"KEEP IN MIND - Cryptocurrency investments through Robinhood Crypto are not protected by SIPC and that Robinhood Crypto is not a member of FINRA or SIPC."
This was made with Gource, a repository change visualization tool. Each of the circles is a file or a directory in a collection of source code. The little person head figures are people making changes. The beam between the two is a change. A green change is an addition, a red change is a deletion, and a yellow change is a little of both, if I remember correctly. When you see a circle split, it means that it was split into another file or it was a directory that suddenly got a whole bunch of subdirectories.
It's a really neat tool for visualizing the work being done on a source code base similar to watching construction workers build a house.
This particular visualization is very sped up so it all kind of happens in an instant. The last time I saw one that was about 10 years worth of changes was six or seven years ago when my employer was acquired and we watched a gource visualization from the beginning to then present at a rate of about 2 minutes per year. It's a lot of fun to see people come and make important changes or people who are really productive at either adding or deleting things.
Folks who have just a small amount of work don't really show up. I've got a commit in the Bitcoin source but I'm not even going to bother trying to find myself in this video because it's probably less than a frame.
Also good questions!
I can definitely understand the questions about bid/ask, especially if larger amounts are involved. To make sure we completely answer any questions beyond the details of a reddit reply, I'll make sure the team reaches out to you on this for more specifics.
I listened to the whole thing, here is my synopsis:
Discussion begins with a good explanation of Bitcoin and why decentralization is the key to the technology, by Jerry Brito (Executive Director, Coin Center)
Fred Ehrsam (Co-Founder & President, Coinbase) pushes for fair regulation to encourage new companies to compete in the financial sector.
Chris Larson and Karen Gifford, both from ripple labs begin their introduction by immediately shilling ripple technology and how easy it is to track and control user accounts with ripple. When asked about Bitcoin they attempt to explain it by pretending only the blockchain exists and not bitcoin, in the process thoroughly confusing the committee. Essentially they are pretending that bitcoin is useless and all thats important is the blockchain.
"We don't think the world needs a new currency, we already have plenty." -Chris Larson - CEO, Ripple Labs
i.e., we want to be a new centralized trusted third party for existing fiat currencies. -ripple
Again, we see here the false narrative that the only useful thing about Bitcoin is the blockchain. Even though the bitcoin token is the entire backbone which creates the incentive for the decentralized trusted network to exist.
EDIT: Full recording here
This is a good point. Commenters saying they are buying OTC and not taking custody of the coins is disappointing.
Governments do provide this information to the public. Budgets, bond issues, etc are the governments describing their "bank account" to the public. This is how we know many fiat currencies are "having issues" and the metrics are wrong. Transparent money supply is an important part of democracy.
Some bitcoin owning entities provide proof of reserves:
I don't see why a country should not provide proof of reserves. Especially they are custodied by a company in a potentially adversarial state. Nacho keys, nacho coins, lads!
I'm surprised the story didn't mention his linkedin profile, which is one of the more detailed ones I've seen:
Count me skeptical, though. This guy seems to be trying way too hard to make it look like he's Satoshi. Leaked documents to reporters. Edited blog posts - with more suggestive evidence added after the fact. It seems like the work of a conman to be blunt.
Then there's the whole "Top 15 supercomputer" bragging. Who cares, even if it is true?
Satoshi could provide the best evidence for his identity by signing a message with the key pair that received payment from the genesis block. All the other stuff cited in the article can be forged.
Also, I've found no evidence that Tulips "kill grass." Quite the opposite, it seems:
tl;dr: of what's going on:
A large % of the hashing power (not just f2pool) ~~is~~ was "SPV mining" where they mine on top of headers from blocks that they haven't actually verified. They do this because in most cases you earn more money doing it - latency matters a lot and even 1MB blocks take long enough to propagate that you lose a significant amount of money by waiting for full propagation.
However, this also means they're not checking the new BIP66 rule, and are now mining invalid blocks because of it. (another miner happened to create an invalid, non-BIP66 respecting block) If you're not using Bitcoin Core, you might be accepting transactions that won't be on the longest valid chain when all this is fixed.
Bitcoin Core (after 0.10.0) rejects these invalid blocks, but a lot of other stuff doesn't. SPV Bitcoinj wallets do no validation what-so-ever, blindly following the longest chain. blockchain.info doesn't appear to do validation as well; who knows what else?
edit: FWIW, this isn't a BIP66-specific issue: any miner producing an invalid block for any reason would have triggered this issue.
edit2: The majority of hashing power is now mining only valid blocks. However, SPV wallets are still vulnerable as they do no validation, and ~4% or so of hashing power is still mining invalid blocks. Don't trust txs in SPV wallets w/o >= 2 confirmations right now.
edit3: See updated notice on bitcoin.org: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining
> There have only ever been two hard forks of the blockchain in the history of Bitcoin, and both nearly killed Bitcoin.
Aside from being inaccurate (the first event was a softfork, not a hardfork, and neither of them came close to killing Bitcoin), this ignores the change which was most similar to increasing the max block size: On Feb 20, 2012, the protocol was changed in a completely backward-incompatible way, with implications very similar to a hard fork. Anyone using an old client was disconnected from the rest of the network, and they were vulnerable to similar double-spending attacks. The reason that no one noticed this change (most people here probably haven't even heard of it) is that the change was programmed into the client 2 years in advance. You'd have to be using a client that was released over 2 years ago to be left on the old network. This is how the max block size will be increased, hopefully with the same 2-year delay. By the time the change actually happens, everyone will be using a client with the new rules because that's the only type of client that will have been advertised on bitcoin.org and elsewhere for 2+ years. You'd have to go massively out of your way to download a version without the new rules.
I think that the max block size hardfork will proceed smoothly as long as it is unanimously supported by the core devs and no more than a handful of really big Bitcoin businesses/communities decide to explicitly oppose it.
