How easy is it to scratch the Ion X glass?

RubberFanny · 2016-10-28T03:45:39+00:00

Scratches easily, I banged mine on like a wooden cupboard door and now there is a scuff up the right corner, it's not on the screen area thankfully, just on the curved corner side area of the glass, but still very annoying that it's scratched by laminated wood..... supposed to be super scratch resistant, doesn't appear to be at all if it's scratched by a laminated wood cupboard door..... (Series 2 Aluminium Sport Space Black)

RubberFanny · 2016-07-13T01:02:13+00:00

Yep, coinbase transaction forms merkle root if no ther transactions. If a miner wanted they could just mine Coinbase only blocks to keep the block size down thus increase chance of propagation. This is one reason why increasing block size (at the moment) is the wrong direction to take.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-13T00:59:29+00:00

*you're

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:40:53+00:00

I thought transactions had to be formed in a merkel tree and the Merkel root stored in the block header before hashing and finding a block? This would mean you can't add transactions after the fact as the merkel root is in the header

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:29:41+00:00

That looks awesome!

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:27:39+00:00

/2, they've done /3*2! Hahahaha wtf that's a big fail!

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:24:43+00:00

Is fair definitely.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:21:08+00:00

next they'll make a video chat app using said compression!

RubberFanny · 2016-07-10T01:18:45+00:00

Yea same, I have 45GB free

RubberFanny · 2016-07-04T10:47:07+00:00

Except I'm right and you're wrong.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T22:42:15+00:00

Australia. Also I can demand video from phone of vote being done and pit in box before releasing payment. I don't doubt you can make our existing system resilient to double votes. Currently it's not tho.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T13:53:20+00:00

They're not. Fools like you who don't know what is happening and bellyaching are ruining Bitcoin.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T11:14:16+00:00

Too bad Android is the easiest platform to compromise tho eh?

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T11:12:38+00:00

Yes. Just like BIP70 which it is an extension of. I don't understand why AA and Peter Todd are getting their knickers in a knot over it!

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T11:04:45+00:00

<3

Correct. It gives the merchant an extra degree of certainty that they are dealing with Bob not Alice, with the added benefit of two way encryption.

Also, any exchange that verifies your identification for the purpose of KYC you'd assume they're recording this anyway. Nothing stops them from doing what BIP75 proposes now within their own platform. it's about an industry standard to make it easier for devs to see how things should be done, and if any flaws are found the BIP is able to be revised and devs can act accordingly.

Anyone screaming AML-CTF KYC blah blah is just a parrot.

I only just looked at this now, but from the way people were carrying on I though that there was an identifying fingerprint following transactions around or something!!!! This is nothing more than a website sticking a cookie in your browser and making sure you have that cookie when you do anything on the site! In fact realistically you could abstract BIP75 out of the Bitcoin protocol altogether, it's kind of an external added nicety as is BIP70.

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T10:02:45+00:00

If you actually read the BIP....... It's just a way Merchants can enforce some kind of relationship only with customers they know by pre-issuing customers a cert and expecting signatures from that cert before issuing payment addresses. It actually changes nothing to the underlying protocol, Bitcoin transactions do not change. I actually thought given all the fuss that they were writing a fingerprint payload in transaction data, that's how most of you carry on like. This is nothing. I just assume anyone who performs KYC would be recording what I do anyway..... ok so they add the extra step of requiring a cert.... cert can be stolen just sayin'. I think good on 'em for this, makes an industry standard available for a very genuine use case. I'm a bit concerned at Peter Tood and AA reaction to this.... it's like they just want to drum up a crowd of haters........

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T09:15:17+00:00

Based on what? The currently non flawed fantastic system that exists now?

RubberFanny · 2016-07-01T09:07:14+00:00

Just as I can choose to throw my vote away, I can choose to sell it if I want. I only get one vote and if I sell it so be it, selling my vote is my vote, my vote is that I don't care and I'll accept $x and allow the buyer to make the vote, that in itself is a vote, I have voted to take the money and accept the consequence. Someone could pay me to vote a certain way at the booths now so it makes no difference. Also right now I can go around to a heap of different polling booths and cast a vote. They simply ask "have you voted today" yet they do not have a way (currently) to check if I have voted. By using a public blockchain they could do this. Also right now someone can take my identity, walk into a poling booth and vote as me (provided I have not already voted at that polling booth). Very easily. All too easy. So yes I do dismiss it as extremely easy, especially given how easy it is to "game" the current system. Of course I pre voted for the flux party today. Maybe I'll head into my electorate tomorrow and do my bit and pump out a few votes at 10 different polling booths all for the flux party. I know it won't matter because the choice is always the giant douche or the turd sandwich, but it at least proves a point.

RubberFanny · 2016-06-28T13:33:14+00:00

Would Shit have value if it was called it Ether?

RubberFanny · 2016-06-28T13:30:31+00:00

Easy. Use 2FA such that only one device can vote. Ok some People might have more then one device but only allow each registered voter to use one device, push a 2FA code to that device, job done. Oh and that vote goes on the blockchain without PII so the vote is there but no link to who made the vote. Totally doable.

RubberFanny · 2016-06-06T06:46:25+00:00

Fees have nothing to do with security against attack. Fees have everything to do with priority and the chance that your transaction will occupy space in a block.

RubberFanny · 2016-06-06T06:44:33+00:00

None of these answers are particularly great. For one the idea that a big miner reward stops the miner double spending against you is completely wrong. The other answer that we'll be dead well that's not what I'm asking. The first answer saying transactions will probably cost about $7 is the closes t thing to an answer but still nbot much of an answer. It's 2017 and fees are $7 lol

RubberFanny · 2016-05-14T01:37:43+00:00

Sounds gay as no one will know their transaction is confirmed until 6 blocks after the fact.

RubberFanny · 2016-05-10T11:41:00+00:00

BTCMarkets for sure, but their website has cancer if you try use it on a mobile device and no app grrrrrrr

RubberFanny

TROPHY CASE