Bitcoin: We've reached the end of the postchain.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Bitcoin: We've reached the end of the postchain.

«‹›3 »

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

FCKGW posted:

maybe if i have some time tonight but like beospos said i'd need a new generator to do multiple on one page

something like

code:

function set_random_phrase() {
  for (var i=1;i<=20;i++)
  {
    document.getElementById('biz' + i).innerHTML = make_random_phrase() + ' ... but with Bitcoins!';
  }
}

would load divs biz1 through biz20 with random phrases, should work, maybe.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2014 23:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:31

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Zamujasa posted:

i wonder how long it would take for a program randomly generating wallets to hit one that already has butts in it

there was some site that listed every possible bitcoin wallet (over something like millions of pages) and i got lucky at one point and picked one that had like 0.1btc in it and of course forgot which one it was

it would take so long that i'm not sure the earth will exist by the time you start making progress. you're always better served by mining rewards than you are by trying to "win" a random wallet with coins in, due to how few wallets actually have any coins in them.

the one you found with 0.1 in was probably an early address, some people have used low addresses in testing, like the one that corresponds to the number 1 run through the hashing algorithm. or something like beefbeefbeef. also i think some coins are stored in the 0 address, but those coins can't be spent because it's not a valid address for signing with under the current protocol rules.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2014 17:55

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

TVarmy posted:

It's like grinder, for butts.

they should brand it muggr. "got $$$ and 7 inches iso bitcoins"

# ¿ Feb 12, 2014 23:36

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

kiwid posted:

can somoene who knows the system better than i do explain what requires a hard fork and what doesn't? or does every code fix require a hard fork?

i'm not sure anyone anywhere actually knows, the way i've seen it talked about is that if you "tighten" a rule, like say the rule of "all blocks must be X bytes or less" to be "all blocks must be X-100 bytes or less" you don't need to fork, because new blocks satisfy the old rule as well... but if you want to say "all blocks must be Y bytes or less" where Y > X, you now have a fork when your first block that fails the old protocol is mined.

this applies to block sizes, number of coins, mining algorithm, difficulty calculation, and lord knows what else really.

edit: they also have a hardfork wishlist which is changes that would be nice but would require a hardfork.

Crust First fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Feb 14, 2014

# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 03:57

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

OBAMA BIN LIFTIN posted:

if you buy the second withdrawal opens, you can probably make a nice profit as angry internet spergs rush to withdraw their shitcoins

if mtgox ever opens withdrawl of anything again, i'd bet that it's limited to hell, like "only verified accounts can withdraw, up to 2 bitcoins per 24 hour period", because they would have to be super braindead to just open the flood gates. sadly i can't put that past them, but either way i think it will be a joy. there's no scenario i can imagine where things go well for bitcoiners.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 15:13

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Beeftweeter's idiot friend posted:

You cant block a bitcoin transaction because its instant. The approval process is only within the gui for the wallet. Which actually works for my wallet, I just tried it with someone.

As far as the ASICS even if they are ahead of the curve, the reward and time to compute the next block goes down. I think there are definite issues with the exchanges and the virtualized wallets, but the algorithm seems pretty solid. The only issue I see with it is: if the reward gets lowered to below the amount of power it takes to find the hash then no one will want to validate blocks anymore.

I think cryptocurrency is ftw, but each to his own opinion.

However, I dont think apple has the right to decide that for me. Even if blockchain was told previously that they cannot have transactions, it makes no sense. There is a bank of america app on the app store that lets me make transfers.

A currency like dogecoin may prevail due to nuances around their economics though. No one can really predict how that will work out yet

not instant. it's instant if you are okay with being scammed, otherwise it's 1-10 minutes if you're only slightly okay with being scammed, and up to an hour if you're not happy with being scammed.

the time to compute the next block never goes down. it takes 10 minutes. difficulty goes up to keep it at 10 minutes. forever.

the rest is drivel that makes me think you should encourage him to buy butts because losing all his money is the only way he'll learn.

e;fb

# ¿ Feb 14, 2014 23:35

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

...! posted:

"bitcoin is broken and the devs have known that for three years. why did they wait so long to fix that? it's a gigantic blunder."
"oh yeah? if it's so broken then why don't you fix it, mr. smarty pants?"