(I don't especially support Gavin's proposal because I think that it increases block sizes too quickly, but I think that some 2-year-delayed very conservative increase in max block size should be added ASAP.)
Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important.
I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know:
Or you can just email me:
If things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian.
Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome.
https://i.imgur.com/3EbqFiz.png <-- wow, the day after the MtGox warrant was issued to have their bitcoins siezed in 2013, FORCE wrote that!
Instructions if you are a newbie to bitcoin
edit - You were talking of dog, the animal?
(I'm the author of the post.)
Sorry you had trouble with us. We are legitimately restricted in the businesses we can support for credit card processing. We try to be as open and accessible as possible, and we continually work with our banking partners and the card networks to push forward the set of businesses we can support.
This is true not just for new technologies and business models but also for issues like free speech (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/payment-provider-stripe-upholds-free-speech-reactivates-nifty-archives) and DMCA takedowns (https://stripe.com/blog/towards-transparency).
We're not perfect, and we do have fundamental restrictions on what we can do. We want to know of any cases where we've fallen short, and while I can't promise we can change anything tomorrow, I can promise that we'll be constantly working to help support the next wave of awesome things being built on the web.
Brian from Coinbase here. If you'd like to control your own keys you can do this today on Coinbase through our paper wallets: https://coinbase.com/settings/advanced
We will be rolling out multi-sig support for the vault in the near future as well.
We've seen non-technical people struggle with storing their own keys (and it can be quite dangerous without careful diligence) so we think our vault product (which handles all security and backups for you) is going to be the safer option for most people. However, we completely recognize that a large number of users like yourself prefer more control, so we've put a big effort into offering those options as well.
tl;dr - you can store your own keys on Coinbase today, and we hope to make it even easier in the future
Notice how 2X nodes are distributed as Docker images. Docker images are easy to deploy cloud platforms such as Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, Digital Ocean and many others.
This means that we can likely soon see hoards of 2X nodes coming live from cloud services, many of which will be running in the same data center, on the same physical machine and even within the same virtual machine.
Deploying nodes like this does nothing in terms of decentralization of the network. It just artificially inflates the 2X node count.
It is sad to see to which great lengths Jeff Garzik, Coinbase and the DCG are prepared to go and deceitfully keep up appearances of support. Not to mention the money wasted and the predictable damages to the Bitcoin community of which many unsuspecting members are inevitably going to be duped.
It is a despicable display of disrespect to the Bitcoin community and they should be very, very ashamed of themselves.
Sorry to disappoint...
Bill Gates: "There’s a lot that Bitcoin or Ripple and variants can do to make moving money between countries easier and getting fees down pretty dramatically. But Bitcoin won’t be the dominant system. When you talk about a domestic economy, [you must have] the idea of attributed transactions, where if you sent it to the wrong person you can actually get the transaction reversed. [And a traditional system] doesn’t have this huge fluctuation where the value of your account is going up and down by a factor of two. We need things that draw on the revolution of Bitcoin, but Bitcoin alone is not good enough."
I was the main french translator for the Coinbase website (50% by me, other by pro).
They blocked me 2 months ago (while keeping my translations) because they hired pro translators.
Today the french version has not been updated since they kicked me and the translation is very incomplete and has errors that I can't change.
https://crowdin.com/profile/ankurnandwani (a manager of the Coinbase project) said me I will be a proofreader when the pro translators have completed the verification of the existing translations -> The job is done since 1 month at least, and nothing since that.
And he ignores my messages.
So coinbase, what are you doing?
Uh this is a silly statement. Bitcoin can be killed. They managed to wipe out 50% of the network hash rate with one hard fork. A couple more of these and everything will be flopping and oscillating all over the place. Combined with a bug in the next fork that opens up a double spend vulnerability or something, and bitcoin could be replaced by ETH or LTC overnight.
There is a war going on, and the #1 rule in any war is that if you underestimate your enemy, you have already lost.
This sense of pompous invulnerability leads to complacency when urgency and vigilance is necessary to win. Ask Pablo Guzman, or Napoleon or Hitler. The history books are filled with men who thought they were invincible and were proven wrong in the worst possible way.
Read "Sun Tzu, The Art of War". It has proved invaluable to me in my daily life.
Because I'm feeling generous (somewhat due to my wife baking chocolate chip cookies right now):
/u/changetip 140000 bits
Please just promise me you'll give greenaddress a shot.
> Proof-of-Work - To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash
Here is the original. Have you just found Satoshi?
"x" goes on to describe decentralised consensus, proof of work, infinitely divisible money with a fixed quantity, etc... He even calls his invention a "virtual coin".
Coinmap.org is based on Openstreetmap. You can easily correct wrong entries. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/new
As annoying as your experience was/is. Please do your own duty by helping this free project getting more accurate.
Take a look at https://web.archive.org/web/20140226001727/http://blog.magicaltux.net/2010/06/27/php-can-do-anything-what-about-some-ssh/
There Mark speaks about his ssh implementation.
Take a look at comments.
Congratulations, you have made the least secure implementation ever. Even your D-H key exchange has several well known vulnerabilities.
The email address of hacker is
Who the fuck is nanashi?
GnuPG is working for the safety and security of emails and software packages (crypto tools) that are used by virtually every single non-Windows server on the planet.
They have a fundraising campaign going on where you can give BTC: https://www.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/procdonate.cgi?mode=preset .
Notable changes explained here: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0#notable-changes
weird by /u/DanielKrawisz,
it was not a vacation and labeling as such is misleading imo, it was a meetup of all wallet employees developers + some management.
What the company paid for was the accommodation (https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/5109208, accommodating 10 persons) for 6 days and the flight, that's it. Mine personally was 0.326 BTC (217,70USD) at that time (Germany to Spain).
The rental car and stuff was on our own, same for food.
