on you - then they probably will.

Another note: these methods are typically very sensitive to any change in the image such as rescaling, change of resolution, not to mention printing/ scanning etc. Be careful and check in advance how much destortion the steganographic method is designed to handle (typically - no distortion).

The above are just general considerations, I didn't check which methods OP used. (Besides, there are off-the-shlef stego methods which you can use to hide any files, not only wallets/ private keys.)

back in the day, the faucet also displayed the message along the lines of:


Weren't you offering 5 BTC before?  
with a link  furhter explaining that, indeed, it was sending 5BTC before, but at *that* time,
1BTC had only been worth around 0.005$

And about a daily limit: yes, there was some sort of abuse control in place, complete with a captcha
and some denigrating message about those that abuse a faucet offering such a little value.

so, yeah, there's some nostalgia for you.

back on topic, there must be quite a few of those 5 BTC faucet payouts lost forever, which we'll never able to write off conclusively.

[dead board, deleting].

specifically for altcoins, it is worth notifying the exchanges where the altcoin is traded that you were hacked, providing the address where the coins were sent to (by the hacker) and convincing evidence that the coins are indeed yours (and were stolen from you).

Then the exchanges may block the coins if they already received them - and might eventually even return them to you.

I say specifically for altcoins  since for most of the alts there's pretty much nothing else to do with them apart from keeping them or sending to an exchange - i.e. no good ways of laundring.

I read somewhere that this is a name registration distributed service, similar to namecoin but on the bitcoin blockchain, and that the 40 BTC payment was to register the name " .id  ". (The registration is by proof-of-burn )
But now I can't find where I read this.  Maybe someone with better googling skills can try checking this.

OK I see I was just talking about a different quantity. In your ideal example, each transaction
is sent  Peers times  from someone to someone (which is what I was talking about), though indeed each node only sends it once.

Anyway, this settled,  are you saying that currently (without set reconciliation) each node sends each transaction roughly  Peers times? (Where Peers is the size of the whole network - not just the number of
neighbours).   That's ... pretty bad indeed.

since every peer has to receive every transactions eventually, it seems that Transactions * Peers is the absolute
minimum of transaction sends you'd need. Am I missing something trivial here?

As far as I understand, a peer will send every transaction to everyone he hasn't received it from. So this results in an additional multiplicative factor of something like k/2, where k is the average number of neighbours for a node. (Or is it much more than that?)

Is it this factor that you'd like to get rid of, gmaxwell?

I've been just speaking about the default policy in the "Core" client.
In this sense, fixing the issue is trivial.
After such an update  miners/ relay nodes are of course still free to run any code they like -
nobody forces them to update their policy

Edit: All I'm saying is that it is easy to make this kind of attack as expensive as the "traditional" block-size-filling spam attack. I'm surprised this is not done yet.

the fix seems trivial - calculate the min relay fee (and all the rest of the fee thresholds) based on the size and the number of  sigops, rather than the size only. I don't get why it's not in the latest release.
Am I missing something?