Thank you for your response, that does make sense. It's going to be
interesting to follow what is going to happen!
2015-05-14 3:41 GMT+12:00 Gavin Andresen :
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam Back wrote:
>
>> I think its fair to say no one knows how to make a consensus that
>> works in a d
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Bitcoin.
> 2) Proof-of-idle supported (I wish Tadge Dryja would publish his
proof-of-idle idea)
> 3) Fees purely as transaction-spam-prevention measure, chain security via
alternative consensus algorithm (in this scenario there is very little
mining).
I think what he is saying is that there is no point in having three
signatures if they are not segregated in a secure manner. This is to
say, if you use your computer as one "factor", and a third party website
as another, but you use the same computer to access the website, there
is no gain in
Where would you verify that?
On 2/3/2015 10:03 AM, Brian Erdelyi wrote:
Joel,
The mobile device should show you the details of the transaction (i.e.
amount and bitcoin address). Once you verify this is the intended
recipient and amount you approve it on the mobile device. If the
address wa
s why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with
>> that...
>>
>> slush
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 07, 2014 11:02:21 PM Pedro Worcel wrote:
>>> > Hi there,
>>&
Hi there,
I was wondering if you guys have come across this article:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/isp-bitcoin-theft/
The TL;DR is that somebody is abusing the BGP protocol to be in a position
where they can intercept the miner traffic. The concerning point is that
they seem to be having some deg
6 matches
Mail list logo
