What are
/r/bitcoinxt's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/bitcoinxt:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/bitcoinxt:
Bitcoin
Google Groups
NiceHash
WikiLeaks
Tor
The Intercept
MEGA
Electrum
HackADay
Bitcoin Cash
MarketWatch
DigitalOcean
Coinbase
ShapeShift
The most popular VPNs mentioned in /r/bitcoinxt:
The most popular reviews in /r/bitcoinxt:
I'd like to note that the companies involved in this pledge are taking a risk of being removed from bitcoin.org's wallet listings as a result of their new policy: https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
I believe this pledge demonstrates the conviction of said companies that the future of the entire ecosystem hangs in the balance of this decision.
Copypasta from my own post:
The "transaction blocking" or "Tor blocking" "blacklisting" as variously claimed by FUD-spreader (or confused people) is an anti-DDoS measure that only activates when connections are saturated, i.e. when you're attacked and your node will go dark anyway if you don't do something. Which one will you like, de-prioritizing Tor nodes and hobble along, or just go down in the spirit of fairness?
To be fair the implementation is a bit ham-fisted and not really that effective (can be circumvented with minor effort), but to call it "blacklisting" is just dishonest. If you read Mike's reply originally posted by /u/liliIllill (below), XT actually includes some bugfixes that improve your node's ability to survive non-responding peers and still relax tx.
The "de-anonymizing" part is where XT fetches a list of Tor exit nodes for the de-prioritization described above (from the Tor project itself!). Allegedly it "exposes what your node is doing". But in fact:
As Mike repeatedly pointed out, you already broadcast to the world, loud and clear, that you run a Bitcoin node at your place by putting it on the internet and relaying tx. Fetching a list from the Tor project doesn't change that.
If you're behind a proxy, the fetching doesn't happen. Nope, it doesn't destroy your efforts to stay private.
You can manually disable the whole de-prioritization list thing (and hence stop fetching) in a single line if you really, really hate it.
See also: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/wwj54iGCVmI/lGTsWSUyuAMJ
> Is that some sort of leak from some sort of employee only #blockstream chan or... ?
No that's a freenode channel. I don't know whether it is fully public (as in anyone can join), but it is seemingly publicly archived (the OP provided a link above).
> Which makes me suspicious, and I have no evidence, just an opinion that there seems to be a powerful force behind these guys like btcdrak, petertodd, etc., like perhaps that jdillon guy, who seems to be directing their actions.
Yes, or some TLA. I am usually not conspiracy minded, but there is evidence that they do it.
A hypothetical goal of just trying to fragment the community into smaller and smaller parts would just perfectly fit the available data.
This does indeed makes me wonder about all this.
https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us
>Domain owners- Martti Malmi (AKA Sirius) Inactive Michael Marquardt (AKA Theymos)
Incidentally, on that page: >When Nakamoto left the project, he gave ownership of the domain to additional people, separate from the Bitcoin developers, to spread responsibility and prevent any one person or group from easily gaining control over the Bitcoin project.
Fail.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/_YeEuaUu3Xk
XT 0.11A has the following upgrades over Core:
Bigger blocks
Double spend relaying
Better DoS attack defences
BIP 65 / getutxos support
DNS seed list refresh
> Stealth mode
> -stealth-mode flag
In case anybody was wondering what that's all about:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/IWg3JHvOWJo/O0RZR8-xAQAJ
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/57
tl;dr: Make XT look and behave like Core in most aspects that could be detected externally (i.e. does not affect BIP101 code). This to help thwart the DDoS attackers. This does mean your node will not be automatically detected at e.g. xtnodes.com .
There is some talk on the XT mailing list about adding an option to the next release of XT which will disguise your node as a non-XT node. It will look and act exactly the same as Core, except it will accept BIP101 blocks if/when that occurs.
Running a stealth XT node may be a viable option for you, if your network admins refuse to let you run a plain XT node for fear of DDoS attacks.