<5 BTC paid for having devs from Canada/Chile/Austria/Germany see each other face to face for the first time (I was with mycelium for a year by that time and had not seen any of you in video)
I get that you did code more than most of the other devs, but you were also working on shufflepuff and the others were wallet team with the goal to get sync on the road lying ahead.
It is wrong to name it a vacation on company expenses, as its whole purpose was work related.
This is huge.
I can't think of a more significant business to adopt Bitcoin so far. Anyone?
Edit: WordPress.com is ranked 22 for global traffic (at Alexa). We have a new record! (Note, their ranking excludes blog subdomains; see Alexa's FAQ.)
Avoid the page in the link. Read the post at it's original source:
I tried to read the article in the title link, but a blinking Andrew Maguire on the right side of the page is the most distracting thing I have seen for weeks. I really hate websites that require the user to push a third of the window off-screen just to read the content (re-sizing the page doesn't help).
Just as important are Chamath's comments about social media ripping apart society. In the end, it all goes back to sites being forced to monetise through advertising. Something which bitcoin micropayments (and layer 2 tech) will address.
See brave browser for an early glimpse of what an ad free internet looks like. It automatically removes all ads and trackers, and has an inbuilt pay what you want model that funnels bitcoin payments to your favourite sites based on the amount of time you spend on them.
For anyone who has not read 1984 from Georges Orwell here is a link to Amazon to purchase and educate yourselves. Just imagine the same story but with a Philip K. Dick twist integrating 21st-century tracking technology on citizens.
Considering you need to use bitcoins to make entries on the blockchain I would say this guy is incredibly uninformed about how the technology actually works. He needs to go read the Bitcoin whitepaper before making intellectually dishonest statements. Satoshi goes into detail about why an incentive model is needed to achieve distributed consensus.
> We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
This is literally the day Bitcoin was born, Bitcoin's birthday if you will.
Satoshi published the theoretical basis (the white paper, really good read, check it out here) for Bitcoin's implementation in 2008. By this analogy this was Bitcoin's conception.
Either before, during or after working on that paper, he also wrote the very first functional version of the software to actually run the network. Presumably he did some testing and stuff first on his own, but 3rd January 2009 was the first, public, start of the actual working Bitcoin network when Satoshi mined the Genesis block with the code that he'd written. And so Bitcoin was born.
Wtf? This was not the intended way for Bitcoin to operate. In Satoshi's whitepaper he clearly states his intention for Bitcoin was supposed to be a cheap currency to make micro-transactions with.
"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services. "
And it looks like his initial intentions failed with Bitcoin.
Will be interesting to see what effect this will have on ZNGA's stock price. It could be material!
VIDEO OF ZNGA BITCOIN TRANSACTION
Notice the transaction is for $5 and how fast it went with no personal information.
The credit card or Paypal fee would be $0.30+2.9% or $0.445 or 8.9%. Reddit's CEO, which sells a $4.99 digital good, said after 3 months the Bitcoin percentage was up to 2.5% of gross sales but because of lower transaction fees Bitcoin payments accounted for 3.4% of net of transaction fee income. In 2012 Zynga did $1.2B of gross revenue.
So Zynga they transition over 2.5% of gross sales like Reddit did then that would be $30m/year and a savings of about $222,500/month in transaction fees. Not bad for a few hours of their developer's time implementing Bitpay.
They'd only do that if he lied about his podcast being clean, while making it NSFW.
Kinda like how the Blockchain app acted like a completely different app while in review, then changed once it was out in the store. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7194085
Mempool is being spammed? If so let them. Either it is legit transactions (that would mean Bitcoin is really popular!) or it's not legit (booo, someone is burning money, so it will stop if they run out). There's about 4BTC per block of fees, while a few weeks ago it was more like 1.5BTC. So if! this is spam, its about $10k per block, so about $60k per hour or $1.4M per day. Let's wait for at least 5 days to see if this is REAL or SPAM. Bitcoin is already temp. broken (and so is Bitcoin Cash) thanks to all this tinkering/forking/fudding with the economy, there is nothing left to wait it out for a bit. If you really need to transact maybe use an alt like LTC for now. Ignoring is best.
it's not on purpose, it's just bad design. Bitcoin will take some hits while Bitcoin Cash is still around. This can take years. Once mempool clears up a bit normal-ish operations will be in effect. Ignoring is best
He can do that, it's up to him to mine empty blocks. It does not really make sense to leave so much fee on the table, but that's his loss.
I know, the previous waves of trolling were amateur hour compared to this. This is some first class psy-op shit. Best to be ignored.
A bit pretentious, but as Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War
> “Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
> When using our forces, we must seem inactive;
> When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
> When far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
Best to do the opposite if this is an attack: do nothing.
Bitcoin will be fine. Hodl if you can hodl, never be overinvested, be honest, and do other things. I suggest a good long walk in nature to ponder.
It's worthwhile to take the time to read the scalability roadmap that is supported by most of the core developers. They're making it work as we speak.
If you don't want to trust exchanges with your bitcoin and use electrum -
BCC wallets will require you to import your seed or your private keys,
which can be exported from Electrum. Doing so will expose all your
Bitcoin funds associated with that seed to the BCC wallet you decide
Therefore, after the BCC fork, but before you enter a seed or
private key in a BCC wallet, you should move all your funds to a new
Electrum wallet, with a new seed. You will still be able to use the
old seed or private key with BCC, because BCC has replay
protection. Wait until your funds are confirmed in your new Bitcoin
wallet, before you enter the old private key in a BCC wallet. This
will protect your BTC funds from rogue/untrusted software."
Source : https://electrum.org/bcc.txt
Source of this thread: http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07
Of course I'll probably be banned for this but blatant lies like this thread are allowed to soar on the front page. Coincidentally, this is one of the main reasons people are interested in Bitcoin Cash; they're sick of the censorship and centralized communication channels.
>So in USD terms it's stagnating a bit but certainly not dropping.
