Also, was Bitcoin the first blockchain?
The first *decentralised* blockchain.February 11, 2009 was the birth of bitcoin.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?xg_source=activity
Topic: When was the birth of Bitcoin? (Read 2745 times)
February 11, 2009 was the birth of bitcoin.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?xg_source=activity
Also, was Bitcoin the first blockchain?
i think the concept of blockchain was taken from someone handling accounts and having a CS background. He probably merged the idea to create the blockchain.
Also, was Bitcoin the first blockchain?
The first *decentralised* blockchain.February 11, 2009 was the birth of bitcoin.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?xg_source=activity
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Misusing 'K' for 'Ki' has killed. It it a stupid pointless anachronism that must stop.
You and what army? A lot of people including myself have used KB as kilobyte as 1024 bytes and I'd rather it remain this way. Perhaps we should also start calling bytes octets, as that is the proper word.Me and what army? What is this, the elementary school playground?
I obviously do not have any authority to control your misuse of language. However, as I pointed out unthread, every standards organization - ANSI, BSI, ISO, NIST, IEC, ... Is united on this topic.
Byte vs. octet is completely different - there is no inherent ambiguity in that. Misusing SI prefixes for 2^(n*10) however is inherently ambiguous. As pointed out elsewhere, it gets worse as the units get greater. Not only does the deviation between 2^(n*10) and 10^(n*3) increase as n increases, but people start compounding the ambiguity (read that as stupidity) by doing things like using 'M' to mean 2^(n*10) * 10^(n*3).
Plus, as I mentioned before, this ambiguity has killed. Just stop before it kills again.
my pet peeve is when people say "I could care less", when they should be saying "I couldn't care less"...but whattayagonnado
The first bitcoins were issued to Nakamoto in January 2009 but the first commercial transaction didn’t occur until May 2010.
Misusing 'K' for 'Ki' has killed. It it a stupid pointless anachronism that must stop.
You and what army? A lot of people including myself have used KB as kilobyte as 1024 bytes and I'd rather it remain this way. Perhaps we should also start calling bytes octets, as that is the proper word.Me and what army? What is this, the elementary school playground?
I obviously do not have any authority to control your misuse of language. However, as I pointed out unthread, every standards organization - ANSI, BSI, ISO, NIST, IEC, ... Is united on this topic.
Byte vs. octet is completely different - there is no inherent ambiguity in that. Misusing SI prefixes for 2^(n*10) however is inherently ambiguous. As pointed out elsewhere, it gets worse as the units get greater. Not only does the deviation between 2^(n*10) and 10^(n*3) increase as n increases, but people start compounding the ambiguity (read that as stupidity) by doing things like using 'M' to mean 2^(n*10) * 10^(n*3).
Plus, as I mentioned before, this ambiguity has killed. Just stop before it kills again.
when did bitcoin get its first exchange listing?
I've tried to put it all here http://btcregistry.com if anybody interested...
There is also this site with the timeline of bitcoin: http://historyofbitcoin.org/
Love Historyofbitcoin.com site, but they've stopped updating their timeline a year ago. After using their iframe for a while I've basically stolen their idea, design and built my own timeline which I keep updating. My apology to History Of Bitcoin folks if they are still around.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1014
Reverse engineer from time to time
Misusing 'K' for 'Ki' has killed. It it a stupid pointless anachronism that must stop.
You and what army? A lot of people including myself have used KB as kilobyte as 1024 bytes and I'd rather it remain this way. Perhaps we should also start calling bytes octets, as that is the proper word. When Satoshi was born, Bitcoin was born 
lol so if satoshi die bitcaoin also die
hha.. jkThe genesis block is hard coded into the SW, right? (right?).
Yep.If so, it does not seem so surprising to me that SN had his first chance to start mining until several days after the bulk of the coding was done. Or maybe there were several test starts (or restarts), and what we now call block 1 was actually the first block of the last restart?
As a software developer myself, I agree that this is a highly likely scenario. "Oh, I found a bug, lemme fix it and retest" can be a long process, especially for a complicated multi-computer piece of software. So when he was nearly done and saw that very apropos headline in the newspaper, he decided to use it. After mining to find a nonce that worked, he could hardcode it and continue writing the rest of the app. There may have been earlier chains that were perfectly good, but were deleted from his test environments, etc. 6 days later, the chain that would be public was first mined. The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
If I may engage in some semi-informed speculation...