Because Bitcoin.org admins implemented a policy prohibiting any implementations that support a "contentious" hard fork.
Policy: https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
Discussion of policy implementation: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/894
From the xt list; https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/CPAz9KSePcg
T Zander wrote;
> having looked at the code a little and the mails here I think that the worries expressed are really based on a casual and non-complete understanding.
>The one thing to remember is that this is very specific code only used by a node that has all its connections full. Which happens very very rarely. >It is a self-defence mechanism, and as long as the network is not under attack >people running BitcoinXT on Tor will have no reason to suspect their connections being blocked.
>And I want to repeat that this block list is the first response, I see various people working on improving the defences, and with better code we may see the drop of the tor list in those defences.
>As a first response mechanism being more critical about IPs where the attack comes from sounds sane, as any network operator can attest to.
>I personally think the code is open for improvement on various levels. But the response on the forums really are out of proportion.
If you look at Satoshi's Whitepaper you will notice the title is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and not "Bitcoin: An Electronic Settlement System"
Also, the first sentence of the paper describes it as:
>"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
> but seriously, I've looked, I haven't found, I'd be interested if you have links.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/P8We1DokNUk/X7cXjLE3BgAJ
> Now, I can get behind "It's a cost of doing business, let them sink or swim", as long as we're clear on that's the conclusion,
Excuse me? How did you get that from my question of "Do you actually expect an Internet based company to do business without having to use anything like a simple private-customer internet connection?"
Sink of swim? Is your world really that black/white? If you want to understand Bitcoin and the issues, it really helps to try to understand the points a person you talk to is trying to make. Jumping to conclusions not actually being argued is unhelpful.
The point, in short, is that you can't compare private citizens internet bandwidth demands of one specific island and make any conclusions about miners being able to support bigger blocks..
Try to actually do the numbers instead of holding your thumb in the wind in order to figure out the amount of rain in the next 5 years.
Eric "If You Have Something to Hide..." Schmidt's VC firm participated in Blockstream's $21 million investment.
For more on Eric "If You Have Something to Hide..." Schmidt, see Julian Assange's response to his meeting with Schmidt.
BIP 101 lists why 75% is used:
>A 75% supermajority was chosen so that one large mining pool does not have effective veto power over a blocksize increase.
-- BIP 101
The minimum actually needed for a fork to be successful is 51% which ensures the fork remains the longest chain. 75% or even 70% is high enough to meet this.
>The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.
You do know XT has patches in works that reduce the size of data needed to be send to 17%... Look at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/enX-pRQ46OU so 8MB block would be 1,36MB...
And how would BIP101 do that? What would change. If any of the players stop playing nice the rest of the network can attack him...
What Mike wrote on the XT list; https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4
>XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.
>Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.
>Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.
>As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.
>And all this is just after 7 days. So I am not too worried about number of developers.
>With respect to "centralisation of developers": centralisation doesn't come from the size of a dev team or who pushes the commit button, it comes from inability to stop using what that team produces because they are a monopoly. Right now Bitcoin Core has a monopoly and are desperately trying to keep it, by telling everyone the sky will fall if they use XT. And monopolies suffer all sorts of problems, don't they?
I like XT, but I don't want them to actually do this. Just putting the math out there is enough to make a point I think
edit Mike Hearn has already weighed in
I agree, the "several months" is a guesstimate based on the vague FAQ date of April 2016 (note the asterisk in the FAQ meaning it is not a hard deadline).
Those of us developing software for a living know that plan estimates can usually be taken with a few grains of salt.
There is also the fact that deployment of the Core+SW does not really mark actual adoption of it, so I agree with your notion that in practice, it might take substantially longer.