Remember, USD is up 20% over the last 12 months vs other currencies, because the chart is denominated in USD it appears to be stagnating. If the chart was in EUR or any other currency the uptrend would appear much stronger.
Yeah, this is what I came here to say.
This is the actual fee - Imagine being that guy and accidentally setting his fee.. Ouch.
Kind of reminds me of the guy on QuadrigaCX who accidentally set his BTC sell to $1060 instead of $10600 for 11 coins... got bought up almost instantly.
Missing zeroes or typing in the wrong fees is such a costly mistake :(
"The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth."
No 5150 BTC transactions exist within 3 days of the date posted.
BTC was also $800 each on 2014-01-15, who forgets about $4,120,000?
Please visit us you will not regret it! I build a guide in this webpage so you can see the best options where to go here, please check it out here
Trezor supports send-to and spend-from p2sh-segwit and bech32-segwit.
Blockchair has a [bech32 explorer] (not my address, no tipping please) (https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qk4kr8rnfwqfgjh5e7ljstfz9jzshvg4xsz9en8)
If you have an Android phone, install Mycelium.
If you have an iOS phone, install Breadwallet.
For computers (both Macs and PCs) I'd recommend installing https://electrum.org/
Before you store Bitcoins, do two things:
Make sure your computer is virus free and has a reputable antivirus running in the background. Malwarebytes is a great option.
Make sure you have a backup of the wallet (usually called a "seed" which is just a list of 12-24 random words). Write this on physical paper and hide it in a couple different locations. That way if your house burns down you'll have a backup copy somewhere else.
For storing small amounts of BTC, you obviously don't need to go through all this trouble. For larger amounts (thousands of dollars worth), you'll need to learn how to make secure offline wallets.
Direct content for mobile users:
>Tim Willi - Wells Fargo
>Wanted to get your thoughts, if you could, around Bitcoin. Obviously, that’s sort of the new rage. We get a lot of questions from investors. I’m sure you do as well. But can you just talk about how you think about it, whether it is something that potentially could be a broad consumer application, or if it’s more of a niche around cross-border business? Or just how how you might think about that, and how Visa might interact or support that, or not at all.
>Charlie Scharf - Chief Executive Officer
>I guess I would start with, it’s early days in terms of what Bitcoin is, and what it will be. We’re certainly paying attention to it. It’s very early to understand exactly what all of the implications are for it.
>We will say, when we look at our network and the people that we compete with in terms of what people think of as a traditional network, the established network rules we have, the understanding of how things operate, understanding who the participants are, the fact that business that we do has financial institutions on either side of the transaction, you know, the success of our payment system and our primary competitors is that for a reason.
>And there’s certainly some interesting things about Bitcoin and other things like it, but there’s also a great deal of complexity. People talk about things like frictionless and things like that, and when you actually dig through it, it’s really not the case. It’s far more complex than that. And we feel very comfortable with the business that we have here.
Link to single page view (full transcript): http://seekingalpha.com/article/1980641-visas-ceo-discusses-f1q-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Pastebin mirror (full transcript): http://pastebin.com/a48FHKJJ
>To enable Bitcoin in Stripe Checkout, simply add the data-bitcoin="true" option when constructing your checkout form, as follows:
<form action="/create_payment" method="POST">
data-description="2 widgets ($20.00)"
>If you are already a Checkout user, this is the only code change you need to make to accept Bitcoin!
Edit: Bold within code snippets isn't working, but the bitcoin mention is near the end of the code
Well, only if you lack the basic level of technical competence necessary to packet sniff your home network, in which case you're probably not too informed on crypto tech either. If the app claims to be fully serverless it will be obvious if it is not.
Edit: Use this app or any of the other similar options. For a community that crows about normies who can't understand crypto tech, the concept of reading your own network traffic certainly seems exotic here.
Edit: Regardless, I still suggest not entering your wallet credentials into this application unless it is open sourced by /u/lriccardo and/or otherwise audited by the community, or until /u/lriccardo has it audited for security by a trusted third party. See the smart folks below explaining why you're still at risk.
Many ways but one way I'd use is to install Electrum (from official site only, https://electrum.org) and then create a wallet from the private key displayed on the paper (or scan QR code). Ideally you'd do this on a computer not connected to the internet but that depends on how secure you feel about your system - have you visited suspicious sites, is it possible you may have malware? Malware can steal btc so don't put the private key into any system that you're not confident about.
Once you have made a wallet from the private key you can send the btc to a safe place or to an exchange. If you just want to hold on to it I'd suggest not doing the above until your have a hardware wallet on hand and can send to a new wallet created on that device. IMO I'd say hold onto that paper until you know what you're doing. There's a good chance it will be worth much more by the time you do. Read, read, read. It'll be worth it.
Most important - the private key and related QR code must be kept private, safe away from prying eyes and destruction.
Core is planning to raise the block size limit, in a responsible way, in contrast to what Roger Ver and his 14 yo "to the moon boys" want.
Nobody knows what effects a flexible block size limit would have, it's like a new coin. Please test this on an altcoin first.
Bitcoin is not a cellphone, not a hard drive so please boys, I understand that you desperately want to be rich today, but please tell your guru, we don't want Bitcoin to becomes "Paypal 2.0", as he recently mentioned.
Bitcoin Core can now also be downloaded using BitTorrent:
Or use the magnet link on the download page:
Seeding this torrent can help decentralizing the downloads and make them more accessible for countries where bitcoin.org is unreachable, or in the case bitcoin.org experiences downtime.
In May 2016, LinkedIn had 164 million email addresses and passwords exposed.
Originally hacked in 2012, the data remained out of sight until being offered
for sale on a dark market site 4 years later. The passwords in the breach were
stored as SHA1 hashes without salt, the vast majority of which were quickly
cracked in the days following the release of the data.
