blockchain - List of addresses for gambling in Bitcoin ...
Bitcoin SatoshiDice Change
Satoshi Dice The Best Bitcoin Casinos
SatoshiDice is not being FAIR
[update 4:26PM June 3rd Pacific Time] holy smoke, it appears I got the refund back! I'm going to send donation and tip as I promised. Please no more comments. (People only get tip if they commented before this update. [update 5:23pm] I believe I've sent tips to all replies using u/chaintip. (I might've missed some reply to reply.. that's intentional as it is harder to track...) Also donated to Bitcoin ABC 10BCH. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/3fbab32821cb591dfcc446ac6c78ac4e8608be925f377c6514ce3e0077e36eb3 Firstly, I'm sort of a big gambler sometime. And really liked SatoshiDice. And think they are trust worthy overall. Recently: I made a 34.48 BCH bet on 1.33x and lost. https://satoshidice.com/fai?id=946144 I made a 20 BCH bet on 1.5 x and win. https://satoshidice.com/fai?id=982652 As you can see, on both betting page, it shows the bet amount is 7.5 BCH! As they reduced the maximum bet amount lately. For the winning bet, I got the winning of 3.75BCH + 12.5 BCH (over the max bet refund) For the losing bet, there is no "over the max bet refund"! Any suggestion on what I should do about this? For the slim chance if I could get the "over max bet refund" back (34.48 - 7.5 = 26.98) , 1) I will donate 10 BCH to BCH dev fund. 2) And I will tip who replied and upvoted this post for at least 0.01 BCH to the first 300 replies. Here's a message signed with the address involved in these two bets. Message: SatoshiDice is not being FAIR Address: bitcoincash:qryfy5wzuav3tkukzmhpl28l6n4vvt4aq5x8j46ark Signature: HxJ6zVugR2q+ONfKmUig+gorN9qZxwz4D3DKbFmS1UcYVxtvP7O5uYWrWE3zCJowr6HBLT1jzIw0KtFFOKE/TWo=
A request from Satoshi Dice to the Bitcoin Cash community and a 1,000 BCH offer.
We at satoshidice.com fully support the vision of peer to peer cash for the world, but in order to do more to help support this community, we need the 25 unconfirmed transaction limit raised. At one point Satoshi Dice was the most popular crypto currency game in the world, and it can be again. The problem at the moment is that as soon as a player gets into a groove and making bets, they will hit the 25 tx limit and need to wait until the next block to continue playing. This completely destroys the user experience and makes the players seek some alternative. It is almost as bad as the 1MB limit that was imposed by Blockstream on BTC, and the reason we switched to BCH. If we can remove the 25 unconfirmed tx limit before the end of this year, we will donate the next 1,000 BCH we earn up to €1,000,000 value to the Bitcoin Cash developer fund. We have lots of things planned for the future, including a Satoshi Dice Token, but in order to move ahead we need this limit removed. This is why we are calling on the community to make a removal of this limit a priority. We thank you for your support of Satoshi Dice and a peer to peer electronic cash system for the world.
Why SPICE token might be an interesting "investment"
tl;dr - theres a good chance SPICE will establish itself as the token to whose addresses teams will airdrop their own SLP tokens for promotion purposes ------------------------------------------------------- The SPICE token got started as one of the first SLP tokens with a max supply of 1b tokens (971m outstanding now, as some were burned). When it was started it was meant as a pure "tipping token" much like DOGE back in the day. However it has now kind of taken on a life of its own. You can even gamble with it on a satoshidice knock-off at spice.casa So why do I think this token might actually become something cool? Well, take a look at the slp explorer https://simpleledger.info/ and youll see that over 1/3 of all SLP tx are done with SPICE tokens. There are also nearly 2k SPICE token addresses in use ( https://simpleledger.info/#token/4de69e374a8ed21cbddd47f2338cc0f479dc58daa2bbe11cd604ca488eca0ddf ), though I guess there are only a couple hundred actual "users" at the moment. So heres my hypothesis: when the SLP explosion comes, and people start wanting to promote their SLP based token projects, they will look for a way to airdrop their tokens. Unlike in ETH where teams would just airdrop to ETH addresses, in the case of SLP I suspect teams will only want to airdrop to SLP enabled wallets - to be sure holders will even notice them. And since SPICE is the oldest, most widely spread token, they will probably airdrop to all SPICE holder addresses. In fact, they will probably use the dividend tool (as soon as slp dividends are reenabled) https://tools.bitcoin.com/slp-dividend-calculato
Lightning Network is a Bottleneck for Development on Bitcoin-Legacy, while Bitcoin-Cash is Blooming
I keep seeing trolls posting how Bitcoin-Legacy is better because they have so many more github commits compared to Bitcoin-Cash, claiming that the development is so much more advanced with the Bitcoin Core "Dream Team" as Trace Mayer calls them. However they seem to fail to understand the technical debt segwit and other additions from Core adds to the system. Its like politicians who write laws in order to to fix the unintended consequences from other laws they made before. Should we also consider the regulatory bureaucracy a success if politicians pass many laws? I don't think so. When examining Bitcoin Legacy, I just don't see much development going on anymore. Everyone is scrambling to get Lightning Network working, and show proof of concepts and things. But it seems until they solve the routing, liquidity, user interface, and other problems, its kind of like a technical bottleneck. There is also a danger that this is going to lead to centralized