You don't /need/ a miner; the idea is that the utility of generating bitcoins locally is valuable. https://twitter.com/lopp/status/646120644963241984
Note that when I say micropayments I don't mean "tiny on-chain transactions," I mean "micropayment channels" https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#micropayment-channel
That contradicts what I've heard, e.g. on https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#network-configuration :
> When Bitcoin Core starts, it establishes 8 outbound connections to other full nodes so it can download the latest blocks and transactions. If you just want to use your full node as a wallet, you don’t need more than these 8 connections—but if you want to support lightweight clients and other full nodes on the network, you must allow inbound connections.
If you only have 8 connections, you're not running a full node but leeching on the network.
It only has an effect if the node is running out of connections. Otherwise it has no effect.
To be clear:
- You can hit your peak internet bandwidth using p2p software
- In many cases you might not, especially if you are in a torrent swarm with a small number of peers
- Your internet speed has many factors, including isp throttling, other users on your network, wifi signal, and so on.
20MB block sizes requires AT MOST .26 mbps internet. 98% of the US has at least 6mbps.
Yes. Although if you open the port 8333 in your router, it will be able to connect to more peers.
More info: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node
Enter your IP address to check to see if others can connect to your node: https://bitnodes.21.co/
You're already running BitcoinXT?
The only thing left to do is check to ensure port 8333 is being forwarded.
See: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#network-configuration
You can check here to verify it is accepting incoming connections: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/#join-the-network
Yeah, when I looked at Austin Hill's Linkedin profile page, he writes that his Blockstream title is "Executive Instigator & CEO". I'd never heard of a company having an "instigator" as a member of its board, so I googled what "instigator" means:
> in·sti·gate (instəˌɡāt)
> verb
gerund or present participle: instigating
> bring about or initiate (an action or event).
"they instigated a reign of terror"
I couldn't have chosen a more fitting title for him even if I would've tried to. I wonder what caused him to have such a sudden outburst of honesty. I wish every Blockstream employee would follow his example.
> I don't think Satoshi ever intended the reward to reach zero. [ ... ] Satoshi originally created bitcoin with zero fees, and then realized something was needed to create a disincentive to someone intentionally spamming the network with 'infinite' unreasonable amount of transactions in the early stages.
Not so. From his original paper, written before the software was released and the blockchain was started:
> "The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free."
So there you have the answer to your question.
> Satoshi predicted this price increase exactly, and it is quoted that he expected the price to rise very very high
For all I know, the possibility that bitcoins could become highly valuable was only a later realization. I am not aware of any specific price prediction by him. Do you have a quote?
Have you thought about hardening your SSH configuration by using public keys instead of passwords? It's not very hard to setup, especially if you already run Linux at home: here's an easy to follow walk through (scroll down a bit to get to the keys part).
EDIT: On top of the advice there regarding SSH keys and disabling root, you might also want to add something like:
AllowUsers cypherdoc2
to /etc/ssh/sshd_config (where cypherdoc2 is the user you're going to log in as, to explicitly whitelist them and them only). If you setup a service account that runs the bitcoin daemon automatically, it doesn't even need SSH access or sudoer privilges. You can PM me if you want to talk about this in private.
> Now, imagine that they were affiliated with ISIS.
That would be bad.
> Speaking of Goldman Sachs, who is interested in XT? Some have suggested Goldman Sachs is:
> http://qntra.net/2015/08/bip-101-syndicate-shares-fiat-ties-opposition-to-actual-bitcoin/
That qntra piece was lambasted on a different thread. I will not rehash the ridicule of that purple prose here.
However, one need not suggest dubious ties to Blockstream. It is pubic knowledge that Eric "If You Have Something to Hide..." Schmidt's VC firm participated in the $21 million investment. Julian Assange has published some interesting observations of his meeting with Schmidt.
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
As for miners' claims about block sizes, a miner based in Washington State (USA) posted a detailed analysis on the legacy Bitcoin subreddit that argues against such concerns. One also must consider the possibility that miners do not like BIP 101 for reasons other than bandwidth. According to many here, miners prefer BIP 100, because it gives them an incredible amount of power.