Breach date: 5 May 2012
Date added to HIBP: 21 May 2016
Compromised accounts: 164,611,595
Compromised data: Email addresses, Passwords
From Tyler Winklevoss's answer on Product Hunt:
Gemini is a New York state limited liability trust company, we did not apply for or have a BitLicense which is a much lower standard. As a limited liability trust company we are a fiduciary, which allows us to accept both individual and institutional customers under New York Banking Law (unlike the BitLicense, which does not convey such fiduciary powers). In short, we can work with both Main Street and Wall Street.
0.9.1 Release notes
No code changes were made between 0.9.0 and 0.9.1. Only the dependencies were changed.
Upgrade OpenSSL to 1.0.1g. This release fixes the following vulnerabilities which can
affect the Bitcoin Core software:
Add statically built executables to Linux build
How about instead of telling people how to use their bitcoins, we just mind our own business? Bitcoin is many things to many people. It's fine if some people want to use it for trading / investing / speculating.
Hey, this is funny.
They have '$3,221,852.36' in assets, almost half ($1,452,078.08), is still in bitcoin.
So, by their own words, they have half of their assets in something that's going to 'go away'.
Just left them a comment card (https://www.grubhub.com/contact/)
I worked out I've spent $100 this year on lunch and I'm happy to close my account with them.
I think laughing at customers is worth being punished.
Why not just use the already-existing anonymous BitTorrent that's integrated into I2P? I2P is like Tor but is almost completely decentralized and self-scaling, and has numerous features that Tor does not (support for UDP traffic, customizable and more obfuscated tunnels, integrated anonymous email and secure messaging with I2P-Bote, a highly resilient distributed data store with the Tahoe-LAFS plugin, and more).
was never owned by Mark. He did provide a server for a while, though this was quite some time ago (~2012).
The forum was originally located at , which was registered by Satoshi, and the initial system administration was done by Sirius. Originally the server had Drupal+SMF+dokuwiki (never MediaWiki). The domain was registered by jgarzik, later transferred to Sirius, later shared with me and Cobra. After the first hack, Mark helped investigate it, and he was the one who found the attack vector (though he didn't find the backdoor inserted by the attacker and later used in the second hack). At the same time, the forum was moved to a server provided by Mark. It stayed there for about a year before it was moved to a server provided by Private Internet Access in 2012 or 2013. Since then, has had no particular association with Mark. He's never been an admin or moderator.
If the Silk Road was using the same old version of SMF that uses, it's probably because they thought that imitating would be a good idea, either because people were used to or because they thought "good enough for , good enough for us". It'd be very interesting if the Silk Road used any of my (or Satoshi's) many private modifications to SMF -- that would certainly implicate Mark, who had access to the forum's sever for a time. But this is probably unlikely.
It cannot be overstated enough, if you have crytocurrencies at Robinhood and they go belly up, YOU WILL LOSE IT ALL.
Your crypto IOU is NOT insured and in the event of insolvency, you will be left with nothing.
> KEEP IN MIND
> Cryptocurrency investments through Robinhood Crypto are not protected by SIPC and that Robinhood Crypto is not a member of FINRA or SIPC.
> It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.
This is a point that's very often missed. In the original paper and again here, Satoshi talked about SPV as requiring what are now called fraud proofs. With fraud proofs, lightweight nodes are still able to enforce all of the rules of Bitcoin as long as they are able to receive messages from one honest full node. But what we now think of as "SPV nodes" lack these fraud proofs, instead trusting miners absolutely. (This redefinition was first made by Mike Hearn's BitcoinJ.) This is way less secure than Satoshi imagined, and the rise of these validation-less nodes is a major threat to Bitcoin as a whole (see here and here).
Satoshi might not have realized it, but it was previously impossible to do fraud proofs that cover all of the rules. But with SegWit, this will be possible, and I hope that fraud proofs are implemented soon after SegWit. Even if the number of full nodes was reduced by 90%, if all lightweight nodes became capable of processing fraud proofs, this'd probably still be a net gain in security for Bitcoin as a whole as well as for each of its users. (Though it'd be even better to have a lot of full nodes as well.)
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
6 months ago more to 90% would have called it a scam. The major media no longer ridicules it.... give it time. The meme is spreading. Look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/boom-not-bubble-howard-lindzon-163710298.html major TV mentions bitcoin as matter of fact along with Tesla....
I was googling to see if anyone historically had questioned if Wright was Satoshi, and found Wright had answered this Quora question "Is Edward Snowden Satoshi Nakamoto?" from a year ago: https://www.quora.com/Is-Edward-Snowden-the-creator-of-Bitcoin-aka-Satoshi-Nakamoto
Edit: He's also upvoted a number of Satoshi related answers, which is hilarious to me for some reason. http://i.imgur.com/o05bTqT.png
I bought an extra monitor for my PC just to keep https://cryptowat.ch/bitfinex/btcusd so I don't have to constantly alt tab out of my games to see what the price is doing. It is an addiction -- but it has been making me money-- and slowly killing me from stress lol. HOLD!
We are more or less in agreement about the block size proposal, but coming from a different angle. We both think that we need to be very conservative about the block size increase. I'm more concerned about the larger blocksize causing decreasing in security and decentralization. And Bobby is concerned about the blockchain bloat causing individuals to not able to run Bitcoin nodes.
We are both against BIP101, as we feel like it's way too aggressive and dangerous.
We will be at Scaling Bitcoin.
Definitely no on *-RBF. I do think RBF may be inevitable in the future when block rewards approach zero. Miners at that time may want to squeeze as much fees as possible out of each block. By then, we will have stuff like liquid networks that can fulfill the need for zero-conf. But the time is not now. Why destroy the usefulness of zero-conf today?
I fully agree with Erik Vorhees: https://shapeshift.io/site/blog/2015/12/01/note-ceo-erik-voorhees-appeal-zero-conf
For the uninformed:
This is the only TA I you should use.
Uses Volatility, Social Media, Market Dominance, and Surveys to drive the metric of sentiment.
