lappa

20 ms·

151.
by lappa 12y ago
I guess Coinbase didn't learn their lesson last time they tried using reimplemented consensus code. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260595.0
152.
by lappa 12y ago
If OSX has a backdoor then the data can be compromised before it's encrypted. A smartcard would be useful for signing though.
153.
by lappa 12y ago
What you are referring to isn't a proof, it is invoking trust in a set of people.
154.
by lappa 12y ago
You make more money the more you host if I understand the whitepaper correctly.
155.
by lappa 12y ago
Filecoin uses what they call "proof-of-retrievability". The thing about proof-of-work is that it is a proof. Assuming that sha256d is unpredictable, you will on average have use a certain amount of energy to find a low hash value.
156.
by lappa 12y ago
You need to speed up the game by a factor of 5 to 20. Also, I have infinite grains, so I just keep selling 10000 of them when there is demand again, which brings the price back to 0.
157.
by lappa 13y ago
The hole in your theory is that a rational miner may think the price will multiply by 100 (for example), so buying $1000 mining equipment will be profitable because it will yield $700 worth of BTC (70% figure estimated from nothing and is r
158.
by lappa 13y ago
Yes, every object, listings, ratings, etc. should be PoS instead of PoW. I suppose the hosts can define their throttling in the contract they make with the seller, so that isn't my decision. PoB tx usually do require a change output al
159.
by lappa 13y ago
Just a note: This is not decentralized, it is just a centralized marketplace using the decentralized network Bitmessage.
160.
by lappa 13y ago
I agree and don't plan on using PoW other than in the proof of concept. V0.2 should use PoS because proof of burn (as a believe you are suggesting) is bad for the Bitcoin network (large number of unnecessary tx) and expensive (you don&
161.
by lappa 13y ago
I've written a description for the potential implementation of a decentralized pseudonymous marketplace. I would appreciate any critical analysis of it. https://github.com/lapp0/Smart-Market
162.
by lappa 13y ago
Your address isn't a public key. It is the formatted hash of a public key. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1...
163.
by lappa 13y ago
https://github.com/kanzure 4807 day streak
164.
by lappa 13y ago
MtGox allows internal transfers. GoxCoin Seller->Bitcoin Builder MtGox Account->GoxCoin Buyer Bitcoin Buyer<-Bitcoin Builder Wallet<-Bitcoin Seller
165.
by lappa 13y ago
But that is how this mesh is supposed to work according to point 3.
166.
by lappa 13y ago
99% of dogecoins code originates from the Bitcoin project. The other 1% is Litecoins proof of work and other random garbage including 10k block rewards at the end (originally a bug they didn't want to fix), 1 year for all coins to be g
167.
by lappa 13y ago
You would call that successfully? The developers have no idea what they're doing. They copied bitcoins code, but didn't realize that they made a 500 million doge transaction limit, so they gave their users a short period of time t
168.
Texas Bitcoin Conference and Hackathon(texasbitcoinconference.com)
2 points by lappa 13y ago|1 comments
169.
by lappa 13y ago
That explanation didn't make any sense at all. What do you mean group together? In a mining pool? That already exists with bitcoin. Also, how is predictable behavior a bad thing? Perhaps the US mint should have super-mint months where
170.
by lappa 13y ago
Do you really think random rewards is a technical advantage? I can understand why you might (wrongly) think the other six are advantages, but ending on that note makes me think you're just trolling.
171.
by lappa 13y ago
This is simply false. Many mining pools allow you to push to transaction to them. If your first spend has a 0.0001btc fee and the second has a 0.001btc fee, they will choose the 0.0099btc fee. You cannot monitor transactions being sent to m