Bitcoin! Be your own ~~bank~~ ~~software development team~~ downfall!

# ¿ Feb 15, 2014 01:58

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

poik007 posted:

Wouldn't bitcoin atms also need updates when huge flaws are found in the protocol

you can just have the guy you pay to sit at the atm all day to chase off competitors and help people and fix the machine when it breaks every transaction torrent the newest windows version and off you go! plus no man with a gun can force you to do it.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2014 17:42

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

(i.e. no one will actually use ~~the decentralized nature of~~ bitcoin since it is inconvenient and stupid with no real payoff)

# ¿ Feb 17, 2014 15:22

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

transfatphobic posted:

what

no its not

in no possible way is it faster and easier than paying with a credit card

no see with credit cards you have to type a number, or like a password or something, but with bitcoins you just fumble with your phone and scan a code and press a button and then with no fees you instantly... hey how come my wallet is empty

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 17:17

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Little Blackfly posted:

Wouldn't you have to type an address or something to send bitcoins. I don't understand how these people can think its instant in a way different from credit cards, unless bitcoin is reading their minds or something.

they always go on and on about qr codes, apparently taking a pic with an app on your phone is an infinite number of times easier than pulling a card out of your wallet. bitcoiners have some kind of mental defect where they are overly amazed by the novel, regardless of facts or logic; new is better!

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 17:35

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Heresiarch posted:

[edit] i haven't doubleposted in loving years, wth

blockchain.info posted:

Warning! this post is a double post of 425909280. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this sender.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2014 04:52

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

...! posted:

I don't know why it never occurred to me before, but Andreas made a comment on a cool technique to safeguard your Bitcoins. He said that if you have a script monitoring your public address, you could have it watch for any unauthorized transfers. In the event that someone tries to steal your coins, just immediately force a transaction to a safe wallet with a high transaction fee. Since the network will include the higher fee tx faster in the block, then it propagates faster.

yeah just force a double spend, the thing that people go out of their way to say is too hard to do for it to be a reasonable concern! classic bitcoiner "have it both ways". if you could set up a script to do this, you could set up a script to double spend all your transactions, and anyone who accepted your bitcoins with 0 confirmations would be hosed over; guess they shouldn't have taken 0 confirmations! good thing bitcoin is instant.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2014 06:38

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

TVarmy posted:

So since there's a lot of new ASICs coming online raising the difficulty a projected >30% and a price crash, could we be approaching a frisbee on the roof situation if miners react rationally and unplug their rigs?

I think reacting rationally is the weak part of my prediction.

miners will never stop, because bitcoin is batman.

miners posted:

I'm a Bitcoin miner. My expenses are X my profits are Y. If Z is the current market value of Bitcoin and it doesn't bridge the gap between X and Y, and then some, I don't sell. I hold.

Call me terrible, but I don't care. This is the way it works. I'll hold my Bitcoin until it's worthless, or I'd even go so far as to burn the private key.

Take my coin from my cold dead hands, before I sell at a loss. Because I believe.

I believe Bitcoin is worth more.

I believe it... Because...

Bitcoin is the currency we deserve, but Bitcoin isn't the currency we want right now.

So we'll short it, we'll hold it, we'll buy it.

Because Bitcoin can take it.

Because Bitcoin isn't a currency.

Bitcoin is a silent guardian, a watchful protector, a dark knight.

rational.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 02:45

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

kwinkles posted:

it's just sha256, why wouldn't you be able to just do sha256 with it?

according to the internet:

quote:

The ASICs are optimized for bitcoin mining. Not just Sha256(Sha256(x)) hashing, but very specifically bitcoin mining. You can't even use them for the Sha256(Sha256(x)) hashing in the rest of the bitcoin system, like hashing transactions.

The ASICs are made for hashing 80 bytes, where you give them the midstate from hashing the first chunk (64 bytes), and 12 bytes from the second chunk. They then try all variations of the last 4 bytes to try and find a hash that starts with 4 zero-bytes. Only values that result in the 4 zero-bytes are reported at all. That's basically what mining is.

The ASIC could aid in password cracking if:

the hashes are generated with sha256(sha256(x))
salt + password = 80 bytes
the hash starts with 4 zero-bytes
TLDR; forget about it.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 17:21

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Dr. Honked posted:

mm nope

why are you so very misleading? only exchanges that work are bitcoin exchanges, stop spreading FUD (that means hosed up damnlies).