The crypto market behaviour is very emotional. People tend to get greedy when the market is rising which results in FOMO (Fear of missing out). Also, people often sell their coins in irrational reaction of seeing red numbers. With our Fear and Greed Index, we try to save you from your own emotional overreations. There are two simple assumptions:
Extreme fear can be a sign that investors are too worried. That could be a buying opportunity.
When Investors are getting too greedy, that means the market is due for a correction.
I don't get it... I mean it's not like anyone would use more dial up modems to increase the blocksize.
Why should anyone restrict their network based on a technology that's almost 2 decades out-of-date at this point?
Heck, [The global average internet speed was 5.6Mb/s] less than 4 years ago. Now it's 10x that
I'd be against a gigantic increase, but I think there's pretty clearly room to compromise on the blocksize without "adding more modems."
I'll take the opportunity to plug https://keybase.io/
Basically they make it easy to verify PGP keys by verifying them against statements made by user accounts on services - essentially turning those services into certificate authorities. But unlike traditional CA's, you can verify an identity from multiple sources so as to prevent any one CA from being fully trusted.
keybase.io's implementation leaves much to be desired, but the basic idea is a very good one and I hope it catches on. Merging the WoT ideas and trusted CA models gives you the best of both worlds, and helps keep CA's honest.
Early days is right.
And in those early days, the only way that BCH has to attract miners is to drop difficulty. The effect of this is that miners come in for a while and mine loads of mostly-empty blocks, claiming their rewards in terms of BCH coins, until the difficulty bumps again. As a result of this strategy so far, there are 16,548,050 BCH now in circulation versus 16,527,550 BTC.
So, in these early days, BCH is taking from the future just to survive today. How long can it continue to eat into the remaining 4,451,950 at these "emergency" difficulties? Eventually, the great BCH giveaway to miners will have to ease off, and difficulty will have to be allowed to grow. When that happens, there are only two ways for BCH to attract miners - either the fiat value of BCH will have to skyrocket, or else the transaction fees will have to skyrocket. With the current strategy of flooding BCH onto the market, it's hard to see how the fiat value will grow.
> You could run a full node over Tor, but even with one megabyte blocks that would be over 100 megabytes of encrypted Tor traffic every day. The risk of jack-booted thugs breaking down your door and demanding to know what you are doing far outweigh the benefits of running a fully validating node.
Tor has developed a huge number of very successful steganographic techniques to hide Tor traffic in other innocuous traffic. obfsproxy is quite successful and used in production all the time; hiding a few hundred MB of data from censors is quite easy and tens of thousands of Tor users in countries like China use it every day.
edit: And lets just be clear here: Gavin expects it to become impossible to fully participate in the Bitcoin system anonymously. With FinCEN forcing Ripple to make changes to their core protocol to implement AML, this isn't something we should take lightly.
But I'll warn you: Amazon is already using the term "Glacier" for "cold storage" of data: https://aws.amazon.com/glacier
If I were you, I'd strongly consider changing the name to avoid any trademark issues; legally you may very well be OK, but lawsuits are expensive even if you're in the right.
> on HackerNews, Twitter
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8457298 for anyone else who wanted convenient links
The comment from Paul Graham that I found more interesting is where he gives the reasons why it could have been created by a government. Ah, here it is:
> I've long suspected bitcoin was created by a government. Bulletproof protocols usually require peer review, yet there have been zero leaks from the reviewers. Pools of crypto guys who don't leak stuff are usually employed by governments.
> The part that puzzles me is why a government would do this. I can imagine several possibilities:
> 1. To finance their own black operations.
> 2. Because they thought digital currencies were inevitable, and they preferred bitcoin to some potentially more malevolent form. (Could bitcoin have been worse from a government's point of view?)
> 3. A friend suggested this: because they felt their currency would never become the standard reserve currency, and they felt it was better that no one's be if theirs couldn't be.
> 4. A variant of the above: the US did it because it seemed inevitable that the dollar would eventually lose its place as the standard reserve currency, and better to have it replaced by bitcoin that the yuan.
> I realize some of these explanations are pretty far fetched, but so is an individual cooking up bitcoin as an intellectual exercise. Whatever the explanation of bitcoin's origin turns out to be, it will probably be pretty weird.
> Anyone have opinions about these possible explanations, or other ones?
Most software engineers easily start at $70-100k. A senior developer for something like C++ like the bitcoin core in Silicon Valley is $200k.
So employ 3 of those people and you're looking at $50k per month in salary of the programmers they employ on the protocol.
So you can see why $150k isn't so crazy.
Here you can see some bitcoin events which are partly organised by the foundation.
They have a few lawyers, PR people, board members. People like Jon Matonis fly all over the world to speak at various places, talk to companies and governments.
Actually I'm not impotent anymore. I do admit it was affecting my relationship with my wife. Long nights of not being able to please her. Losing steam halfway through. It's hard. I mean it wasn't hard, but the situation was hard.
Then a few years ago that penile arteries are only about half the size of the coronary arteries in the heart and doctors are increasingly using erectile dysfunction as a possibly powerful predictor for future cardiac events, and sudden cardiac-death.
This scared the shit out of me. I had already bought the vanity license plate for the lambo.
I knew I had to do something especially after watching What the Health on Netflix so I revamped my diet.
So no I'm not impotent anymore.. and to answer your next question: Yes, that is a banana in my pants, but I'm also pretty hard about my crypto investments.
incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result
For example the user /u/wingsuit suggests that we are in the fighting stage and next comes winning.
However, we've also just ended a war that also began with laughing, fighting and then losing in regards to BU
In short, there is an incongruity between the actual result of an event and the result that /u/wingsuit states will occur
Lets a look at another word shall we?