> is operating as a node only part time beneficial or does it actually hinder things?
From https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node
"6 hours a day that your full node can be left running. (You can do other things with your computer while running a full node.) More hours would be better, and best of all would be if you can run your node continuously."
NiceHash is very easy to use if you don't have your own miners. I can't comment on if it's profitable or not, but it's easy to set up at least.
Go to NiceHash and create an account.
After registering, go to Manage my pools, and add this info:
Description: p2xtpool
Stratum hostname or IP: p2xtpool.ddns.net
Port: 9332
Username: [your payout address]+127 (example: 198dbb4bZNDL9MyCG6rdxCJEr4CweqptwS+127)
Password: [anything]
You can use the same data if you have your own miners.
Remember to set up failover pools
Hardly - here are some examples of times I asked questions.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/3YwHm56RuLw
> I feel about 80% confident in this argument but there might be something I've overlooked. Please do argue with me if you'd like to see a switch to shoot-lowest-fee in future.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/arq9ZUTI0wI
> I'd like to get feedback on a few topics: > > What areas should XT accept patches for? > > Should we accept all patches, or just the ones that probably can't get into Core > > What merge strategy should we use when Core releases 0.12?
There are plenty of other cases where I've gone out and asked for feedback or direction. XT is pretty much a huge question mark - it asks people to decide the future of Bitcoin by deciding what software to run, on their own decision making abilities.
Gavin and mike are busy travelling again this month https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/l0PA7UBuH9s
The rest of us are busy working, and also a lot of people starting school and stuff so this is a slow period in general.
Hi statoshi - Now sure if you saw this but Mike Hearn is asking for help with that deb package which reminded me about your interest with this idea: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/TaI5HTAIYYA
Took me about this long to make a torrent of the blocks.
https://mega.nz/#!rFEHmKDK!nkmTzkJOS4RjXgn3C8CWJQCLE9QARCL8yvoRarlB8xk
Personally I've always just used the client.
blocks9-28-2015.7z
33 266 996 432 bytes
MD5: 8d041001e690751e001688292b7462cd
SHA1: 1877c2e80a0b63de4e7853087c7ea1d51ec7b7d5
SHA265: 3dc65acd69522b10687c6dbeef477d293e1ab19c97c41c81d059da4e33918c44
According to the release notes that come with the installed bitcoin-core program, they bumped up the minrelaytxfee from 0.00001 to 0.00005. However in the release notes web page: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.1
it does NOT mention that. I'm going to play to the idea that it was just an oversight and missed-printed mistake. But it is very important to make sure that those web notes are correct!
And seriously, can we please try to remain calm and civil. Lets also remember that many people run their nodes with different configs. Its very easy to believe that one person's node would not show certain txs while others would. It doesn't mean that the devs made a huge mistake.
Bitcoin most certainly has undergone a compatibility-breaking hardfork before:
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-15-upgrade-deadline
> If you are using an old version of Bitcoin-Qt (or bitcoind, the server bitcoin software), you must either upgrade to version 0.8.0 or later before May 15, 2013, upgrade to an up-to-date "backport" release, or modify a file and restart bitcoin to work around a bug with the old software.
Get your facts right. Hard forks aren't scary, and we're going to need another one if we want to have any block size increase at all.
wallet.dat contains all your private keys... and is what you would need to backup to restore your wallet at a later date.
That said, check out https://electrum.org/#home it's much more newb friendly!
Not to my knowledge. I don't see any discussions on github or the mailing list regarding proposals to compress the p2p messages. You can read the p2p message spec at https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#p2p-network
LOL
I'm sorry but you've landed in the middle of a family spat :)
However, you're in the right place. You can find quality answers to your questions here and on /r/bitcoin too.
Don't worry about the block size issue for now. It's far too complex to get into if you're just learning Bitcoin. Your transactions will go through just fine for now as long as you include an optional fee of about .0001 BTC (about 2 cents).
To get started you probably want to visit here first: https://bitcoin.org
You can run a Raspberry Pi 2 today and validate without breaking a sweat. A Raspberry Pi 2 B, using DP Linpack as a very rough metric, can squeeze ~93MFlops from one core of its CPU.
On a i7 4820k (one core) it can go up to ~4000MFlops. Make that quad core (it's not that hard to make Bitcoin validate parallel), so 16,000 Mflops, or 160 times the Raspberry Pi. We'll (very roughly) be able to validate 160MB without breaking a sweat using today's consumer hardware. BIP101 gets to 160MB sometime in 2025. How did CPUs look like ten years ago?
Wait, you say Moore's law is coming to an end? Well well, nobody's stopping you from throwing more cores on your CPU. 20 cores already exist (and in fact widely used in servers), so that's 800MB. Not too shabby. That's today's hardware.
GPU validation? Xeon Phi? Let's not go there, shall we?
Can you explain in more detail? Why would it not be compatible with nicehash? Did you append the difficulty as described in https://www.nicehash.com/?p=faq ? Nicehash supports p2pool, so this pool should work on it!
Yeah, something like that.
Another thing is that I noticed that today some idiot is buying unlimited ammounts of hashrate for a high price: https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=orders&a=1
(unlimited orders at 0.0098 BTC/THs/Day)
This is extremly high and prevents us from getting any affordable hashrate (without operating at 10% loss). How do we handle these kind of situations?
Currently I have a failsave at 6% expected loss. Above that we simply dont get any hashrate. The only thing I can do right now is: wait :)
I am glad you now understand. If you can, until you are up to speed and you have enough HDD space, to download/install one of the full node wallets, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited; all links to these wallets found at the Bitcoin Cash website (you'll notice that Electron Cash is there also. That does not mean that anyone associated with Bitcoin Cash has audited the wallet)
For Bitcoin, you can try mining for vanity addresses or even multisig vanity addresses (although it's more complicated and I don't think anyone has created an implementation yet).
If you are interested in a more general application of the computing power for various causes, you would be looking at something like BOINC and all related projects (SETI, Folding@Home, etc.) or some altcoin projects like PrimeCoin.
In general, there isn't much left in the Bitcoin space that needs processing power asides mining and vanity mining.
Let me know if that answered your question - it's a bit vague as to what you are asking about exactly.
I will tell exactly when I was banned from bitcointalk ... When I posted this video from metasploit community ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwY5FylZfQ saying that he was shitting the first time people had hacked Simple Machines SMF because the bug http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=499927.0 ... He was scared because he have tons of bitcoins (Yes I also did donations to the forum once ) and the maintainer is not just ban people because of silly stuff ... So he did act just like every single dictator in the history ...
> It's not the percentage, it's the voting that is a problem.
I would love to hear why you think voting is a problem.
> See this answer for details.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/NkjCk6waIYk/m2kPYw5KAQAJ
Did you link to the wrong post? That's a post that doesn't say anything about voting in a thread that isn't talking about BIP-100.
Well I don't know everything about BIP100, but I think the code hasn't even been written yet, or its at least still under heavy construction by Jeff Garzik, so its hard to say for sure right now how it will turn out. When it first came out, I was really happy and thought it was a good solution and could lead to compromise between the ones for and against Gavin's original plan. Possibly BIP101, which is implemented by BitcoinXT could be a bit better from some things I have heard. Mike Hearn comments on BIP100 here. For me it doesn't matter much though which BIP is chosen as long as the blocksize is able to increase in the future.
I heard that BIP100 gives miners more power and allows miners to raise, and possibly even lower the block limit. Although I think maybe they are not able to lower it, but just prevent an increase, not sure. So this seems to be why miners so far have been voting for BIP100 over BIP101, since BIP100 would give them more power than BIP101 in the future. I think its encouraging however that a large % of miners are voting for 8MB blocks, or BIP100/BIP101. That tells me that everyone wants a blocksize increase, they are just disagreeing on the smaller details for now. Hopefully this is just the process towards consensus.