hubs for LN, which could result in KYC/AML requirements and permission for hubs. This makes it not even very exciting if LN does become successful and used. In fact, it even was a false narrative that segwit was needed for LN, and we even have payment channels built on BCH already as well. Not to mention with a strangled blocksize like on Bitcoin-Legacy, LN acts as the strangler fig, and allows a vector for complete usurpation of Satoshi's original model by the legacy banking oligarchs. Core brags about Schnorr signatures, but some are even saying Schnorr could come to BCH even before BTC-Legacy. Then on the other hand I see Bitcoin-Cash has cleared the technical bottleneck by increasing blocksize. I see a flurry of activity on the development side, not necessarily even on the protocol, but on top of it. We have things like blockpress.com, memo.cash, and things like the chainbet protocol. We have tip bots like tippr, and even on-chain tipbots like chaintip.org. People are coming out with all of these new token proposals, and colored coins, and cashshuffle, and other things. Businesses like satoshidice are being revived. People are making cool games like blockchain.poker, and dozer.cash. These things are no longer possible or feasible on Bitcoin-Core with the giant fees and unreliable transactions, but on Bitcoin-Cash we are able to build again. The market seems to be moving on. Trolls will point to market cap and say that we in the Bitcoin Cash community are losing, but when examining other metrics we are actually succeeding and winning many battles. We are attracting builders and innovators back to Bitcoin. It really seems like the market is in a bit of delusion phase right now. If you look at coinmarketcap, all of the top blockchains are not even really currencies anymore. They are utility tokens, and crypto assets and things like that. There are dozens of these obscure blockchains with billion dollar market caps and its kind of bizarre, they are not being used for much utility in the real world. I think its just a symptom of the blocked progress on Bitcoin the #1 Blockchain ledger, but now Bitcoin Cash is the common sense continuation of that ledger and we are finally seeing advancement again.
The continued skulduggery of BCore, and how there are so many holes in the official narrative - this little lesson: Privacy
Let's not touch the block size, the high TX fees, the uselessness of LN etc.. directly. I want to concentrate in this post on the privacy aspects of BCore's Segwitcoin (BTC) which is still claiming to be Bitcoin. I was led to write this post by what-else than a Tweet on their PoSM network, by one of luminaries and high priests of BCore - Mr Jameson Lopp. A user called MAGA MINDED posted the following Tweet:
Can you show me in the white paper where it says to batch transactions to make bitcoin work better? Also, can you show me in the whitepaper where is says for people to work around a 1mb cap and why 1mb cap is so important? Also, can you show me where it says segwit anywhere?
Can you show me where in the Bible it says that humans should build skyscrapers or fly through the sky? (That's what whitepaper fundamentalists sound like.)
Source: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1135217257456590848 Following other comments, MAGA MINDED is attacked and it seems the attack line is that he is someone wanting to keep BTC running in the stone-age. Also Lopp (who advocates privacy and even has his own business CasaHODL set up to offer privacy) is clearly advocating batching transactions. For those who don't know batched transactions are basically one big transaction paying many people at the same time - with the big transaction occupying less block space than individual transactions. A useful feature of Bitcoin, intended as a feature for a user to use if he wants to for whatever purpose, like many things in Bitcoin. Now batching transactions is still something that many exchanges have yet to do, and was never an issue until (you've guessed it) the 1MB block size got reached. These days the narrative is basically those exchanges/businesses not batching transactions are evil and are hurting the chain, and alongside the "you must use Segwit" campaign there was a very vocal campaign for businesses to batch transactions and stop "attacking the chain". This is where the skulduggery kicks in... Batched transactions are absolutely terrible for privacy. Imagine you work in a company with 10 guys all doing the same job, and your boss pays you all with a batched transaction. How are you going to feel looking at the TX and seeing he's paid you 1 BTC yet you see 9 other payments for 1.25 BTC ? With exchanges batching transactions how easy would it be for a few accounts to take turns in always cashing out a little bit of BTC just to latch onto the next batch, and associate Bitcoin addresses with the exchanges they use, and from there try and identify IP addresses etc... Clearly batching transactions is designed for massive small payments to random people of no real interest - perhaps stuff like SatoshiDice ? Yet here we have "Mr Privacy" Lopp wanting to diminish the privacy of BCore users. Want further proof? Check out these series of Tweets he retweeted from May 31.... https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490588605222913 https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490591264497664 https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1135194745465126912 And he summarises:
We can't force anyone to use Bitcoin's block space more efficiently, but we can inform users of how to save money and stop contributing to the problem by using services that are dragging their feet for years on implementing efficiency improvements.