"According to a 2013 report from Thompson Reuters GFMS, it was believed that 171,300 tons of gold had either been mined or was still in the ground. Since there are 32,000 ounces per ton, we're talking about 5.482 billion ounces of gold in the entire world, based on this report. If each ounce was worth about $1,290, the world's gold supply would have an implied market cap of $7.07 trillion dollars. "
LOL I'm both autistic and pedantic? Did you bust out a dictionary for your reply?
The reason I posted what I did is because your original post shrugs off all of your own personal responsibility in this. YOU chose to use Paypal. YOU chose not to read the TOS or email them even once and ask them if you would ever need more verification to withdraw larger sums, even though YOU know that you don't have a permanent address, something which probably less than 1% of their customers lack.
You straight up say they STOLE your money. Its not pedantic to point out that by acting like there was theft, you are shedding yourself from all responsibility in what happened.
Man up and admit that this is half your fault for allowing a money escrow service to hold your funds without doing the research first.
I found the info you should have found in 10 seconds on google:
Journalists these days. According to his Linkedin, he was an "Analyst M&A Advisory" and "Credit Quantitative Modeling" at Goldman. Far from "Director", if you ask me.
Here you go, I put New York because the internet didnt work and I only care a bit about that bit
How the fuck can you run an exchange which at any one point in time has 0.5 billion dollars, and not secure a cold storage?
Look at Kraken: https://www.kraken.com/security/practices
All new deposits go directly to cold wallets — that is, wallets that are completely isolated from any online system. The vast majority of coins are stored in cold wallets, with complete air-gap isolation.
Kraken's servers reside in locked racks, in a locked private cage, inside a top-tier professional data center: this means armed guards, video surveillance, retina scans, the works.
That's how you fucking secure 0.5 billion dollars. Cold means it has NEVER been connected to any network, that it has never been online. Storing cold in locked cages behind armed guards means nobody can steal your coin unless you and 5 other people in the company who hold part of the authority simultaneously transfer, through the secure blockchain, cold to hot, and only that small 5% portion which is needed for daily activity.
This is fucking BS.
From v0.9.0 release notes:
>Rebranding to Bitcoin Core
>To reduce confusion between Bitcoin-the-network and Bitcoin-the-software we
>have renamed the reference client to Bitcoin Core.
The scam of the federal reserve system is explained most clearly in the book from G Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island. This is an amazing book: if you don't believe me, look at the rating on amazon with 1400+ reviews.
Awesome, good luck! BTW I think you're the fourth retailer: Blockstream's store sells stickers over ln, Torguard sells VPN services over ln, Bitrefill sells steam vouchers over ln and can also help you pay your phone bill over ln, and now you sell trezors over ln. That makes you the fourth ecommerce platform with ln functionality, but it's still really cool.
The only thing these buffoons are trying to pump is the number of naive individuals trying to join their groupthink chat
notice how the OP /u/battlearmor567 in this post
posts the exact same way as /u/bitcoinbravo using the double hyphens.
nice shill attempt though.
Edit: OP deleted his comment, I think OP is /u/bitcoinbravo. How pathetic of him...
That's not the fault of Bitcoin.
Paypal etc. have a company to willfully hide the wait times from you under the assumption that it goes well.
Trezor is giving users a poor UX by deciding NOT to hide the wait time from you.
If you are going to place the fault on anyone, it's Trezor for creating a poor user experience.
In Bitcoin, since there's no central company, you have a lot of startups that are started by tech guys who love to talk about internals and specifics. This is why they show the user all the internals.
To us tech guys, it's "OMG LOOK HOW COOL BITCOIN IS! IT CAN DO WHAT CREDIT CARDS TAKE MONTHS AND DO IT IN 30 MIN TO AN HOUR OMGOMGOMG nerdgasm" but to the normal user it's "huh? Credit cards are just one swipe and I'm done. what are you talking about?"
I understand your frustration. But please don't place it on a problem with Bitcoin. It's really a user experience design problem for Trezor's service.
To give a contrary example. I just went to the humble bundle's humble store. No account sign up or anything. Clicked buy with bitcoin for an indie PC game, was asked for an e-mail address, a QR code was shown, I scanned it, tapped "Pay" on my phone, and the website registered it within 2 seconds, and e-mailed me the game key instantly. I started downloading in seconds. Only info given to humble bundle was my e-mail.
In Bitcoin, the user experience is 100% reliant on the company in charge of payment processing. Trezor do their own. Humble bundle also do their own (I think... or at least it didn't send me to any payment page etc and was very "integrated")
Edit: PS, it was this game https://www.humblebundle.com/store/p/continue_9876543210_storefront I highly recommend it. A lot of inside jokes for any video game programmers out there.
Right now the peer-to-peer protocol version message (sent between programs when they first connect) has a services field. It currently only has two options:
There's no way for a node currently to say, "I'm a full node, but I only have certain blocks."
The developers are talking about how to best communicate what blocks a node has. It's something of a tricky problem and there are several different proposals. But they'll work it out and get relaying working for pruned nodes---there's nothing fundamental stopping it.
For the hardcore bitcoiners: put every file in a zip, hash that zip file and publish the hash on the blockchain. http://www.proofofexistence.com/. This will prove that all your files must have existed before the time your hash makes it to the blockchain.
No need for all this shit protest.
Bitcoin is a silent revolution, just buy BTC from https://bisq.network (p2p decentralized exchange).
Go and withdraw in cash, all of you, in the same time, all the money you have in that bank. Buy BTC and never use that worthless goat shit fiat anymore.
By closing your bank accounts you hit them exactly like a dagger in the heart.
Making noise, you make it worst, you make them more nervous and will attack more. Be the first in hitting hard not counter attacking.
Bitcoin is the Silent Revolution, dump the fiat!
The 'deleted' comment in this thread was the following:
Good question. Roger Ver (owner of bitcoin,com) ultimately agreed on June 2 to redirect it to https://bitcoin.org , but that generosity seems to have ended. The site looks like it's now turned into a low-quality spammy site that recommends LuxStack as the best wallet overall, and Blockchain.info as the best smartphone wallet and web wallet (lol).