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 18:13

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

eric posted:

mtgox "hacked" and closes. New exchange called mtmox opens a week later.

you could call it mtgox2 and people would still use it. it could be run by the same goddamn people as well. "well they messed up once, i'm sure they learned how to be successful this time. what are the chances they would go belly up twice?"

# ¿ Feb 21, 2014 19:35

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Install Windows posted:

note:
- mt gox faivcon still on server
- mt gox api appears to still respond

everything else gone

quantum insolvency; stop trying to see if mtgox is still there before you collapse the wave function

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 05:56

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

mod sassinator posted:

given that they mention moving to singapore in the slide deck, and the guy that sold them gox.com did so through a singapore broker:

i would bet they are already in singapore hiding out

or currently on a plane there, completely unaware of the shitstorm; truly the best case scenario

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 06:18

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

stoutfish posted:

is it possible for anything to be bad for bitcoin or is bitcoin perfect?

i guess bitcoin is perfect

bitcoin is perfect and antifragile and nothing is bad for it, but if we don't get out and spread the word to everyone it will never take over because everyone is too dumb to see how amazing it is and also FUD

# ¿ Feb 25, 2014 22:01

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

has anyone said "gently caress you, got miners" yet

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 01:00

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

double sulk posted:

LITERALLY NOTHING CAN BE BAD FOR BITCOIN

this is nearly true at this point, mostly because the only people left are crazy fanatics who will never be driven away no matter what happens. nothing can be bad because the status quo is loving awful.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 06:56

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Heavy_D posted:

and the last of the miners becomes totally unprofitable

wrong, because bitcoins are worth infinity dollars in the future, you'd be an idiot to ever stop mining!

# ¿ Feb 28, 2014 12:17

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

...! posted:

Just ignore them for the idiots they are because they are the ones who will be using Bitcoin without knowing it.

pretty sure they'd catch on that something was different when they can only use their credit card once a month because the backend can only support 7 transaction globally every second. or would the credit card companies just work exactly the same except somehow bitcoin? what do these chucklefucks even imagine for the future, i seriously cannot comprehend it, it's like imaging a world where companies all use gold to pay eachother, shipping truckloads across the world every day, because hey gold is so awesome.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2014 06:36

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

is it possible the biggest reason why the bitcoin price hasn't been affected by the gox shutdown is because nearly everyone who would have cashed out (casual buttlords) had their coins in gox? seems like tons of true believers saw the shutdown as a "buying opportunity", because they are idiots, and basically negated any possible impact from people fleeing. real buttlords don't keep their coins on exchanges, after all - they keep them on greasy scraps of paper under their bed.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2014 20:45

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Linguica posted:

^{it is a transaction malleability joke}

it doesn't matter which one is real, they both disappear at the end

# ¿ Mar 3, 2014 00:45

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

big scary monsters posted:

yeah although reading her blog post mainly just made me sad. i mean it sounds like she's not going to be on the street or anything but it sucks that it's not just libertarian shitheads affected by this

it would be sad if it seemed like she had learned anything from the fiasco, but all her activity in the irc channel for the goxxed amounts to "how can i get my bitcoins back and when i do i sure won't keep them in anything but a US exchange". even if she got her butts back, i'd give it a year before they were "lost" again, and i'd bet she would have put even more money into them in the meantime.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2014 17:03

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

trucutru posted:

Why would you try such a roundabout way when you can simply use two different wallet apps, empty your wallet a few minutes before ordering with one and then "pay" with the other.

a few minutes would probably be enough time for the transaction to propagate too far, meaning that nodes would recognize/reject your double spend attempt. ideally what you want to do is send your low fee transaction to a node that the place you are scamming is only a few hops from, and then send your high fee transaction to a node close to miners. i'm not sure there's any good way to sort out who is connected where though. if you could figure out a fast/direct way to the miners, your best bet is probably to publish the low fee transaction via blockchain.info's transaction pushing service, because they connect to a lot of nodes, and then send the other transaction directly or nearly directly to the miners right after. i don't think double spending is as easy as people would think, but it's probably worth trying if you can get a system down that pays off even 10% of the time because, hey, free food.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2014 08:10

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Nessus posted:

what's this proof-of-stake poo poo mean anyway? I understand "proof of work," and I lol'd at "proof of bandwidth," but

(butt)

proof of stake means if you have more coins you get more power in the network because you have more "invested". usually this means the more coins you have, the more coins you get from mining new coins.

proof of steak means control by the meatiest.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2014 23:27

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

FMguru posted:

the price has been stable around $680 but the volume has collapsed so the price is p meaningless

i think most of the volume in bitcoin happens on localbitcoins now, because you're less likely to be stabbed for your bitcoins than have an exchange run off with them at this point. as far as i know this means the bulk of actual bitcoin trade has no impact on the price, which is good for bitcoin because

i wonder why localbitcoin sellers dont buy from the exchanges so they can keep driving the exchange price up and charge more for their local coins.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2014 23:33

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Just-In-Timeberlake posted:

Anything ~~except buying~~ bitcoin ~~at market price~~ should be considered a scam, IMO.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2014 18:52

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

...! posted:

Spot on. I am getting so tired of repeating this in response to people claiming credit cards have all sorts of "free" benefits. NOTHING IS EVER FREE. EVER.

except bitcoin transactions! NO FEES!

...! posted:

Can you wire $100,000.00 to Italy on a whim for 5 cents? On a Sunday?

from the moon? naked? on fire? checkmate.

...! posted:

A good reason for me is that the bitcoin network can't be ddos-ed because it's decentralized. My bank gets ddos-ed all the time. During that time you can't do any transactions. A few weeks ago I couldn't do any transactions for a full day, which was really frustrating.

nevermind that time when one dice game nearly brought the network to a halt by participating in the system as designed. also what.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2014 06:32

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

transfatphobic posted:

uh if you send anyone a check they have your bank account number and then they can instantly withdraw all your money

also if your check has your address on it they can hire cryptoassassins to come and kill you and steal your paper wallets/dirty fiat

# ¿ Mar 14, 2014 04:20

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Sweevo posted:

if you throw bitchange at her then she is morally obligated to sleep with you

only if it takes place on top of a moving train

# ¿ Mar 14, 2014 16:36

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

without bitcoin, there can be no pizza delivery in a trustless society, ergo, bitcoin has intrinsic value

# ¿ Mar 14, 2014 16:44

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2014 15:38

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Sham bam bamina! posted:

i approve of this title change

i'm gonna keep posting under the old title, hoping for a forked thread

# ¿ Mar 16, 2014 08:11

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

jony ive aces posted:

agreed, don't sniff the poop

i was thinking of sanity checking, but idk that could mean it would compound their problems further if they did get a frisbee on roof scenario; someone would finally be able to mine the next block only for it to be rejected for taking suspiciously long

there's a wiki article on the way timestamps work in the bitcoins, so assuming the wiki is correct (as correct as anything can be wrt bitcoin) you can't seem to get stuck on the roof. seems like mostly the network cares that you aren't trying to reverse time to make difficulty drop down by pretending blocks take a super long time.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2014 16:11

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

theflyingorc posted:

i knew it was a record that was verifiable but i kinda assumed there was also a list of totals that was automatically updated at the same time as part of it. there's literally no central ledger, just a record of where everything moved?

it's definitely worth noting that the blockchain in no way shape or form records the price in USD that you paid at the time of transaction

the way bitcoin transactions work is that you have inputs and outputs, and they're created by doing transactions, so if you have 5 BTC in your wallet, it might be 1 5 BTC input, or a 2 BTC and a 3 BTC input, or millions of tiny 1 satoshi inputs that add up to 5 BTC. when you want to spend those 5 BTC you have to make a new transaction with every input and then, assuming you're sending it to one place, one output. if you're sending the 5 BTC to one address, you end up with the new address having one transaction with 5 BTC as the input. you can also, if you like, send the transaction back to yourself to consolidate the billion inputs into one input, but why you would do that i have no idea. you can also take your 1 5 BTC input and send it to 100 addresses and now it's 101 different inputs spread across different addresses, assuming you sent the change back to yourself. pretty simple!

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 21:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:31

Crust First: May 1, 2013; Wrong lads.

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

what the gently caress does any of this mean

it means good luck with your taxes, bitcoiners.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2014 21:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Bitcoin: We've reached the end of the postchain.

«‹›3 »