Src: https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1135207061959118850 Mr Privacy mentions nothing about the privacy implications of this. He is sacrificing privacy to stay with the small-blocks-good narrative. Which leads us onto the other Coreons.... They tell us everyone needs to run a node cause you can trust no-one. If you can trust no-one then shouldn't you really be concerned about privacy? If you are running a node then isn't that an easy gateway for someone to figure out your IP address and that you're the guy who cashed out $1,000,000 from Kraken in a batch transaction they purposely cashed out $0.50 in to see who the other Kraken users were? They'll tell you to run a node on Tor to increase your privacy - but tell you to batch your TX decreasing your privacy. Only in a coreonic world does this narrative make sense. They'll also tell you to run a Lightning Node, to use LN. LN right now is a privacy nightmare, as even Blockstream admit: https://twitter.com/n1cklestatus/1133671925299982337 Again answers are "use Tor" but for sure if you looked hard enough you'd see this guy supporting batched transactions. Mr "Privacy" Jameson Lopp - you really should know better.
Double-spending unconfirmed transactions is a lot easier than most people realise
Example: tx1 double-spent by tx2 How did I do that? Simple: I took advantage of the fact that not all miners have the exact same mempool policies. In the case of the above two transactions due to the fee drop introduced by 0.9 only a minority of miners actually will accept tx1, which pays 0.1mBTC/KB, even though the network and most wallet software will accept it. (e.g. Android wallet) Equally I could have taken advantage of the fact that some of the hashing power blocks payments to Satoshidice, the "correct horse battery staple" address, OP_RETURN, bare multisig addresses etc. Fact is, unconfirmed transactions aren't safe. BitUndo has gotten a lot of press lately, but they're just the latest in a long line of ways to double-spend unconfirmed transactions; Bitcoin would be much better off if we stopped trying to make them safe, and focused on implementing technologies with real security like escrow, micropayment channels, off-chain transactions, replace-by-fee scorched earth, etc. Try it out for yourself: https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools EDIT: Managed to double-spend with a tx fee valid under the pre v0.9 rules: tx1 double-spent by tx2. The double-spent tx has a few addresseses that are commonly blocked by miners, so it may have been rejected by the miner initially, or they may be using even higher fee rules. Or of course, they've adopted replace-by-fee.
What noteworthy excuses have you seen for Proof of Work?
I'm 2000 words into a blog post on excuses for why the self-evidently terrible process of Proof-of-Work is stupid, and I'm after butters' excuses for why it's good actually. The hard part is that I really need ones that are from noteworthy butters - random bozos talking rubbish are too easily deniable. So far I have:
security of the chain. (Could use Antonopoulos, he's a bit glib though.) This ignores the security of everything around the chain, which is of course what hackers and crooks have had startling success attacking, because nobody attacks a system at its most secure point.
decentralisation, which failed by early 2014. When pushed, they retreat to some element of decentralisation as the justification, e.g. miners can't issue money willy-nilly like those central banks totally do. (Again, I need a noteworthy arguer.)
Nick Szabo, in "Money, blockchains, and social scalability": Spending all that electricity on Bitcoin is like spending computing power on nice user interfaces - Bitcoin allows global social coordination like nothing before it! You might think that the Internet is what allows that. Szabo concedes this, then outlines how money would have to work on the Internet to be any good and, coincidentally, what he describes closely matches Bitcoin! Thus, Bitcoin justifies the energy spent on Bitcoin.
Saifedean Ammous says we need PoW to make Bitcoin hard money in an Austrian jargon sense, which is intrinsically good and you must be some sort of Keynesian pervert if you disagree. And it's not a "waste" because people were willing to spend the money.
Andreas Antonopoulous ignored PoW in The Internet of Money, but by Volume 2 he couldn't ignore it, and gives it a chapter: Bitcoin is not merely tamper-evident but tamper-proof. Therefore it is a perfect unalterable historical record, and giving us this is why PoW is good. He ignores that the thing it's a perfect record of is SatoshiDice spam and prosecution futures, because blockchains don't scale to actually useful information.
"But what about the entire financial system and everyone in it?" I did some really quick and casual numbers on this and worked out that at the present cost per transaction, Bitcoin would have to use something like 40% of all energy (not just electricity) to equal the financial system's transaction rate.
I've got a pile of crappy cites on the argument that using all the energy is good because it necessitates the creation of clean energy, and so advances research into clean energy. Bitcoiners keep raising this one to me and showing they're bad at standards of evidence - the most solid I have so far is Ari Paul saying he knows someone who bought a pile of solar panels to fuel a mining operation.
I've seen nothing addressing the problem that PoW is motivated to be anti-efficient - to use more electricity for the same transaction rate - whereas everything that butters compare it to, is motivated to keep its electricity costs as low as possible. Has anyone seen butters mention this?
There must be others. What stupid arguments have particularly impressed you?
Food 200 Acres remaining arable land Data 100 zettabytes public ledger Breathable Air 100 km3 Dyson Sphere Cryptomining 380 yottawatts Laborers 2 million someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my planet is dying — comedyblissoption
Be careful with brain wallets, there are people sitting on the common ones! Lost 5 BTC.
I'm not sure how many of you use brain wallets, but PLEASE be very careful messing around with them. For those of you who don't know, they are a deterministic way of generating a Bitcoin keypair using a passphrase. I read this post on Hacker News 3 weeks ago and started messing around with bitaddress.org to see if I could find any of the 1 BTC bounties. I found a few bitcents at 13w4Hn1BJQM4bjZZgYtXpyp4cioiw29tKj (I think the wallet passphrase was something simple like "satoshinakamoto" but I forget the exact phrase) and to see if it would actually work I tried adding it into blockchain.info's wallet. Fast forward to today. I was moving some funds around and I just sent 5 BTC to the last address on my blockchain.info wallet (why on earth didn't I generate a new one?). I sent 0.1 BTC to SatoshiDICE for the hell of it and went about my business. A few minutes later, I went back to check the result of my bet and BAM. Someone had swept up my funds less than 10 minutes after I put them in there. So yes, I was an idiot and it was a very (very) expensive lesson in being careful with what addresses you send to and what brain wallet passphrases to use :( Hopefully some of you can read this and avoid a similar fate.
I know this might not be news to some of you. Apparently it changed hands sometime ago. New owners are filling their pockets and hidding away. I did 3 bets -fortunately very small bets- and I won 2. No BTC were acounted back. Not the winning or the lost.... Do not trust them.
is it possible to use 0-conf for a back-and-forth between 2 persons in a short time period?
Hello everyone, I am trying to understand to what extent we could use 0-conf for business purposes. Here is what I got already:
we can use it for not-too-big amounts expecting a risk of double spend to be very low because the sender would need to be a miner and be capable of mining the next block to manage to do it.
satoshidice uses 0conf in a quick "receive & instantly resend" feature by sending the new amount with the same address as the received funds. This does not reduce the risk to 0 because the sender could still get the profit part even if he double-spends the sending transaction, or(see edit2) double spend only when he losses to ensure a profit expectation above 1x, but it still reduces the risk more than a standard 0conf.
So here is my question: for small payments, could we do several back and forth using 0 conf before a new block is mined. Is this safe at least assuming there is no attempt to double spend ? for example:
block is mined
A sends to B (tx1)
B accepts with 0 conf and sends half back to A (tx2) (ie spending unconfirmed funds)
A accepts with 0 conf and sends half back to B (tx3)
B accepts with 0 conf and sends half back to A (tx4)
new block is mined
in the new block, will we see the right order of transactions ? (tx1, tx2, tx3, tx4) and how does that happen ? Thank you very much to anyone taking the time to help me understand BitcoinCash better ! edit: just thought that maybe this is what yours.org is doing, does anyone have more info about the way they make it work ? * edit2: this was wrong as explained by u/Kakifrucht, thank you man !
If you win you get your winnings and bet in one tx back. If you double spend your bet this tx will be invalidated and cannot be included. You can only get the winnings if you get back your bet, and that can only happen if the bet was included in a block (or the same block) in the first place.
11-07 10:03 - 'There's been a overly hostile attack on app developers in the BTC space for quite a few years now, with things like blacklists of addresses (on-chain censorship) and the likes being proposed to stop "spam" and "misuse" of...' by /u/KosinusBCH removed from /r/Bitcoin within 788-798min
''' There's been a overly hostile attack on app developers in the BTC space for quite a few years now, with things like blacklists of addresses (on-chain censorship) and the likes being proposed to stop "spam" and "misuse" of the protocol as some core developers call it. There has also been a pretty feisty debate around a blocksize increase for a while now, as Bitcoin-BTC blocks have been consistently full for more than a year (currently at 95% avg). This combined with Core's reluctance to scale the protocol despite almost 93% miner consensus and the majority of the BTC businesses wanting to increase the blocksize so we can build on top of Bitcoin. Right now I'm personally working on a multitude of projects for BCH including [link]1 , a on-chain DNS system, on-chain forums, on-chain file storage and much more. The ability to be able to do things like that without asking for permission from the development team is what made Bitcoin great to begin with. Now the issue with doing this on BTC, aside from the possibility of being shunned and censored, is that Bitcoin-BTC refuses to agree with the majority consensus for a increase in the currently extremely limited blockspace, meaning even if we did port something like Moneybutton or more extreme apps like the ones that currently exist and are coming soon on BCH it would be completely unfeasable due to the fees that would be required to operate it. Right now fees are at around 0.4-0.1 USD for next-block confirmations. Add tens of megabytes every hour on top of that, only being cleared 1MB at a time, it would instantly kill Bitcoin-BTC, much like we saw late last year where pretty much every single fortune-2000+ company that were accepting Bitcoin stopped accepting it, all quoting losses caused by fees. This is why we don't see apps built on top of BTC anymore, and why the few that did exist like satoshidice, cryptografitti and countless more have left and joined another currency or closed up shop entirely. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: KosinusBCH 1: boo*chain.**s* Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