Link to where Roger agreed to redirect to bitcoin.org:
p.s. I should also note that when I linked directly to bitcoin,com, my post was automatically removed by AutoMod, with the following reason given:
> "Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to bitcoin,com, which is more-or-less a phishing site of bitcoin.org. Please link to bitcoin.org instead."
Ironically, the comment was deleted because I quoted AutoMod's reason (which contained the bitcoin,com link) for deleting my previous comment (in which I had linked bitcoin,com). Lol...
Bitfinex has announced they will list the fork as bcash (ticker symbol BCH) to avoid confusion. Read the announcement here: https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/212
There is a newly created subreddit for discussion of bcash here: r/bcash.
I got an email from plot.ly saying that this link has nearly exceeded its daily share quota and that I should give them money. Here's a PNG mirror in case it stops working.
Also, here's a prettier link, although I think it has the same quota restrictions.
Be very careful when purchasing game keys from questionable sources. Always question and search for where and how they obtain their keys. Make sure they have a partnership with an official supplier to avoid grey market key sellers.
Here are two reputable sites which accept Bitcoin. Prices/location may need to be set to US/NA to enable Bitcoin checkout.
"Dear Senator Coburn,
I recently heard that the US Marshals office will be selling 50,000 Bitcoins that were siezed and currently being held by the United States Government. I was considering participating in the auction, however I am very concerned that you have been quoted by journalist Ken Hess as stating that 'Bitcoins are Illegal'.
Before I contact the US Marshals office to ask them for clarification on your position, I thought I would contact you directly.
Ken Hess summarizes your statement in his article: http://www.zdnet.com/senator-tom-coburn-agrees-that-bitcoin-is-not-legal-currency-7000036169/
'Senator Tom Coburn's office finally got around to answering my letter concerning the illegality of Bitcoin. I'm happy to report that he agrees with me that bitcoin is illegal in the United States.'
Can you please clarifiy whether or not you believe that Bitcoins are illegal, or has Ken Hess misrepresented your statement in his article?
The US Marshals office stands to generate upwards of $25,000,000 in revenue for the US government from this auction, so I think it's important to clarify whether or not journalists have the facts right.
I look forward to your clarification on this matter.
Your name here"
Taking the angle here invovling the US Marshalls auction is the surest way to have the Senator clarifiy his statement. We all know that the US government loves money, and right now Ken Hess is fucking with the US governments' ability to generate revenue, ; using Senator Coburn as his weapon. I'm sure the Senator would be quite upset to know that a journalist is using him as fodder to stand in the way of a $25,000,000 payday for the government, and would be happy to clarifiy the position of all regulators that bitcoins are not 'illegal in the united states'.
The whitepaper explicity states (in the abstract):
> As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
What we are considering here is exactly that - a majority of the hashrate being controlled by nodes that are cooperating to attack the network.
This is 100% true. Everyone already knew we had the best engineers. But since around December I have noticed an extra effort that's helped our community recover our morale. It's the little things.
Thank you for making the scalability roadmap you put together and signed. That stood out to me as a very smart and perceptive thing to do at the time. It was a great roadmap - scientific, comprehensive, very well planned - but I really liked the classy way the whole thing came across. It was a technical description but also an appeal to sense of community. I just thought it was just a good response at a difficult time.
Thanks /u/nullc for spending time addressing the users even when they're not happy. You're becoming quite the PR man ;) I've seen GM here taking bullets from nasty redditors calmly explaining the roapmap, explaining how XYZ works, and answering a lot of users questions.
Thanks for sticking to the timeline and pumping out new bad ass releases all the time. I was so so happy with the block chain sync time improvement due to the ECC library - God bless you guys for working so hard on something like that which the majority of users will never see. It means a lot to me though so rock on.
And it's been smooth sailing for a while now as we just get feature after feature as promised. About to hit halving #2 in good shape.
Congrats everyone - Onward and upward.
I don't discourage considerate discourse regarding Bitfinex and try to take part only when a matter could use additional clarity. In summary of the notices via the official site, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and various news outlets:
We voluntarily dismissed our case and find that we're best served focusing our efforts on existing and developing banking relationships.
Accordingly, all customers are able to withdraw in Swiss Francs (CHF) and Hong Kong Dollars (HKD). We're reviewing additional channels via Japanese Yen (JPY), Australian Dollars (AUD), Canadian Dollars (CAD), and Euros (EUR).
It is our intention to also accept deposits from and list additional trading pairs against the new currencies.
While we develop these additional fiat offerings, we're disabling fiat deposits until further notice.
Cryptocurrency deposits and withdrawals are functioning as intended and are available to all.
We are acquiring an independent audit. We're perfectly solvent and will be the only cryptocurrency exchange operating today to provide a proof of solvency in such a manner - not only by public request, but because we believe it is necessary.
Information regarding last August is still sensitive in nature and part of an ongoing investigation with agency involvement; as such, we cannot release information publicly that could compromise the work being performed. Information release is pending resolution of the investigation process.
Reputation is important, we're working hard to improvise and adapt to the changing landscape in this industry.
I'm not asking you to trust us in word, but through our action. We're actively developing these solutions and will earn our leadership position again and again.
> but bitcoin shouldnt try to become the worlds payment system.
> i dont think that was the goal to begin with anyway.
> just to create a digital token that cannot be copied.
> and bitcoin is this already.
One goal was explicitly to facilitate "small, casual transactions" that financial institutions can't handle because they can't avoid getting drawn into mediating disputes, which makes small transactions too expensive. This is right in the introduction to the white paper.
Obviously the fact that Satoshi once thought this was a good idea doesn't mean that it is, and there may well turn out to be better ways to do them, but it was clearly a design goal.
> I don't get investments and never owned stock in my life.
Thankfully, it's not too complex or difficult. I'd recommend starting with John Bogle's "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing".