Newest 'synchronization' Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange

A Guide to Keeping Keys Offline Using Armory +rPi

Hi Redditors.
I am going to post in this thread my experiences in getting my Desktop (Debian) machine running Armory in watch-only mode, and coupling that with an offline Raspberry Pi (which holds my private keys) for signing the transactions previously made in watch-only mode.
I actually compiled Armory from source directly on my Pi. This guide is probably more for the bitcoin 'power user', as to run Armory online, and broadcast the signed transactions, you need to have a bitcoin full node running (bitcoind).
Basic requirements:
Aimed-for Setup:
I'll post the guide in digestible sections...

Section 1

I should begin by saying I installed source code from git, and got Armory to build the DB on my desktop initially, WITHOUT creating a wallet.. (This allowed me to debug what was going on a little!)
Go to, select Armory..
It leads to a Download from Git:
Followed the procedure for Linux Debian verify code, compile, install, all straight-forward..
Began by running bitcoind, and telling Armory where to find it. This is the command I used, obviously it was all on one line and didn't include the arrows/explanations!:
python \ --satoshi-datadir=/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks \ # <-----(where my bitcoind blocks live) --datadir=/ArmoryDataDi \ # <-----(this is instead of ~/.armory) --dbdir=/ArmoryDataDidatabases # <-------(again, non std. place used for Armory's databases.. my choice.) 
So, on the Desktop, after the initial "build databases"
(NB the initial "Build Databases" took about 1.5h and my two CPUs were maxed the whole time, Temps up to 62C. Not ideal; Im not in a rush!)
I then wanted to import a watch-only wallet.
Before I did this, I took a full backup of the Armory data dir:
(or ~/.armory in a default installation).
I'd hate to have to make Armory do another full sync with the bitcoind node!

Section 2

Next step: offline wallet (with Private Keys) is on a Raspberry Pi.
I downloaded the source and managed to compile it on the pi itself! :)
Though there were some gymnastics needed to setup the Pi.
My Pi is running Raspbian based on Wheezy.. quite old!
I did the following on the Pi:
apt-get update apt-get upgrade (<---took about an hour!) apt-get install autotools-dev apt-get install autoconf 
Then I followed the instructions exactly as I had done for my Debian Desktop machine, EXCEPT:
I had to increase the Pi's swap space. I upped it from 100Mb to 400Mb.
The compilation took 7 hours, and my poor SD card got a thrashing.
But after compilation, I put the Swap back to 100Mb and Armory runs ok with about 150Mb of memory (no swap needed).
Swap increase on the Pi:
use your favourite editor, and open the file /etc/dphys-swapfile
add/change the following line:
Then, REBOOT the Pi:
sudo shutdown -h -P now 
Once the compilation was done on the Pi, put the swap back, rebooted and created an Armory wallet.
I added manual entropy and upped the encryption 'time' from 250ms to 2500ms - since the Pi is slow, but I'll be happy to wait for more iterations in the Key Derivation Function.
Once the wallet was created, it obviously prompts you for backup.
I want to add a private key of my own (i.e. import), so don't do the backup until this is over.
I import my Private Key, and Armory checks that this corresponds to a Public Key, which I check is correct.
This is the point now where the Pi storage medium (e.g an SD card) has to be properly destroyed if you ever get rid of it.
I had thought that now would be a good time to decide if your new wallet will generate Segwit receiving addresses, and also addresses used to receive 'change' after a transaction..
But it seems Armory WON'T let you switch to P2SH-P2WPKH unless your Armory is connected to a node offering "WITNESS" service.
Obviously, my Pi is offline and will never connect to a node, so the following will not work on the Pi:
NB: I thought about setting this on the Debian "watch-only" wallet, but that would surely mean doom, as the Pi would not know about those addresses and backups might not keep them.. who knows...
So, end result:- no segwit for me just yet in my offline funds.

--If anyone can offer a solution to this, I'd be very grateful--

Section 3

Ok, now this is a good point to back up your wallet on the Pi. It has your imported keys. I choose a Digital Backup - and put it on a USB key, which will never touch the internet and will be stored off-site. I also chose to encrypt it, because I'm good with passwords..
NB: The Armory paper backup will NOT back up your imported private keys, so keep those somewhere if you're not sweeping them. It would be prudent to have an Armory paper backup anyway, but remember it will likely NOT help you with that imported key.
Now for the watch-only copy of the wallet. I want to get the "watch-only" version onto my Desktop Debian machine.
On the Pi, I created (exported to a USB key) a "watching-only" copy of my wallet.
I would use the RECOMMENDED approach, export the "Entire Wallet File".
As you will see below, I initially exported only the ROOT data, which will NOT capture the watching-only part of the Private Key I entered manually above (i.e. the public Key!).
Now, back on the Debian Desktop machine...
I stopped all my crontab jobs; just give Armory uninterrupted CPU/memory/disk...
I also stopped bitcoind and made a backup prior to any watch-only wallet being imported.
I already made a backup of Armory on my Desktop, before any wallet import.
(this was needed, as I made a mistake.. see below)
So on the Debian Desktop machine, I begin by firing up bitcoind.
my command for this is:
./bitcoind -daemon -datadir=/BlockChain/chain20180414 -dbcache=400 -maxmempool=400 

Section 4

I try running Armory like this:
(I'm actually starting Armory from a script -
Inside the script, it has the line:
python --ram-usage=4 --satoshi-datadir=/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks --datadir=/ArmoryDataDi --dbdir=/ArmoryDataDidatabases 
I know from bitter experience that doing a scan over the blockchain for a new wallet takes a looong time and a lot of CPU, and I'd like it to play nicely; not gobble all the memory and swap and run my 2xCPUs both at 100% for four hours...
So... I aim to run with --ram-usage=X and --thread-count=X
(For me in the end, X=1 but I began with X=4)
I began with --ram-usage=4 (<--- = 4x128Mb)
The result is below...
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects 
It didn't recognise the ram-usage and carried on, crippling my Debian desktop PC.
This is where it gets dangerous; Armory can gobble so much memory and CPU that the windowing environment can cease up, and it can take over 30 minutes just to exit nicely from bitcoind and ArmoryDB.
So, I ssh to the machine from another computer, and keep an eye on it with the command
"free -h" 
I'd also be able to do a "sudo reboot now" if needed from here.