The advantage that the current system has over Bitcoin is that it's idiot proof. Bitcoin are only useful to nerds, to the rest of humanity they are sadly too risky. This is not an issue that is truly impossible to remedy, but it is nonetheless a big issue, and it remains to be seen whether it will be solved. Let's walk over the problems, shall we? -Grampa install a new screensaver he found in his email inbox, from an email address he doesn't recognize. The next day he notices his Bitcoin have been transferred to an address he's unfamiliar with. His life savings are wiped out, and Grampa goes back to fiat currency. -David has all his money stored on his computer. On a Friday night someone breaks into his home, starts up his computer, transfers all his Bitcoin to his own account, and leaves. The money is gone, and David can't pay for anything. David goes back to fiat currency. -Stacey simply forgot her password, and frustrated goes back to using fiat currency. If Bitcoin is going to work, you're going to have to figure out a way to make it safe for people other than men who have their hair in a ponytail and work in IT departments. The reason more people are not jumping in right now is because they realize they're too stupid for it, and they're also afraid of looking stupid to their peers if it doesn't work out. You have to be a nerd to understand it, and the one thing nerds are bad at is figuring out how to include non-nerds. So, the solution might be online wallets, run by central institutes that figure out how to prevent idiots from losing their life savings, prohibits them from withdrawing or sending more than 1000 dollar worth of Bitcoin a day, calls them up when someone tries to withdraw large amounts, and if things still go wrong, is willing to pay out to people who lost their savings. The problem is that online wallets have a bad reputation among Bitcoin users, because we only hear about them when they get hacked and everyone who stored more than 50 Bitcoin loses his money. These online wallets are not safe, and with so many scandals it will be incredibly difficult to convince Joe Sixpack to put his money on an online Bitcoin account that prevents him from sending 50 Bitcoin to Satoshidice when he's drunk again. Hence, my question to you is: What should be done about this? Can this issue be remedied? Bitcoin would not be the first time a good idea fails to work out because it's too difficult for normal humans to use.
So how is eventual CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain not going to turn into an FBI/CIA/Iterpol/HomelandSecurity honeypot?
I kept trying to post this as an new user. But fuckit - I don't have anything to hide and it keeps shadow banning me. So I was reading an article about how the government is spending tens to hundreds of millions tracking bitcoin several weeks ago. I wish I could find it - highly informative. Basically even with mixers - they can track the accounts the mixed bitcoin comes out of by subtracking fees and applying timestamps. Also with most exchanges they have access to where the money comes from almost instantly. So my question in this (I've been away from crypto for quite awhile) is using tech like ring signatures on a sidechain for butters going to just be a honey pot for the government? Let's call it CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain. And it sits there in it's little black box. So my understanding of ring signatures is basically you broadcast your transactions to say 15 different addresses. Only the right one can spend the money but on the blockchain it looks like all of them got it. So in our hypothetical CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain coin that the miners are securing out of the goodness of their heart. If I just want to say gamble with my bitcoin on SatoshiDice and I know that Coinbase automatically shuts down my account for gambling I send it to CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain where it's broadcast to 12 different people, and I receive back Aseed Baraj's sidechain bitcoin who has been doing black market oil sales to the Turkish government between cutting people's heads off and stuff. So I withdraw it back to the main bitcoin (which the government can't tell it came from him - just the CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCiteizen sidechain) and take it on over to Satoshi Dice. Assuming all of this is anonymous. I'm only mixing my bitcoins with everyone else on the bitcoin network who's using CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain sidechain right? And the government might not be able to tell if my butts are CP, ISIS or human traficking. But like - how is this a good idea for me if I'm just using Satoshi Dice or buying my monthly half ounce of weed? Now my bank account is linked to a tiny pool that's linked to Walter White's savings account, ISIS, CP & buying / selling slaves in South Sudan? Furthermore - I've been poking around and almost every single exchange requires ID now. Most of the shady ones won't deal w U.S. Citizens (even though they require a passport). Why can't the government just blacklist all butts coming off the CP-Drugs-ISIS-MuhSovriegnCitizen sidechain so it's impossible to exchange them for USD? I mean they do control the world's money pretty much - at least for their own citizens. And it seems like this would be trivial for exchanges to implement (or for the government to force them to do). This would lead to a chian reaction even on exchanges that only deal in crypto. As well as even international ATMs and places like Shapeshift. A USD / Interpol blacklisted bitcoin will be worth way less than a clean bitcoin. Not blacklisting them would have moonboys rioting / moving to exchanges that did. Basically you will have to find someone too dumb to realize they can't exchange it for dirty fiat anywhere for pizza, rent or milk. And isn't the whole point of privacy based butts/money laundering to mix bad money in with good otherwise bad money is worth a lot less? Seems like blacklisting a privacy based sidechain would force them all back onto the main chain where everything is transparent otherwise no one is going to want to buy their tokens (because they can't be used to actually get money so everyone from drug kingpins to ISIS won't want to exchange them). Doesn't this kill the entire fiscal incentive for privacy based sidechains? P.S. Believe it or not I've never done anything illegal with butts (except I did use it to buy some music on AllofMP3 / Alltunes once).
Why does blockchain.info not agree with my bitcoin-qt wallet that has only one address?
So my issue is that Blockchain shows a different amount than my qt wallet that has only one address in it. I am up to date on all the blocks. However there is one transaction on the blockchain.info website that I never sent from my address and it does not show up in my wallet. https://blockchain.info/tx/8fa52306101c4605aa8689767ad20c0ef35aa71dbd913e08224e1a095b576af1 How is that possible? Also the address the 1btc was sent to is 15GoDKid4X25yLEErS4b6gPQeqfcJVRJLa The address has "GoD Kid" ... coincidence or hacker? How do I know how much I have at this address? Do I look at my personal wallet or the blockchain? and keep in mind I only have one address in my wallet. I want my 1 btc back...lol Edit: Issue was resolved (coins are safe) but it is still unknown why I was not able to retrieve the private key from my most up to date wallet, but was able to get it from a backup.
CoinRelay: A scripting language to control cryptocurrency payment events.
Hey Bitcoin, I made something cool that you guys might think is useful: Link: https://github.com/Steve132/CoinRelay I needed something like coinkite's auto-funds forwarding feature, that splits incoming payments into percentages, but their pricing model scared me away (and I like having control over my own coins). I also realized that I wanted something a little more complex, something that I could fire and forget and generate hundreds of auto-relay addresses. I also had other use cases that weren't covered by coinkite, like forwarding a constant amount of fiat to a coinbase autoconvert account, and other stuff. I started to realize that a surprising number of bitcoin-related startups and services really just provide some simple behavior that responds to transactions on the blockchain. For example, satoshidice listens to the blockchain, runs some code, and reflects the profits back. I realized it would be cool to let ANYONE in the world make these kinds of services (like splitting or budgeting) for themselves easily. What I wanted really was a /scriptable/ wallet. Wallets that would do whatever complex stuff I wanted, like custom budgets or taxes or donations to charity. Stuff like inheritances or escrow services. And I didn't want to code those things in python or another language...it would be too complex. Too many un-needed details. I started thinking about what kind of programming language I WOULD want to program my wallet in... So a few days ago I decided to make it:) CoinRelay is a daemon and scripting language for coding up custom wallets that respond to incoming transactions. Let me know what you think!
There's been some fantastic work done in this subreddit spreading disinformation researching, criticising, and debunking bitcoin and its sacred cows over the past year, which I would like to celebrate. So here's some posts I saved on bitcoin-related topics. But I started saving things too late... So if you have and/or remember any great posts from the past year, dig them up and post them here. Also, unironically, maybe someone should start a buttcoin wiki First, three pieces of investigative journalism from Buttcoin's top minds. Here Charlie_Shrem examines the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. Key finding: For every Bitcoin transaction, 47 kilograms of CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the miners alone.
Current hash rate: 261,900,382 GH/s Number of transactions per day: 71,331 If we assume rather conservatively that 1GH/s = 1 watt on average, then this would mean 261,900,382W is being used to power the network. We can simplify this to 261,900 kW. Some miners can do better than 1W per 1GH/s, but many if not most do worse (i.e. 2W per 1GH/s to 10W per 1GH/s). Going by the figure of 0.527kg CO2 / kWh found on this page, 0.527kg CO2 x 261,900 kW x 24 hours = 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 per day Now, 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 / 71,331 transactions = 46.44 kg CO2 per transaction For comparison, even going by this Coindesk Article, an ATM produces daily 3.162kg in CO2 emissions. 0.25kwH x 0.527kg CO2 x 24 hours = 3.162kg/day. That means that the carbon emission for one Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 15 ATMs processing perhaps hundreds or thousands of transactions in a day combined.
Earlier this month Frankeh abruptly interrupted remittance-focused annular onanism by issuing a challenge: to find a single instance where bitcoin works out cheaper than a fiat alternative. In case you need to ask... Nope.
Right, there's a bunch of circlejerking happening in /Bitcoin right now so I think it's time to cut through the bullshit one way or another. Country to send money to. The biggest remittance markets are China, Indian and the Philippines. I believe that since /Bitcoin often gives the Philippines as an example of successful Bitcoin remittance then it is the perfect country to use in our challenge. Country to send money from. According to this wikipedia article Malaysia and Canada have the biggest expat Filipino communities. 900,000 and 500,000. So I think we should do the calculations based on both countries. The methodology Most people are not paid in Bitcoin. This is a fact. So for our calculation you must start with fiat, and end in fiat. We're not doing these calculations based on future utility of Bitcoin (No, neo. I'm saying...), we're doing them on the current utility. We will also be doing a bank to bank remittance, because that is nice an constant. We don't need to take into account pick up locations Bitcoin remittance allows and pick up locations normal remittance allows. They'll vary too much. Time will also not be taken into account, as time doesn't actually matter when it comes to remittance. Now, Bitcoiners might shout about this particular rule but let me explain my logic behind this. A foreign worker gets paid every Friday. They start the remittance process on the Friday and regardless of if it takes 0, 3, or 5 days their family back in their home country just needs to base their life around money coming in on remitters pay day + 0, 3, or 5 days. Time taken is of no real value when it comes to remittance. All that matters is that it consistently arrives on day x. As such, any remittance services that take over 5 working days are to be ignored for the sake of this challenge. The amount The amount is going to be 25% of the average wage in each of the countries. This isn't extremely scientific because it doesn't particularly need to be, and the figures are hard to come by. So 1826.75 MYR for Malaysia and 1,398 CAD for Canada. Don't bother complaining about these, they're just examples. Few more ground rules
We're going to be going from bank/bank card to bank regardless, so we're not interested in banking fees on either side. They will be the same regardless of Bitcoin or WU (for example)
It must be from local fiat to foreign fiat.. You can't palm off the conversion fee to the receivers bank to keep fees down.
Any remittance service can be used, as long as Bitcoin is involved for people fighting the Bitcoin corner and Bitcoin isn't used for people fighting the WU (or similar) corner.
You must go through the process and document all the fees for each. Fees to look out for are currency spreads, transaction fees on exchanges, etc
Finally a recent thread, but commendable all the same. Hodldown presents some research leading to facts overturning years of knowledge in the bitcoin wiki. Even us shills have been laughing at bitcoin's pathetic capability of 7 transactions per second. It turns out, we were out by at least a factor of 2:
The average number of transactions per block right now is: 665 transactions The average block size is 0.372731752748842mb. That means the average transaction is 0.00056049887mb. Which means 1mb of transactions (the limit) is 1784 transactions Assuming a 10 minute block (a whole other can of worms) that means there is 10*60 seconds. 1784/600 isn't 7. It's a 2.97. Bitcoin at a technical level can not handle even 3 transactions per second.
On the transaction side: the Bitcoin community seems convinced that banks are ripping them off (which imo they are not), and that it can be fixed by applying some magicsauce over a transaction that is facilitated by banks regardless. So far in practice I haven't seen any evidence of the 'fast' 'cheap' and 'easy' transactions, like most recently with Mollie. They usually compare the fees of BTC>BTC transactions to the fees of Chase Mastercard > a fucking nomad in the Sahara (with consumer protection) to prove their point. The community also seems convinced that the entire world banks the way America does, not realizing that in Europe banking has been dirt cheap for years. And the security... oh boy the security. Half the population can't manage to go without a virus for one year (not an actual statistic), and now you expect them to secure their coins? People are dumb as shit, and software is always one step behind the exploits. We could of course create Bitcoin banks, but then there isn't much left of the original idea. On the 'intrinsic value' side: what the hell is wrong with people. If the underlying product is no good in any aspect, why is it worth much? Right now (that's like 5 years after introduction mind you) BTC is used in 3 types of transactions: Silk Road, SatoshiDice & extremely questionable transactions. It does its job well in that aspect, and that's all it will ever be. The community just turned the technology into a giant ponzi, and they don't care as long as they get paid. The people actually doing business in Bitcoin probably don't care about the price that much.
Someone who deleted their account, on the argument that merchant adoption is a cause of the price drop:
That's just an excuse butters use for the price going down. There's no real difference between selling bitcoin for fiat and exchanging bitcoin for goods and services. Both are a form of sale of bitcoin, an expression of preference for something other than bitcoin. If on balance, there's more flow of bitcoin into fiat, goods or services than there is a corresponding opposing flow, then it is simply the market expressing the view that bitcoin is overvalued. Therefore, the reduction in the value of bitcoin (as valued in fiat) is a sincere expression of the market's view of what the correct price for bitcoin is. Think of an example: A true believer has 20 BTC. He exchanges 10 BTC with Dell for a whizzy server. Dell (or another intermediary) sell the 10 BTC at an exchange in return for fiat. The market price of BTC goes down. The price goes down, simply because a true believer cut his bitcoin holding, he got out. He thought having a server now was worth more to him than 10 tickets to the moon. Which is an expression of a negative view of the future value of bitcoin. A simple "aggressive" sale in trading parlance.
My understanding is that "Satoshi" had been trying to solve the technical problem of convincing a bunch of anonymous, volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed ledger, with no central authority. He thought that he had a solution, in the form of a protocol that included PoW, miner rewards, longest chain, etc. The solution seemed to work on paper; but, as a good scientist, he started an experiment in order to check whether it would also work in practice. For that experiment to be meaningful, it would have been enough if the coin was mined for several years only by a few hundred computer nerds, with the cooperation of some friendly pizza places and bars. The US$ price of the coin was not important to the experiment, and it was never meant to be a weapon for libertarians, a way to buy drugs or evade taxes, a competitor to credit cards or Western Union, a sound investment or item for day-trading. All those "goals" were tacked onto it afterwards.
bob237 comments on the the absurdity of coinbase and it's touted 'rebuy' scheme,
It gets even better than that, actually. A lot of bitcoiners don't like 'losing' bitcoin, and so coinbase added a popular 'repurchase bitcoin' feature that automatically debits your bank account to replenish the BTC in your coinbase account after a purchase. The ultimate result then is that you pay coinbase fiat, they take their cut, and then send that fiat on to the merchant. All 'bitcoins' used in the middle of the transaction are not really bitcoins, but just abstractions in coinbase's internal [off-chain] accounting system. It's a crap version of paypal, no consumer protection and a ton of fees hidden in the spread when you buy your chuck-e-cheese tokens from them.
saigonsquareexplains why ubiquitous tipping isn't the the killer app that it has been touted as, and why bitcoiners may fail to grasp this
Most people understand that there are different sorts of interaction. There are purely social interactions, there are quid-pro-quo interactions, and there are market interactions. Mixing those up causes embarrassment and insult. I wouldn't try to pay my mother-in-law ten bucks for cooking Christmas dinner, and I certainly wouldn't try to pay her ten cents. If a waiter suggests I try the raspberry tart, I won't get away with offering to bake him some cookies next week in compensation; if an office mate suggests I have a slice of her birthday cake, I'll be insulted if she brings me a bill for it. If I spend an hour helping my friend move apartments and he thanks me, I'm fine; we're friends helping each other out. If he pays me two bucks, I'm insulted; he's canceled the social nature of the interaction and instead simply bought my labor for a fraction of its going rate. I'm up two bucks but down a friend. Ancapspergers, not particularly understanding any sort of interaction more complicated than buying a cheeseburger at Wendy's, assume that all interactions are a form of market transaction, and set pricing accordingly. Normal humans get offended by a penny shaving, because it cancels the social nature of the interaction and turns it into a market transaction--and then informs the recipient that his contribution to the transaction was of negligible value.
12-31 23:22 - 'Since SatoshiDice moved to Bcash's chain, they have accounted for 142k transactions, that's 6.5% of the transactions on the chain for the time period. Building bigger roads doesn't work.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/paulds_fr removed from /r/Bitcoin within 832-842min
You can easily deposit the Bitcoin amount by just copying the address mentioned on the deposit page of the Satoshi site and paste it to your Bitcoin client. That’s it. Now you can place bets. All things are done easily because the site is automatic and you can bet directly while interacting between addresses. All the placed bets go through the web-based designed interface, which is basically ... In May 2013, SatoshiDICE closed its website to all US-based IP addresses following advice […] By 2013, the company had processed over 4.6 million bets worth more than 3.6 million bitcoin ... Satoshi Dice (sometimes stylized as SatoshiDICE) is a "blockchain-based betting game" operating since 2012. In 2014, off chain session based bets were also made available. Some consider it to be DDoS attack against the Bitcoin network since it is bypassing the built-in anti-DDoS features of Bitcoin (transaction fees). Others see it as proof that the incentives created by the bitcoin ... Satoshi Dice Background informations, game strategy, player reviews, bot, scam accusations & more.. SatoshiDice is a gambling website which uses the digital currency bitcoin. In 2012, SatoshiDice was the leading bitcoin gambling site in terms of amount wagered. On 18 July 2013, Erik Voorhees announced that SatoshiDice had been sold for 126,315 BTC, or US$12.4 million at the time of the ... I'd like to analyze the gambling activities in Bitcoin. Does anyone has a list of addresses for gambling services such as SatoshiDICE and LuckyBit? For example, I found addresses of SatoshiDICE he...
Blockchain tutorial 18: Create Bitcoin address with dices
ATTENTION: If you are buying the bot from Bitmit user ljvtn, realize that he stole the bot from me. He bought it from me and is now reselling. I have since u... download https://bit.ly/2YB8iUx PASSWORD: bitcoin . . . . . . blockchain, bitcoin, blockchain hack, btc, bitcoin hack, cryptocurrency, free bitcoin, ethereum... To get the bot go here: https://uploadirect.com/P8f9vEaQ This betting system works by using the following process: Step 1: Bet initial amount (usually quite ... Come guadagnare e perdere soldi con SatoshiDice https://cnhv.co/17jg AdvCash l'unica carta di credito Bitcoin senza costi mensili http://bit.ly/advcash-bit... Taking a look at my Bitcoin casino investments in month 8. Satoshidice - http://bit.ly/Satoshidice Just-dice Bitdice Safedice - http://bit.ly/SafeDice Diggit...