I just noticed that Gavin mentioned a REAL reason for rolling out BIP66, and after going back and reading what BIP66 was meant to fix... I realised how serious that bug could have been, as it was literally a ticking time bomb. From what I understand, Bitcoin relied on OpenSSL, and it was discovered that various versions of OpenSSL would accept different signature deviations of the DER standard... which means a signature for some users would be valid and simultaneously not valid for many others. That sounds pretty bad, but Gavin has now alluded to this bug affecting 32 and 64bit installations of the same version!
Was this all common knowledge, or did we come close to a major catastrophe?
>a 22-year-old from Wisconsin
Is there evidence for that?
So he's not the fellow whom Mike Hearn called out in his recent post about why the upcoming stress test is not a good idea?
EDIT: it's at the end of Mike's post (search for "Given the ongoing censorship of all XT related topics by")
Assertion: Theymos = Michael Marquardt
Evidence:
- Public LinkedIn profile for one "Michael Marquardt a.k.a. Theymos -- Bitcoin expert".
- Mike Hearn's comment in your link "Given the ongoing censorship of all XT related topics by Michael Marquardt", sure sounds like he's describing Theymos.
My evidence for the assertion that Theymos is around 22 years old is based on the fact that some other redditor said so in a comment, which I found hard to believe at the time. But then I found the above LinkedIn profile. If that does indeed to belong to the real Theymos, he started college in Wisconsin in 2010, which would most likely make him something like 22 years old.
Edit: Emphasized that the LinkedIn profile is public.
> Are you assuming that the block reward is 0?
I assume the block reward is insignificant, as I explained to you two days ago:
> I am looking at this problem in the context of Satoshi's desire to have "incentives transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free".^1 I think this is desirable for a number of reasons, mostly to align the interests of miners and users and the block reward does decrease exponentially over time. If you do not like this assumption then maybe we are trying to solve different problems. (1 Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper Page 4 - 2008 - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)
If we have a significant block reward, then I agree with you and there is no significant economic reason for a blocksize limit. However, as I explained, that is not really an issue I am interested in. I am interested in solving fee market related problems, mining incentivisation and the fee market, when there is a large block reward, is not that much of a problem. Therefore there is not much point discussing it.
Already well past it as of an hour ago—$7,350 on Bitfinex. It's crazy to think that with the all-time high (ATH), and every subsequent one that leaps onto the price charts, by definition everyone who's gone long bitcoin has profited. The same can't be said for those who've gone short or sunk cash into miners.
Following up on the OP's article, The Intercept reports, "From Paris to Boston, Terrorists Were Already Known to Authorities"
Here's an interesting article in Bloomberg about ISIS's finances. No mention of Bitcoin, though.
The JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon just declared that "You are wasting your time with Bitcoin" http://fortune.com/video/2015/11/04/jamie-dimon-youre-wasting-your-time-with-bitcoin/
Attached is Bitcoin Manifesto. Jamie Dimon cannot change the course of the evolution.
If Jamie Dimon's vision gets materialized - the society may slip into slavery, driven by technological advancements.
If Bitcoin Manifesto prevails - the society will reach the new highs, the ones we have not experienced before. Link to the paper also attached. https://www.scribd.com/doc/288615606/Crypto-Socialism-What-is-Next-White-Paper
I remember well sitting up late, watching the Bitcoin price plunge during early March 2013 Forkgeddon. This was a week before FinCEN's surprise Guidance—"Register as MSBs." and not "KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!"—when we weren't even sure if Bitcoin was legal. It was a long, dark night.
It was like watching a plane crash in slow motion. Bitcoin was going to come back from this either a bum or a king.
I woke the next morning feeling sick.