Section 5

So, trying to get my --ram-usage command recognised, I tried this line (added quotes):
python --ram-usage="4" --satoshi-datadir=/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks --datadir=/ArmoryDataDi --dbdir=/ArmoryDataDidatabases 
But no, same error...
Loading Armory Engine: Armory Version: 0.96.4 Armory Build: None PyBtcWallet Version: 1.35 Detected Operating system: Linux OS Variant : ('debian', '9.4', '') User home-directory : /home/ Satoshi BTC directory : /BlockChain/chain20180414 Armory home dir : /ArmoryDataDi ArmoryDB directory : /ArmoryDataDidatabases Armory settings file : /ArmoryDataDiArmorySettings.txt Armory log file : /ArmoryDataDiarmorylog.txt Do wallet checking : True (ERROR) - Unsupported language specified. Defaulting to English (en) (ERROR) - Failed to start Armory database: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1808, in startArmoryDBIfNecessary TheSDM.spawnDB(str(ARMORY_HOME_DIR), TheBDM.armoryDBDir) File "/BitcoinArmory/", line 387, in spawnDB pargs.append('--ram-usage=' + ARMORY_RAM_USAGE) TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects 

Section 6

So, I edit the Armory python file
if ARMORY_RAM_USAGE != -1: pargs.append('--ram-usage=4') #COMMENTED THIS, SO I CAN HARDCODE =4 # ' + ARMORY_RAM_USAGE) 
Running it, I now have acknowledgement of the --ram-usage=4:
(WARNING) - Spawning DB with command: /BitcoinArmory/ArmoryDB --db-type="DB_FULL" --cookie --satoshi-datadir="/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks" --datadir="/ArmoryDataDi" --dbdir="/ArmoryDataDidatabases" --ram-usage=4 
Also, even with ram-usage=4, it used too much memory, so I told it to quit.
It took over 30 minutes to stop semi-nicely. The last thing it reported was:
ERROR - 00:25:21: (StringSockets.cpp:351) FcgiSocket::writeAndRead FcgiError: unexpected fcgi header version 
But that didn't seem to matter or corrupt the Armory Database, so I think it's ok.
So, I get brave and change as below, and I make sure my script has a command line for --ram-usage="ABCDE" and --thread-count="FGHIJ"; the logic being that these strings "ABCDE" will pass the IF criteria below, and my hardcoded values will be used...
if ARMORY_RAM_USAGE != -1: pargs.append('--ram-usage=1') #COMMENTED THIS, SO I CAN HARDCODE =1 # ' + ARMORY_RAM_USAGE) if ARMORY_THREAD_COUNT != -1 pargs.append('--thread-count=1') #COMMENTED THIS, SO I CAN HARDCODE =1 #' + ARMORY_THREAD_COUNT) 
So, as usual, I use my script and start this with: ./
(which uses command line:)
python --ram-usage="ABCDE" --thread-count="FGHIJ" --satoshi-datadir=/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks --datadir=/ArmoryDataDi --dbdir=/ArmoryDataDidatabases 
(this forces it to use my hard-coded values in
So, this is the command which it reports that it starts with:
(WARNING) - Spawning DB with command: /BitcoinArmory/ArmoryDB --db-type="DB_FULL" --cookie --satoshi-datadir="/BlockChain/chain20180414/blocks" --datadir="/ArmoryDataDi" --dbdir="/ArmoryDataDidatabases" --ram-usage=1 --thread-count=1 
Again, this is where it gets dangerous; Armory can gobble so much memory and CPU that the windowing environment can cease up. So I ssh to the machine and keep an eye on it with:
"free -h" 

Section 7

So, on the Debian Desktop PC, I inserted the USB stick with the watch-only wallet I exported from the Pi.
Start Armory...
Import "Entire Wallet File" watch-only copy.
Wait 4 hours..
After running Armory for about 30m, the memory usage dropped by 400m... wierd...
It took ~2 hours to get 40% completion.
After 3.5 hours it's almost there...
The memory went up to about 1.7Gb in use and 900Mb of Swap, but the machine remained fairly responsive throughout, apart from a few (10?) periods at the start, where it appeared to freeze for 10-30s at a time.
(That's where my ssh session came in handy - I could check the machine was still ok with a "free -h" command)
Now, I can:
Create an unsigned transaction on my Desktop,
Save the tx to USB stick,
Move to the Pi,
Sign the tx,
Move back to the Desktop,
Broadcast the signed tx.

Section 8

My initial Mistake:
This caused me to have to roll-back my Armory database, using the backup. so you should try to avoid doing this..
On the Pi, I exported only the ROOT data, which will NOT capture the watching-only part of the Private Key
It is RECOMMENDED to use the Digital Export of Entire Wallet File from the Pi when making a watch-only copy. If you just export just the "ROOT data", not the "Entire Wallet File", you'll have problems if you used an imported Private Key in the offline wallet, like I did.
Using the ROOT data text import, after it finished... my balance was zero. So,. I tried a Help->Rescan Balance (Restart Armory, takes 1minute to get back up and running) No Luck. Still zero balance.
So, I try Rescan Databases.. This will take longer. Nah.. no luck.
So, I tried again, thinking it might be to do with the fact that I imported the text "root data" stuff, instead of following the (Recommended) export of watching-wallet file.
So, I used my Armory backup, and wound back the ArmoryDataDi to the point before the install of the (zero balance) wallet. (you should not need to do this, as you will hopefully use the RECOMMENDED approach of exporting the "Entire Wallet File"!)
submitted by fartinator to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - 2/15/2019

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:02 PM
Hello everybody!

theking - Last Friday at 2:02 PM

Seems likes it’s been so long since this meeting was held. At least a month 📷

Tron - Last Friday at 2:02 PM

Hi all!!!

Tom - Last Friday at 2:02 PM

Big boss is here !(edited)

BigZim - Last Friday at 2:03 PM

Oh hi

theking - Last Friday at 2:04 PM

Hi @Tron

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:04 PM

Topics for today: Release 2.2.2, Mobile Wallet, Restricted Assets, SLC Raven Meetup📷1

truedev - Last Friday at 2:05 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:05 PM

Release 2.2.2 GO

J. | - Last Friday at 2:05 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:05 PM

BTW, blondfrogs won't be able to join us today. 📷

corby - Last Friday at 2:05 PM

Hi all

Chatturga - Last Friday at 2:05 PM

Blondefrogs has been working on the 2.2.2 update. He isnt here today, but he left this tidbit for the meeting:(edited)"Release 2.2.2 has a bunch of new updates. The sync speed fix that was released in 2.2.1 has been updated even more to use less memory/ram and uses less CPU. Each node used to hold all addresses that contained an asset as well as the amount in those addresses. That is now optional with the -assetindex flag. Which can be put into the raven.conf or added as a parameter when starting the wallet. Some other wallet issues were also fixed with this memory update. This is considered an mandatory update, especially if you haven't updated to 2.2.1 which resolved a potential fork bug fix. I would still suggest updating to 2.2.2 even if you are on 2.2.1."📷6

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:07 PM

wen source?📷1

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:07 PM

There's a PR that was just moved to Develop.When is now

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:08 PM

great 📷

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:08 PM

It'll be merged by the devs to master and then binaries should be posted soon

truedev - Last Friday at 2:09 PM

any idea when dividends will be functional?

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:09 PM

A bunch of testing has been happening and is currently running on the seed-nodes.

Tron - Last Friday at 2:10 PM

No timeline for dividends, but it is the one function that doesn't need any changes to consensus. And it can be done on tier 2 with a python script. The plan is still to build in a rpc call.📷2

truedev - Last Friday at 2:11 PM


SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:12 PM

We have been focusing on sync performance and have been running many tests. I've added an image of the results of this testing. Currently we still want to work on getting the Windows QT sync times faster (at least closer to what they are using just ravend). Overall we are very happy with the speeds and hope it will help people that have struggled getting their nodes up to date.(edited)📷

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:13 PM

Yeah that table completely puzzled me

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:13 PM


Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:13 PM

Fast branch is 2.2.1? or 2.2.2? Develop branch is 2.2.0?

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:15 PM

Sorry, should have clarified that. I was testing while it was still under development. On the table the top is the new-sync code, the bottom is the old "assets" release. As of about 5 minutes ago all of this code is on the develop branch.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:15 PM

Although syncing is mostly bottlenecked by cpu speed, that 16 core windows-qt still looks off to me. I synced windows Qt using 2.2.2 in ~2h on a i5-7600K.ok

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:17 PM

Okay, we good to move to the Mobile update?

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:17 PM

The Windows box is an AWS instance and there is some concern that the remote desktop could be slowing the QT UI down causing the horrible sync times. I am working on getting a local Windows 10 resource and will have updated information once that is ready (early next week).

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:18 PM

ah that might explain. Ubuntu qt was 45 mins for me

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:18 PM

CoolOkay, Mobile!Go!

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:18 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:19 PM

@[Master] Roshii has been working closely with some of the other devs to get the iOS version out the door.Android will follow closely.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:20 PM

is android an easy port?

J. | - Last Friday at 2:20 PM

Usually its the case(?), i mean easier 📷(edited)

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:20 PM

Just copy and paste right Roshii 📷

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:20 PM

LOLNo, usually its a completely new development effort.For the RVN Wallets they are both written in native iOS/Android code.

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:21 PM

So the iOS and Android use the same Core SPV module written in C, and it's the most difficult part.I have already did some work when it comes to Android, and it's 70% finishedHave also to port all the changes we lately did to the iOS wallet ...

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:21 PM

yeah, unfortunately its not as easy as cut and paste for ios to android

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:21 PM

Anybody interested in installing the TestFlight version and helping us test?

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:22 PM


J. | - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

For android? sure.

BW__ - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

Android? yes.(edited)

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

I'll talk to Apple about adding Android support to TestFlight.Might be a while.

J. | - Last Friday at 2:22 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

Anybody on here using iOS?

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

Yeh me

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:22 PM

besides me...

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:23 PM

Android is very close, fortunately I'll have enough coffee in Morocco to finish the wallet in two weeks.(edited)📷4📷5

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:23 PM (400 installs available)Join the RVN Wallet betaAvailable on iOS📷

theking - Last Friday at 2:23 PM

I will test iOS if needed

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:23 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:24 PM

Some of the devs have been doing a bunch of testing on iOS but we would love others to help.Bugs can be reported on GitHub to RavenProject/ravenwallet-ios development by creating an account on GitHub.📷

truedev - Last Friday at 2:25 PM

how confident are you that apple will allow it on the appstore

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:25 PM

It's already in the App store.

truedev - Last Friday at 2:25 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:25 PM

That wasn't easy though.

truedev - Last Friday at 2:26 PM

yah figured, a lot of coins have been completely rejected(edited)

Chatturga - Last Friday at 2:26 PM

The devs already jumped through Apples 152,315 flaming hoops to get it in there.

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:26 PM

Yup, many meetings and phone calls.

J. | - Last Friday at 2:26 PM

wen rvn modular phone

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:27 PM

Looking good📷📷7

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:28 PM

Okay, any questions about iOS release?

jaysonb - Last Friday at 2:28 PM

seed word format changed? i seem to have to have same words. did i need to delete and install fresh?

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:29 PM

No, it used your old ones.Always have your 12 words. especially when testing.

ravencoin maximalist 🧘🏻♂ - Last Friday at 2:30 PM

I’ve got iOS

Tron - Last Friday at 2:30 PM

If you use your 12-words, and then sync, and you're missing funds. Go here: — Testing iOS Wallet – Tron Black – MediumThank you for helping us test the Ravencoin iOS mobile wallet. Since you are in an early group of testers, you might have used the…

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:30 PM

Sweet, install and report bugs.

Tron - Last Friday at 2:30 PM

Or just go there...

jaysonb - Last Friday at 2:30 PM

that article scared me so i moved everything off.but i'll put some back on now

ravencoin maximalist 🧘🏻♂ - Last Friday at 2:31 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:31 PM

That's unfortunate. You don't need to be scared ever if you have your 12 words.

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 2:31 PM

android current state(edited)📷

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:32 PM

Here's the install link one more time for those that have joined late: the RVN Wallet betaAvailable on iOS📷Okay, Tron's topic: Restricted Tokens

Tron - Last Friday at 2:33 PM

I have an idea.(edited)📷7📷6

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:34 PM

That several other devs have helped with. 📷

Tron - Last Friday at 2:34 PM


SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:34 PM

and lawyers

Tron - Last Friday at 2:34 PM

When the project started, ICOs were the big thing. Now it is STOsThe main difference is the legal wrapping and rules around securities.If Ravencoin has two more token types (Tags and Restricted Assets), there are lots of ways to make compliant tokens.Importantly, it doesn't affect the existing tokens at all.Tags - Tokens that can be sent only by the issuer once (with metadata).These tokens start with (hashtag)(edited)📷8

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:37 PM


Tron - Last Friday at 2:37 PM

The Restricted Assets start with $, and can be frozen by the issuer. But they only move between tagged addresses.(edited)

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:38 PM

Tags can be sent to a user's address after the issuer has done the necessary due diligence for an STO issuance.(edited)

Tron - Last Friday at 2:38 PM

The issuer determines which tags the Restricted Asset will honor.This can be used for lots of different use cases.

EEE - Last Friday at 2:38 PM

Stunning interface guys

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:39 PM

will that determination be a setting in the wallet?

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:39 PM

Restricted assets can then only be sent to addresses that are allowed and have the proper Tags.

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:39 PM


J. | - Last Friday at 2:39 PM

Did you guys get contacted by some entity* whos forcing the restricted address policy? or is this done as precautionary measure? At first glance your idea sounds good Tron.(edited)

Tron - Last Friday at 2:39 PM

Example: $UBER token only moves among addresses tagged with #KYC

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:40 PM

So Ravenland will have to buy a bunch more spam tokens.📷4

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:40 PM


boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:40 PM

so is the $ something that can be added to an existing asset?

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:40 PM

It's not a forced thing. But adding the ability for Raven to be used in new use cases where legal requirements exist.

Tron - Last Friday at 2:40 PM

Not contacted by anyone, and not precautionary. Ravencoin Assets are just tools. This is just another tool that will help issuers of security tokens.📷9📷4

BW__ - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

Love it.

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

It'll be a new token type that you can create @boatsandhoes📷1

ravencoin maximalist 🧘🏻♂ - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

That sounds awesome

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

I for one am very excited about this...📷4

Hans_Schmidt - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

How does the $ token owner specify the required # tags?

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:41 PM

Can the same name have different token type?Sorry need time to digest

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:42 PM

Still working out the details. Tron will be posting additional info about the idea soon.

Steelers - Last Friday at 2:42 PM


RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:42 PM

Feedback is wanted!

Tron - Last Friday at 2:42 PM

Q: Was this originally the plan for Ravencoin? A: No. This is in response to the regulatory ramp up in 2018 in some jurisdictions which requires that only known individuals or entities to operate peer-to-peer on certain tokens. For jurisdictions that allow unrestricted peer-to-peer transfer, we strongly encourage use of the original Ravencoin assets. The Restricted Assets are an adaptation to satisfy burdensome, privacy-destroying regulations, with a goal of reducing information replication which makes Ravencoin Restricted Assets a better alternative to those being promoted now.

jaysonb - Last Friday at 2:43 PM

all nodes will validate the transactions not just those interested in the transaction - i assume all will validate..

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:43 PM

so essentially any name already secured in the hopes of having that functionality are worth less because they wont be able to?

theking - Last Friday at 2:44 PM

Can the restricted assets be time based in any way? For instance, in some STO regulated environment, there is a lockup for some period of time after issuance, but then after a certain period of time the restriction goes away and the securities can be traded. Is that contemplated at all?

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:44 PM

If I already have Tron as my asset, there could be another Tron but under a different token type such as restricted assets?

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:44 PM

Yes all nodes will do consensus checks.

corby - Last Friday at 2:44 PM

@boatsandhoes there's going to be a grace period where you can purchase $XXX if you own XXXon the order of months

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:45 PM

📷 📷 📷 📷

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:45 PM

Yes, you have the TRON asset and you can also have the $TRON asset.(edited)

Tron - Last Friday at 2:45 PM

Regarding the lockup....

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:45 PM

how many RVN for that?

Tron - Last Friday at 2:45 PM

Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933 This is an important rule to be aware of in terms of privately held securities. This rule provides the most commonly used exemption for holders to sell restricted securities (Note: For context, a restricted security is a security sold in an exempt offering, except for Reg A+). The general idea is that you can publicly resell your “restricted” (privately sold) securities only when the restricted legend is removed. The solution Ravencoin Restricted Assets provides is the ability for the Iissuer to Freeze the asset ininto the holders account. The qty will be visible, and the frozen status will be visible. The meta-data for a Freeze can specify 144_Restricted. The issuer can Unfreeze to release the 144 restriction.Similar for Reg D 1-year lockup.@theking

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

@theking ^^

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

What is the timeline for this restricted asset to be implemented?📷1

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

No timelines yetStill in the ideation phase.

SpyderDev - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

Fresh off the press...

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

Ok, idea for nowGot it

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:46 PM

Wanting input for the idea.

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:47 PM

a preset for lock up settings would be nice

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:47 PM

What about the ability to move an asset from restricted to unrestricted after grace period similar to the reissue ability? By the issuer(edited)

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:47 PM

adjustable preset*

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:48 PM

If this restricted assets would help underlying token listed on exchanges for trading by satisfying the legal requirements, I don’t see why not. There are only benefits📷2

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:48 PM

yeah, win win

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:48 PM

There is something similar in vote tokens.

corby - Last Friday at 2:48 PM

@Jeroz the issuer would be able to "reissue" and relax restrictions

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:48 PM

Just throwing things out here. Can we just make all existing tokens crested so far restricted assets?*created

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:49 PM

stupid question, is it possible to have burned rvn cost for the $ to add onto the block reward as a bonus?(edited)

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:49 PM

No, @DeejayQQ there should be both usecases available in the platform.

corby - Last Friday at 2:49 PM

We (my dog and I) are envisioning a differentiated space where we can charge a lot more RVN to keep non-serious people out..(edited)

Tron - Last Friday at 2:49 PM

@Jeroz Yes, as long as the asset is still "reissuable", you could change the logic from (#KYC & #ACCREDITED) to just #KYC📷3

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:49 PM

I'm just worrying about the name uniqueness if you can have #BANANA and $BANANA

BW__ - Last Friday at 2:50 PM

Is it fair to assume that tags can be standardized for specific purposes? If so, should we create something akin to an 'ERC' in git repo?

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:50 PM

@Tron sounds cool

truedev - Last Friday at 2:50 PM

honestly, I think you should be able to buy/create an asset in a set, with all types(edited)

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:50 PM

^that part

Hans_Schmidt - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

Since the #KYC tag is just locked to an address, what prevents someone from selling their address and thereby the KYC?

corby - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

The "#" types won't trade -- they're just stamps to stamp addresses as qualified-to-hold-some-stuff..

Tron - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

The tags are created by the users. The system is still jurisidiction agnostic.

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

@Hans_Schmidt nothing really, the same thing as selling your username password to any other existing financial app account.

corby - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

@Hans_Schmidt Real world networks, high cost of entry (for serious applications)For non-serious applications, nothing

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:51 PM

You still have the liability associated with that account though.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:52 PM

@corby what about BANANA/ vs $BANANA/ ?Or do you want to make them subassets?

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:52 PM

@Jeroz better safe than sorry, just swoop both

Tron - Last Friday at 2:52 PM

A country could require that #SOMECOUNTRY tag has to exist before moving $SPECIALASSET to an address. The users set the rules. #KYC was just an example because it is an industry problem at the moment.

corby - Last Friday at 2:52 PM

#BANANA, $BANANA, TRICYCLE, and BANANA can all coexist just fine I think..

theking - Last Friday at 2:53 PM

Thanks @Tron. This is great and I think something that will enable raven to become an even more widely used platform.📷4

Tron - Last Friday at 2:53 PM

That's the hope. I think it solves some real problems that the industry is trying to solve through incompatible ERC-20 experiments.📷3

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:54 PM


boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:54 PM

what is the purposed cost for $ in addition to an existing asset?

corby - Last Friday at 2:54 PM

People that own #THESE I am calling "Qualifiers" -- they just stamp their mark on addresses. Issuers of $THESE need to establish trust with #THESE and #THOSE and then decide what restrictions to apply.📷1

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:54 PM

5 mins left. Stay on this topic or switch to meetup?

Tron - Last Friday at 2:55 PM

@boatsandhoes Not determined.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:55 PM

yeah the idea is a nice proof of ownership / membership

DeejayQQ - Last Friday at 2:55 PM


Chatturga - Last Friday at 2:55 PM

TL;DR - The SLC meetup is in 1 month. Go to to indicate if you plan on attending so that we have a somewhat accurate headcount.MeetupSalt Lake City Ravencoin (Salt Lake City, UT)Ravencoin is a blockchain and platform optimized for transferring assets, such as tokens, from one holder to another, and is built on a fork of the Bitcoin code. It is intended to prioritize security,📷

corby - Last Friday at 2:55 PM

@boatsandhoes One Million Raven

Chatturga - Last Friday at 2:55 PM

Punch and pie

J. | - Last Friday at 2:56 PM

Can the SLC meetup made interactive for people that cant make it there?

theking - Last Friday at 2:56 PM

What about having just one name ( you first buy the standard raven token under whatever name you like) and then the holder of the owner token is the only one to create restricted tokens ? Might be some way to ensure no name confusion.📷4

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:56 PM

what about that block reward bonus concept for purchasing $. would that work?

Chatturga - Last Friday at 2:56 PM

I dont know that we have the ability to make it interactive as far as Q&A goes, but I'll look into it. We should have it live streaming. @J. |📷2

BW__ - Last Friday at 2:56 PM

@Tron Is there same kind of logic layer to restricted assets?(edited)

Tron - Last Friday at 2:57 PM

@theking I like that idea.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:57 PM

Quick question that is offtopic but I think deserves an answer because it was asked a couple of times earlier this week: Will unique assets get a reissuable function? To change IPFS.(edited)📷2

Tron - Last Friday at 2:57 PM

@BW__ Yes. Simple and, or, not and parenthesis - limited in length.(edited)

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:57 PM

@theking thats a good idea

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:58 PM

@Jeroz There is not a way to do that currently.

BW__ - Last Friday at 2:58 PM

@Tron That makes sense. Thank you.

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 2:58 PM

Just make sure your changes to the information have the same hash as the previous data and your golden. 📷📷1

Jeroz - Last Friday at 2:59 PM

Any plans on changing that, perhaps when introducing new types of assets?

boatsandhoes - Last Friday at 2:59 PM

i like that it cant be changed

corby - Last Friday at 3:00 PM

Thanks everyone!

theking - Last Friday at 3:00 PM

@Tron there was some info floating around about a 2nd later KYC solution ( from your recent podcast w Crypto Koala). Is that a separate solution someone is working on or part of this new concept?📷1

Tron - Last Friday at 3:01 PM

Starting with the introduction of messaging, every transaction can have an IPFS hash. Can be used as an public invoice, details about the transaction, etc.@theking The same new concept.

[Master] Roshii - Last Friday at 3:02 PM

Ok, we're done.

Steelers - Last Friday at 3:02 PM

How would Raven handle for instance a stock split?

BW__ - Last Friday at 3:02 PM

Are there sync concerns if a restricted asset logic layer is added?

Tron - Last Friday at 3:02 PM

@theking The KYC provider would store the KYC info, and send the Tag to an address with meta data that specifies that they're holding the KYC data. The KYC data would not be public, but could be audited.

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 3:02 PM

That way you could update information about the original unique asset with each transaction.@Steelers Just a simple re-issue of the asset

Tron - Last Friday at 3:03 PM

@bw_ The logic layer is only a small db that stores the meta-data about the Restricted Asset, and enforces the restriction in the consensus rules. Rule returns true/false.(edited)

RavencoinDev (Jesse/Wolfsokta) - Last Friday at 3:03 PM

Thanks everybody! I have to run.

Jeroz - Last Friday at 3:04 PM

I'm looking forward to the discussions to let this take shape. Thanks all! 📷📷4

Tron - Last Friday at 3:05 PM

@BW__ It would work very similarly to the way the units works now. Each asset has number of units and any transaction that makes it too granular (more satoshis) will fail in consensus -- even if it gets past the RPC checks.Signing off. Thanks all!!!📷9📷4📷9
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team

You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D.
Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology
Comentarios de interés:
-4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.
Some more things to come:
-5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.”
[tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart]
-14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?”
-15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.
If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.
To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.”
[smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward]
-16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.”
[eizh supports smooth’s plan]
-20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.”
[random user supporting smooth’s idea]
-21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?”
-22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.”
[smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”]
-23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.”
[good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal]
-28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?”
-31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.”
-32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.”
[smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs]
-37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?”
[this is eizh supporting the project too]
-43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.”
[tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”]
-51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.”
-59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?”
[TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity]
-63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.”
[And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining]
-67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.”
-68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins”
[TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug]
-72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.
With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not.
There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.
Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.”
[smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT]
-75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
Important things to know about MM:
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with.
And this is still very secure.
This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?”
[TFT stands for merged mining]
-77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.
Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.
I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.”
[smooth again]
-85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this”
[those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all]
-86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here:
I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.
At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).”
[smooth answers just a few minutes later]
-92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.
Here is a simple a clear statement about plans:
We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.
Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.
We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.
All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.”
[TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over]
-94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.
I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.
The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.”
[smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time]
-115: “Very rough website online, (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.”
[Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site]
-152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.
We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.
But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).
This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.
The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.”
[smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners]
-182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.”
[tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC]
-184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;”
-188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).”
-190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
  1. No GUI
  2. No web site
  3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
  4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
  5. No effective team behind it at launch
  6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.”
[smooth is disappointed]
-191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.”
[eizh tries to keep smooth on board]
-196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.”
-198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.”
[tacotime also wants smooth on board]
-201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.”
[tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship]
-203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.”
[eizh supports tacotime]
-204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.”
[NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining]
This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built.
Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future.
These are the main takeaways of this thread:
  • The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
  • It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
  • It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
  • Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
  • The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it.
Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 released | Wladimir J. van der Laan | Oct 27 2016

Wladimir J. van der Laan on Oct 27 2016:
Hash: SHA512
Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1 is now available from:
Or through bittorrent:
This is a new minor version release, including activation parameters for the
segwit softfork, various bugfixes and performance improvements, as well as
updated translations.
Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github:
To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to:

Microsoft ended support for Windows XP on April 8th, 2014,
an OS initially released in 2001. This means that not even critical security
updates will be released anymore. Without security updates, using a bitcoin
wallet on a XP machine is irresponsible at least.
In addition to that, with 0.12.x there have been varied reports of Bitcoin Core
randomly crashing on Windows XP. It is not clear
what the source of these crashes is, but it is likely that upstream
libraries such as Qt are no longer being tested on XP.
We do not have time nor resources to provide support for an OS that is
end-of-life. From 0.13.0 on, Windows XP is no longer supported. Users are
suggested to upgrade to a newer version of Windows, or install an alternative OS
that is supported.
No attempt is made to prevent installing or running the software on Windows XP,
you can still do so at your own risk, but do not expect it to work: do not
report issues about Windows XP to the issue tracker.
but severe issues with the libc++ version on 10.7.x keep it from running reliably.
0.13.1 now requires 10.8+, and will communicate that to 10.7 users, rather than crashing unexpectedly.
Notable changes

Segregated witness soft fork
Segregated witness (segwit) is a soft fork that, if activated, will
allow transaction-producing software to separate (segregate) transaction
signatures (witnesses) from the part of the data in a transaction that is
covered by the txid. This provides several immediate benefits:
Activation for the segwit soft fork is being managed using BIP9
versionbits. Segwit's version bit is bit 1, and nodes will begin
tracking which blocks signal support for segwit at the beginning of the
first retarget period after segwit's start date of 15 November 2016. If
95% of blocks within a 2,016-block retarget period (about two weeks)
signal support for segwit, the soft fork will be locked in. After
another 2,016 blocks, segwit will activate.
For more information about segwit, please see...[message truncated here by reddit bot]...
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: IAM Peter Vessenes, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation. AMAA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2012-09-28
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
Most proponents of Bitcoin seem to believe that there will be a point where one coin exceeds a value of $100 or even $1000. Sure, that is definitely possible and I can accept that it may happen one day. However, since each coin has this intrinsic potential value.. why would anyone spend them on trivial stuff like food now? How can you spend something that you believe will continue to grow in value effectively to infinity? That seems like a fair complaint to me, in general. In practice, and as opposed to Krugman's thoughts on the matter, we have many thousands of happy Bitcoin transactors, I think people like to spend their bitcoins with others, give them away, and use them for things. I do know some Bitcoin businesses that try never to spend their coins. That said, we have had some periods like last year where EVERYBODY wished they'd spent their coins.. To my mind volatility is a worse 'evil' than being deflationary. As I said above, I think most government economists wish an inflationary currency (and many bitcoiners hate this, and talk a lot about how much they hate it), but I think there's definitely a place in the world for a deflationary value system. An interesting thought experiment for you -- if you forked the Bitcoin blockchain and changed issuance so that it tracked say, USD or USD/EUR inflation rates for issuance, would it have the same uptake or not?
Every once in a while I hear stories about security breaches including 240,000 bitcoins that went missing the other month. How do you ensure security of account holders funds? The practical security aspects of running Bitcoin businesses are a REAL need, and it's something we want to help on with advice, and possibly opt-in certification at some point. I say more about this elsewhere in the AMA.
Furthermore, most sites I've came upon that sell goods seem poorly managed and difficult to use. Is there a Bitcoin equivalent to sites like Ebay and Amazon? Re: bitcoin site usability -- I agree, it's often terrible! I'm not sure why this is, except to say that bitcoins make transacting online so easy that even people who can't afford a designer can do it.
A: How does the intrinsic non-fiat nature of the currency affect its susceptibility to market fluctuation? I.E. Better or worse stability than fiat currency? So far, because market cap is so low, (Roughly $100mm of value), Bitcoin exchange rates are highly susceptible to people pushing it around. This is really tough for everyone. There are a bunch of businesses that might not be viable until you have some exchange rate certainties that extend beyond a short (one day-ish) window.
B: What can be done to improve the resistance to massive fluctuations in value stemming from exchange market manipulation or normal use? There are some macro-economic things that could be done, like exchanges publishing all trades to a central area, and implementing locks if prices rise / fall too suddenly, but those all have their own effects to consider. I think the fundamental thing to do is help Bitcoin acceptance and uptake grow, increasing the size of the pie until there are a much smaller number of parties that could push the price around.
C: Is there anything that can be done to the standard to improve stability or is it all up to the markets to implement safeguards? So, we all do have a part in that stabilization for sure. There's also the angle of creating whole supply chains that are bitcoin denominated -- paying our staff in Bitcoins only is an attempt to work on that angle.
What do you say to people that claim Bitcoin is nothing but a pump-and-dump pyramid scheme designed to benefit it's creators? That they're sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins obtained by them before the currency was made available to the public when mining was far easier then dumping huge batches of Bitcoins destroying the price over and over again to enrich themselves and fuck everybody else? And that they get more chumps into the system to inflate the price again, by going around the internet and promoting Bitcoins as an alternative currency rather than a complete fraud? This borders on the troll-ish, but I will say that the Bitcoin network autosizes coin generation based on how many people wish to do it. That is, people opt in to make the coins and secure the network. Nobody is forced to.
Is the Bitcoin Foundation a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in the United States? Who among the directors and the board has experience running a non-profit? Why is the ED also a member of the board? How does the ED have the time to run the organization given his obligation to CoinLab? Why haven't I seen any of the involved parties at either of the last two Bitcoin conferences? Can we get somebody who isn't a white male involved? We're a 501(c)6, Washington DC Nonprofit.
I have experience launching a non-profit, hence my job.
ED's typically get a salary and work full time at the job; we didn't know if we'd have budget to pay someone who could operate such a thing, so we went with this structure. I anticipate that I will step down from being the ED at the earliest moment we know we have someone better to do it; running CoinLab is plenty of work for me.
Our assistant director Lindsay Holland is not a white male.
In general, Bitcoin is a white male sausage-fest, though. I urge you and all Bitcoiners everywhere to work on changing that.
What is the future of bitcoins? Do you think they will ever make government-issued currency obsolete? I don't know the future of Bitcoin, but I hope that I and the Foundation are a part of it!
I don't believe Bitcoin will ever obsolete a government currency, but I only speak for myself when I say that. Bitcoin is a fascinating and novel technology with a HUGE number of potential benefits to the world, so I'm into it. I don't see a government wishing to cede control of its currency to anything like the technocratic / consensus model that Bitcoins are governed by, though.
That said, I do hope that Bitcoins will be able to help people in areas of the world that need better money features. Mpesa is a great example of something that helps Kenyans (and people from a few other countries) by changing how money is used. Bitcoin has the potential to help people like that, all over the world, whether or not the 'market' is large enough in that country.
I personally think that sort of thing is SUPER exciting.
Could you describe the bitcoin foundation for me? Sure! It's a trade organization, member-driven. Its goal is to promote, protect and help standardize Bitcoin. Our initial goals are to provide funding for the core development team, run a 2013 Silicon Valley Conference, and create some opt-in certification methods and best practices for businesses dealing with Bitcoin.
Join us.. :)
Standardize? I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
Why do you want to "standardize"? For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
What gives you that authority? It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
Why is the core development team so deserving of funding when they can't even make a decent client? You might hate everything about that, and that's cool. I urge you to go ahead, fork the code, advocate as much as you like for something else. Bitcoin's free, both the protocol and the software. Nobody is stopping you.
Is there any legal action to be done if someone steals your bitcoins? Yep, if you're in the US, file a police report, and call FBI Cybercrimes division.
As an individual member of the Bitcoin Foundation, what do I get? Any perks or privileges? Email aliases, voting rights, a newsletter, etc? Or are these memberships mostly a way of providing financial support to the foundation? The bylaws are up now, so you can read in great detail what the organization will provide its members: Link to
In short, though, rights to vote people on / off the board of the Foundation, soon access to private forums, probably discounts to the bitcoin 2013 conference, happiness at supporting the dev team.
I would like to provide email aliases, we've got Patrick and Jon working on any possible gotchas there, though.
Many aren't taking bitcoin seriously because of the security issues some have had. What steps are you taking to legitimize this currency? Like Jeff says below, I would distinguish between fundamental protocol security and security practices.
Bitcoins fundamental protocol security seems pretty good at this point; I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on that quite intently into the future.
Practical Security has been, largely, terrible in the Bitcoin space for most businesses, Mt. Gox perhaps excepted. The amount of work it takes to secure 80 byte strings that may be valued in the million dollar range is non trivial. Think securing missile codes as to the level of security needed.
Many bitcoin businesses can't afford (or don't wish to) this sort of security. I'm hoping we can provide some tools and pointers for these businesses and their users to help people understand what they're getting into when they transact with a bitcoin business, and what their risks are.
The Bitcoin Foundation Membership (VIP) fees are definitely disproportionate. Why? Are we now heading for a two-tier bitcoin community? We got requests from large supporters to make a more expensive membership tier. I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'.
I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'. - So you said 'YES'? Someone said "Please make higher corporate member fees: Linux Foundation Top Tier member fees are $500k. Your plan is too low."
I said "OK, Thank you for that advice. We should do that."
Is the foundation primarily focused on US or also europe and the rest of the world? Right now Jon Matonis is considered our "Europe Expert" on the board. There's a huge amount of work to do just in keeping track of how Bitcoin is categorized and regulated around the world. I would expect the Foundation to put some time and energy into helping with that process, but it's not our first goal.
What would you or the Fundation do if the government declares Bitcoin ilegal? Advocate that such a thing is silly, unenforceable, and counterproductive.
Thats no answer to the question. Have you got any plans for the "unthinkable"? That really is what I would do. What do you suggest?
What are your thoughts on transparency of the foundation? How much revenue is there and how it is spent, will that info be public? We're aiming to be highly transparent. I proposed today that we publicize our cold wallet public keys so that people can check our balances. This got pushed back a month while we work on some logistics. I will follow up about this, though. I think having auditable books from day one is really cool.
What are your thoughts on fiat currency? I love it and wish more of it. I'm totally grateful that nations have standardized and created currencies for their people, so that I can travel and buy stuff without worrying about the reputability of a local bank when I go to exchange my money.
I read something recently about a Bitcoin based debit card system. How is that coming along? I don't know, but I want one! The Foundation would like one, too. We are trying to run the Foundation with only Bitcoins, so it would be nice to fuel up a debit card for some expenses.
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses. How will you be going about this? What will certification entail? TBD, But I am imagining that businesses could vet their processes and procedures against a set of published standards, pay for an audit, and then be able to help their users understand what level of security they provide, e.g. "Bronze certification -- the site could be trusted with 50 bitcoins of stored value per person."
Does the foundation intend to have control over and thereby over the main distribution channel for Bitcoin-Qt? We're a member organization. Some of our members do have access to and influence over and bitcoin-qt. I have no idea if they would like us to help manage, since we just launched yesterday.
If the decision makers for and bitcoin-qt want us to help out in those areas, I wouldn't mind. I don't think either of those things is super strategic to helping Bitcoin right now; there's more need for messaging and some financial security for the core team, and the other stuff we said we're going to work on this year. and -qt publishing don't seem broken to me or risky right now.
Given that Mt Gox has a (rightfully deserved) place on he board, what steps can and will you be taking to ensure that independent exchanges are encouraged and not ignored? Also what steps, if any, can and will you take to ensure the public that the commercial interests of those on the board do not conflict with the decentralised ideals and paradigm of Bitcoin itself? I don't know how we'd encourage or ignore exchanges, since everyone is welcome to join.
I do think this individual / corporate angle is at the heart of the Bitcoin, though; it's got a lot of parties that care about it, passionately. Some are investing millions of dollars. Some are tirelessly advocating for Bitcoin. Many sit around and troll and waste people's time.
I guess that partly we expect our board members will act with integrity, and that if they aren't representing the needs of their member class, they'll get replaced with someone who will.
I also don't know how we would, practically, decentralize Bitcoin, even if we wished such a thing. I don't think anyone on the board thinks Bitcoin is doing badly. We're all really excited about it and want to help. I personally believe if corporations (a small group or just one) ever provably controlled Bitcoin, they would become vastly less appealing and useful. So, we're on watch.
Not as on watch as a paranoid bitcointalk forum troll wants us to be, but we're on watch.
Why do you require a real name and real address, when bitcoins core values are to be anonymous? The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW.
What is the current, largest obstacle when it comes to wider Bitcoin adoption? I think Bitcoin adoption is growing nicely. There seems to be a sort of stair-step function where people figure out something new and broadly appealing to do with them, and it makes a big jump. I expect we'll see that many times over the next five or ten years.
Doubts about the network's scalability, uncertain status about its legality or something else? Bitcoin's brand seems bad to me; mostly the highly publicized exchange attacks worry people. It's too hard to have a secure cold storage wallet for even a very smart individual. I'd like to see some of those things improved.
Does Bitcoin have any plan to combat criminals using the currency to purchase things on online black markets? I can't speak for Bitcoin, but the Foundation has no criminal combatant plans. We do want our members to use their real names and promise that they only engage in activities legal in their jurisdiction, though.
That's mostly just a way of us saying who we want to hang out with, and expressing some community values we think will help our organization be a success.
Did you expect for the Bitcoin concept to explode as it has? I sort of did, but I definitely didn't put my wallet behind that explosion. Sigh.
Also, where do you see it going in the future? I talk elsewhere in the AMA about what I'm hoping for Bitcoin.
Will the foundation be sponsoring Bitcoin software outside of What do you mean? Like if Jeff Garzik made cool software that would help the Bitcoin world but didn't release it at would we try and help him?
The answer is yes.
I.e., the Foundation would provide a service with recommendations such as wallet security for an exchange, but I don't think the Foundation should be in the business of "certifying". Yeah, there's an interesting set of questions there about certification. I would LOVE to see a certification that brought with it the ability to be insured against loss and theft. Think how nice it would be for an exchange or wallet business to be able to offer that insurance. That said, I don't know of any bitcoin company that has such insurance yet. I think we have some work to do vetting out the processes and procedures, and then some sales and relationship work with insurance companies first. At any rate, we won't be stumping up security for certified companies through the main Foundation corporate vehicle ever. But I think the membership will want to discuss what a good set of next steps is toward that goal, if we're all sold on trying to make it happen.
What's the advantage to using bitcoins over government issued currency, basically why should I invest my $US in bitcoins? Some people have ideological preferences for Bitcoins money issuance scheme.
Some are nerds, and like it for nerdy reasons.
Some just like being able to pay whom they choose when they choose.
Some deal with payment infrastructures that are scary (Paypal freezes are scary), or slow (wiring money in and out of small country central banks is REALLY slow).
Also, they're neat.
How does it feel to know that a kitten wearing a top hat has more upvotes than you? That kitten is so damn cute. I spent some of my AMA time going "AWWW"
How will you try to keep BIG businesses from buying their way into "THE" Bitcoin Foundation? Bitcoin is inherently free, it's peer to peer, it can be forked, it's not controlled by the Foundation, especially one that's one day old.
So, I look forward to large donations from BIG businesses. We will use that money to further the Foundation's mission. Our members will, no doubt, be highly engaged in discussions about what to do with large donations. I'm looking forward to it.
What is your opinion on Canada's new digital currency, "Mint Chip"? How does this affect Bitcoin? I don't know much about it, but I think it's cool from what I do know, (and is it technically flawed? I don't recall). I'm all for money system experimentation, as you might guess.
You are starting to get increased media/congressional notice. Are you at all worried about being shut down and prosecuted like E-Gold was? Who is we? The Foundation is a member organization, nothing else.
There are some bitcoin exchange operators that actively flout the same AML laws that got the E-Gold founders in trouble.
There are some that try hard to do the right thing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Personally, I don't worry about the ones trying to comply, and I don't transact with the ones flouting the laws.
Why do you have different vote classes, is one class worth more then another? Corporate members vote their seats, Individual members vote theirs.
Anecdotally, there are fewer corporate members, so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership.
so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership. - So there may be poll when votes of both classes come together? Like asking ALL members to opt out changes to the source code? I would be stunned if we voted on source code, ever. I don't think anyone thinks that is in the remit of the Foundation.
Pragmatically, the dev team is one arm of bitcoin source code governance, and miners are the other, since they can refuse to work with code changes they don't like if they do it in bulk.
The board meets often, and should be listening to its constituents; sign up as a member, and then mail your appropriate rep. As a sample of what we discussed today: "Should we do an AMA? Who will get member signup confirmations out? Can we publicize Patrick's bylaws yet?" were the scintillating topics of conversation.
Will I be getting an e-mail with receipt for my payment confirming my membership subscription? Yes, we are ACTIVELY working on it. Apologies.
What's the dev's payroll? TBD, now that we know what our member signups are.
I don't know if we'll release payroll or budget numbers outside the membership -- something we have to discuss.
What power does this foundation have over Bitcoin? Why did you make Satoshi the founder without his permission? We have no power over Bitcoin whatsoever.
I think we felt a foundation that didn't somehow acknowledge Satoshi would be a bit churlish, like ignoring Linus completely while making the Linux Foundation. Satoshi is, as always, free to participate as he/she chooses.
Has there been a growth in algorithmic trading of Bitcoins in the past year? If so, is that growth in algos added stability to the Bitcoin Market? I have no idea. But I'm curious about this too!
Why hasn't (almost) anybody heard of you before today? I keep a low profile. Until yesterday. Also, I gave up on the forums a long time ago; not productive enough for me.
That was very informative, thanks. Not that hard to grasp when somebody spells it out. The reason you do it is to provide a second element of value to a chain of transactions; the first element of value is consensus -- what everyone else says happens.
Is there a reason for doing this? Or just a way to pace the grinding nature of mining bitcoins? The second, arguably more powerful one is provable computation time spent on creating the consensus. So you can look at a set of bitcoin transactions and say "Ah ha, that had roughly [say] $1mm worth of computation time put in to securing and validating it! I believe it's safe to consider my $55 transaction secure."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have applied so far? Yep. We'll release end of first-month member numbers in 29 days. :)
How does one go about buying bitcoins? Probably the fastest way is to ask a friend who has some.
Next would be to use a service like Link to
How long are terms for each board member? Two years.
Will the Bitcoin Foundation promote a Vulnerability Reward Program ? I would like to see that, but I think the first things to do in terms of importance are on our published list.
Will the funds for a permanent memberships be put into an endowment, or will they be spent immediately? We haven't discussed it. Budget discussions are next couple of weeks, now that we have our heads around some numbers.
We also have to discuss if the foundation wishes to go long bitcoin, or instead spend to its annual budget. All TBD; if you have opinions send them on to your member reps.
I'm curious about this too. I'm not sure I understand how they work entirely. Maybe somebody could Explain like i'm five... Totally. They are confusing; it's a truly novel solution. Essentially it mixes something non-intuitive and magical-seeming (public key cryptography) with something very hard to imagine a solution for (distributed timestamping among non-trusted parties).
We will be seeing the concept extended out into a number of technology arenas over the next 25 years I imagine. It's an incredibly powerful solution-space.
I spent maybe an hour on the wiki reading the FAQ and everything, and it still makes references to "blocks" and "mining blocks" and those that mine have the option of transaction fees.. and I'm still not really sure what is happening. Yep, like I said. I've been thinking hard about them for two years, I have a cryptography background, and I still have 'a-ha!' moments weekly, at the very least.
There are a couple pretty good bitcoin explanation videos out there, but I'm not up to date on what the best one is. Maybe someone helpful can post a link.
After establishing support for food and shelter for Gavin, will there be opportunities for other bitcoin developers to apply for grants - maybe for specific implementations or features desperately needed. I'd love it. I think Gavin will be working out the specifics of what we want to do. I'd LOVE to see money put into a huge test suite, personally.
Thank you for furthering the effort of Cryptocurrency, I have written several policy papers in this arena, and look forward to the day where the deep web stigma is removed from the currency. Thanks FapNowPayLater! We genuinely appreciate the support.
Last updated: 2012-10-02 22:30 UTC | Next update: 2012-10-03 04:30 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Make Money Easily 850$ to 5k Per Week With Bitcoin Mining What is Namecoin Bitcoin's First Fork - YouTube Bitcoin Q&A: Innovations in wallet design Bitcoin Wallet Recovery Poradnik BITCOIN dla początkujących - Część 1 - Czym jest bitcoin, tworzenie portfela

Your wallet client will now start importing blocks from disk that is it will start to process blocks found in the bootstrap.dat file. Note: This process uses high CPU resources and it will take some time. During this period do not attempt to use or close the wallet as you might end up crashing it. Once your wallet client completes importing ... Bitcoin Core sync very slow. Bitcoin Core is capable of full sync in a relatively short period of time depending mainly on the hardware. Most of the work done is not actually downloading the blocks, it is validating them and every transaction that they contain. It not only depends on downloading the blocks but also on the quantity and complexity of every transaction. The downloading of the ... Bitcoin, Dash, Litecoin and every Altcoins has its own core wallet. While the looks of each and every wallet may vary slightly its functionalities remain the same. Whenever you open your QT wallet the first thing your wallet does is; it starts scanning all the recent blocks on the blockchain and tries to catch up with the network. Whether your wallet is a fresh install or you’ve been using ... The only issue I've come across period, isn't really a problem. But it is confusing to someone downloading Bitcoin-Qt unaware of OS X Maverick's under the surface options. When I first opened it up and set if off downloading the blockchain I thought there was a problem as it was doing it incredibly slow. Much slower than usual. And when I ... Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. From 0.17.0 onwards, macOS <10.10 is no longer supported. 0.17.0 is built using Qt 5.9.x, which doesn’t support versions of macOS older than 10.10. Additionally, Bitcoin Core does not yet change appearance when macOS “dark mode” is ...

[index] [4165] [41029] [2836] [11582] [47139] [23735] [42529] [26671] [43091] [40665]

Make Money Easily 850$ to 5k Per Week With Bitcoin Mining

How to Start Using Bitcoin in Five Easy Steps - Duration: 9:55. cwade12c 166,324 views. 9:55 . Steve Jobs introduces iPhone in 2007 - Duration: 10:20. John Schroter Recommended for you. 10:20 ... Study Music Alpha Waves: Relaxing Studying Music, Brain Power, Focus Concentration Music, ☯161 - Duration: 2:59:58. Yellow Brick Cinema - Relaxing Music Recommended for you The next video is starting stop. Loading... Watch Queue Queue. __count__/__total__ ... Bitcoin-QT wallet review - Duration: 8:53. Secure Your Wallet 5,137 views. 8:53. Top 5 Best #Cryptocurrency ... Wallet innovation is slow, but I remember when there was only one wallet (QT) and you had to run a full node to even have a wallet. I remember the first SPV and mobile wallets. Ease of use. Ease ... bitcoin p=np forum.bitcoin. pl bitcoin qt bitcoin qr code bitcoin qt synchronizing with network bitcoin qt wallet location bitcoin qt import wallet bitcoin qt synchronizing with network slow ...