Get A Boat

chucky

dryhat wrote: »

I'm trying to help you here.

Don't worry it's fine.

dryhat

chucky wrote: »

Don't worry it's fine.

So you do really understand the difference between "mario coins" and bitcoins?

That's OK then. Now I know you're just taking the p155.

chucky

dryhat wrote: »

So you do really understand the difference between "mario coins" and bitcoins?

That's OK then. Now I know you're just taking the p155.

I'd rather eat my own arms than you rattle on about bitcoins.

dryhat

chucky wrote: »

I'd rather eat my own arms than you rattle on about bitcoins.

That's OK.

I don't need to preach to you and you don't have to listen.

You already know all about Bitcoin and so you already recognise the benefits. So why try to stop other people learning?

chucky

dryhat wrote: »

That's OK.

I don't need to preach to you and you don't have to listen.

You already know all about Bitcoin and so you already recognise the benefits. So why try to stop other people learning?

I don't see many people queuing up looking to learn about Bitcoin.

dryhat

chucky wrote: »

I don't see many people queuing up looking to learn about Bitcoin.

Well you learnt all about it.

Did you advertise the fact while you were doing so?

Loughton_Monkey

dryhat wrote: »

I've got nothing to add about Bitcoin, because I only respond to sensible objections/questions.

OK, here's a serious question.

I understand that it is not possible for users to simply sign "send transaction" messages into the blockchain with a value field and an address field, and have the validators do the work of looking through the blockchain and adding up all of the send transactions to validate that the coins actually exist. [I am hypothetically assuming coinbase transactions still exist and simply list outputs to recipient addresses, thus crediting these addresses with new coins.] But is a transaction id simply a tool to help achieve scalability? Why do transactions have to reference previous inputs?

Now I know that you will respond by saying that "the reason you have to explicitly state which previous outputs should be claimed by a transaction is simply that you do not want to give users on the network a blank cheque. Say you wanted to transfer 1 bitcoin to from any output available to address A to address B. You would then create a transaction that looks like this:amount=1|to=B|sign(amount=1|to=B, sign_with=A)

This transaction would be broadcast to the network and result in the desired result. The main problem is that if you have more than the 1 bitcoin you'd like to spend, there is nothing to prevent the owner of address B to create more transactions that give him all of your bitcoins.

The second problem arises with the change from that transaction, if you do not have outputs that sum exactly to 1 bitcoin, you implicitly create a new output for the change. This brings us to the last problem: picking outputs to spend may not always produce the same outcome. If there are multiple combinations that the new output to B can be constructed then nodes in the network would have to agree on which outputs to spend, which again would require transaction IDs.
Having the owner of the coins specify which ones to spend simplifies all these problems."

But my main question is why has such a simple thing as Bitcoin not taken off with Joe Burgerflipper to the point of screaming for his minimium wages to be paid in Bitcoin? Or that nice 90-year-old Mrs Boggins down the care home not screaming for her pension to be paid in Bitcoin?

dryhat

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

OK, here's a serious question.

I understand that it is not possible for users to simply sign "send transaction" messages into the blockchain with a value field and an address field, and have the validators do the work of looking through the blockchain and adding up all of the send transactions to validate that the coins actually exist. [I am hypothetically assuming coinbase transactions still exist and simply list outputs to recipient addresses, thus crediting these addresses with new coins.] But is a transaction id simply a tool to help achieve scalability? Why do transactions have to reference previous inputs?

Now I know that you will respond by saying that "the reason you have to explicitly state which previous outputs should be claimed by a transaction is simply that you do not want to give users on the network a blank cheque. Say you wanted to transfer 1 bitcoin to from any output available to address A to address B. You would then create a transaction that looks like this:amount=1|to=B|sign(amount=1|to=B, sign_with=A)

This transaction would be broadcast to the network and result in the desired result. The main problem is that if you have more than the 1 bitcoin you'd like to spend, there is nothing to prevent the owner of address B to create more transactions that give him all of your bitcoins.

The second problem arises with the change from that transaction, if you do not have outputs that sum exactly to 1 bitcoin, you implicitly create a new output for the change. This brings us to the last problem: picking outputs to spend may not always produce the same outcome. If there are multiple combinations that the new output to B can be constructed then nodes in the network would have to agree on which outputs to spend, which again would require transaction IDs.
Having the owner of the coins specify which ones to spend simplifies all these problems."

But my main question is why has such a simple thing as Bitcoin not taken off with Joe Burgerflipper to the point of screaming for his minimium wages to be paid in Bitcoin? Or that nice 90-year-old Mrs Boggins down the care home not screaming for her pension to be paid in Bitcoin?

In answer to the gobbledegook in bold ( which you have copied and pasted from somewhere) Bitcoin transactions must reference previous transactions in order to verify that the current transaction is legitimate. Doing this without a central authority is THE big breakthrough and is what makes Bitcoin unique and special.

The "change" issue is no different from cash. If you have a tenner and want to buy something in a shop for £1 you have to hand over the whole tenner.

In answer to your main question - it's just a matter of time and more user friendly applications.

dryhat

dryhat wrote: »

In answer to the gobbledegook in bold ( which you have copied and pasted from somewhere)

I don't normally do this sort of thing, but I couldn't resist.

It seems that Loughton Monkey's "serious question" about Bitcoin has been asked before ...

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13440/is-the-process-of-indexing-transactions-by-assigning-a-transaction-id-necessary

Yet another poster quick to take the p155 but when challenged, unwilling to stick around and put forward reasonable arguments against Bitcoin.

Loughton Monkey now signed off and so am I.
Goodnight.

Loughton_Monkey

dryhat wrote: »

I don't normally do this sort of thing, but I couldn't resist.

It seems that Loughton Monkey's "serious question" about Bitcoin has been asked before ...

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/13440/is-the-process-of-indexing-transactions-by-assigning-a-transaction-id-necessary

Yet another poster quick to take the p155 but when challenged, unwilling to stick around and put forward reasonable arguments against Bitcoin.

Loughton Monkey now signed off and so am I.
Goodnight.

Moi?

take the p155?

You should know that Loughton Monkey never does anything like that....

... large gin & tonics all round....:)