And, then...
...
King.
I'll scream bloody murder if you get banned ;) Your post is perfectly valid.
You might get 'censored' with downvotes though, as people who disagree with you (the way reddit is supposed to work).
One of the main reasons I support XT is because I was attracted to Bitcoin because of;
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. ~ https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
1mb solution = http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/716b955c130e6c703fac336ea17b1670/duplex-micropayment-channels.pdf
(tl;dr - 1mb = the need to use 3rd party services before being committed to the network)
I was quiet on the debate, but the attacks against Gavin (its Mike who pushed XT out there), and the censoring on r/bitcoin has prompted me to speak out.
>where not 2 guys circle-jerking try to coup and take over
Others (and I) see it as certain developers trying to co-op the network for their own business usage. If you are happy to use 3rd party solutions before your transactions are committed to the blockchain, sure, be happy with the direction Core is now taking (gogo settlement system!). If you were attracted to bitcoin as a currency and payment system that is p2p without the reliance of a 3rd party service/business, then you're sitting in the wrong camp.
This answers my question and alleviates my concern since there is a percentage attached to it. Thanks.
The part about GUI and bitcoind, perhaps I was mistaken. When following the instructions for Windows 8.x (https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#windows-8x) on how to run a full node, there are two sequential headers: "Bitcoin Core GUI" and "Bitcoin Core Daemon." I thought they were supposed to be read and followed in order, but now I am seeing that you can do either or. I guess the purpose then of following the "Bitcoin Core Daemon" instructions by itself then would be to run a full node without the GUI or wallet functionality? Is that correct?
> But I'd like to run a full node when I'm online, which is pretty much every day (unless I'm traveling which happens a lot) for 4-16 hours. Is this going to help the network?
It's hard to say. Would your node be reachable with port 8333 open? If not then you need not bother, as you're not relaying information. If it is reachable then it can be argued every little bit helps :) However it's most ideal to have a node that's always on.
I've got 2 running - windows and linux. Also, yes - there's no reason to not run an SSL site for software distribution. I'm a fan of the way Armory handles their site. They use SSL, binaries are GPG signed and hashes are available for checksum verification.
No, Im not working around the security of blockchain confirmation.
I want to decrease the risk of zero conf schemes, which are working for good reasons already today. And Nakamoto clearly saw this as a feature of the network, not the blockchain alone.
I therefore recommend reading this: https://shapeshift.io/site/blog/2015/12/01/note-ceo-erik-voorhees-appeal-zero-conf
Interesting idea. Your right one can refill an order via API: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=api
I will make a auto loop and a small test that will run i.e. a week. Results will get a dedicated Reddit post.
Im sure the numbers can be tweaked enormously to achieve minimum burn at maximum hash. A bot will be needed. But as a start as single autofill order can do the job.
This is a good use case for https://Coinbase.com I think, since the recipient is free to forget her password, check the price via the app, and then move it someplace more secure once its worth a substantial amount.
There are banks that are wholly online. Like https://ally.com
They literally couldn't get you to go to a branch if they tried, because they don't have any!
Also start-up: https://www.simple.com/
Your ISP might be sharing your IP address with many other customers via NAT. Your only option would be to use a VPN that allows arbitrary port forwarding or tunneling to a VPS you own. A service such as https://ngrok.com/product might work too.
I was hoping to provide resources for Chinese users, so if a VPN puts me outside of China, it partially defeats the purpose. But if that's the only way - better than nothing. I'm using Astrill, reading up on how to do port forwarding there now.
Where do I find that file? Was looking in my data directory and inside the package content of the file, but couldn't find it.
Thanks for the info, I see that the U3 is sold out at their website:
https://www.bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=00020141017110427977rQGR3pcf06BE
Is this the same thing? http://smile.amazon.com/Bitmain-AntMiner-Bitcoin-Miner-Version/dp/B00TWK9208?sa-no-redirect=1