The genesis block is hard coded into the SW, right? (right?). If so, it does not seem so surprising to me that SN had his first chance to start mining until several days after the bulk of the coding was done. Or maybe there were several test starts (or restarts), and what we now call block 1 was actually the first block of the last restart?
Okay, so I got a lot of clarity.
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
it's for entropy, for the < infinitie other versions of BTCitcoin
Okay, so I got a lot of clarity.
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
Do not quote me on this but I've read somewhere (was it Forbes article? I do not remember) SN had very slow, old PC at that time which was getting hot and needed to be turned off every couple hours. Or may be I'm confusing it with Hall's Finney story where Hall had to turnr off his mining after a few weeks on account of the overheating computer. He actually showed reporter his first wallet with first SN transaction and mining rewards. His wallet has showed exactly 2 x 50 block rewards, or 100 BTC per day during first days of mining which means somebody else, or at least other miners where getting the rest: 142 blocks or roughly 7100 bitcoins a day. Here goes theory of bad SN computer, but If SN and HF had weak and unstable computers somebody else was raping the network rewards with much more powerful computers. Hmm :-) Welcome to another dark rabbit hole Ladies & Gentleman.
Okay, so I got a lot of clarity.
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
The first block (block #0) was on Jan 3th, but then the second block (block #1) wasn't until Jan 9th.
So can I assume it took 6 days to form the first block after genesis? Or maybe there was a problem and so that was the delay?
It looks like after block #1 things were moving okay, so does anybody know the delay of 6 days?
Did he turn his computer off or something and since he was the only miner then nobody found a block?
I think white paper was published on 31th October 2008. Worlds day of banking.
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html
This might not be birthday. But maybe day when Bitcoin was made. It was delivered few months latter.
http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html
This might not be birthday. But maybe day when Bitcoin was made. It was delivered few months latter.
1 KB = 1024 bytes
Just no.
'K' denotes 1000, or 10^3.
Always has, always will. Every standards organization on the planet that has any bearing on the matter is unanimous on this point. The fact that 2^10 is very near the value 10^3 is irrelevant. It has been misused for convenience, but has never been correct.
If you want a quick and easy indicator for 1024 or 2^10, you can use 'Ki'.
If you want to look at the most "official" standards instead of common usage, then this is right: 1000 bytes = 1 kB (kilobyte), and 1024 bytes = 1 KiB (kibibyte).
As long as we're being pedantic, the metric symbol for kilo (1000) is "k", not "K", so you too are wrong.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte, which says the KB is usually used for 1024 bytes.
From your quoted wikipedia kilobyte article:
"In the International System of Quantities, the kilobyte (symbol kB) is 1000 bytes, while the kibibyte (symbol KiB) is 1024 bytes. "
From your memory manufacturers link:
"Quote from JEDEC Standard 100B.01, page 8:
The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.""
Misusing 'K' for 'Ki' has killed. It it a stupid pointless anachronism that must stop.
1 KB = 1024 bytes
Just no.
'K' denotes 1000, or 10^3.
Always has, always will. Every standards organization on the planet that has any bearing on the matter is unanimous on this point. The fact that 2^10 is very near the value 10^3 is irrelevant. It has been misused for convenience, but has never been correct.
If you want a quick and easy indicator for 1024 or 2^10, you can use 'Ki'.
If you want to look at the most "official" standards instead of common usage, then this is right: 1000 bytes = 1 kB (kilobyte), and 1024 bytes = 1 KiB (kibibyte).
As long as we're being pedantic, the metric symbol for kilo (1000) is "k", not "K", so you too are wrong.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte, which says the KB is usually used for 1024 bytes.
1 KB = 1024 bytes
Just no.
'K' denotes 1000, or 10^3.
Always has, always will. Every standards organization on the planet that has any bearing on the matter is unanimous on this point. The fact that 2^10 is very near the value 10^3 is irrelevant. It has been misused for convenience, but has never been correct.
If you want a quick and easy indicator for 1024 or 2^10, you can use 'Ki'.
Stop misusing 'K' before you kill again.
size is 0.2099609375 KB
what does that mean. why so many sig figs.
i thought bytes only went 8 deep
1 KB = 1024 byteswhat does that mean. why so many sig figs.
i thought bytes only went 8 deep
0.2099609375 KB = 215 bytes (the block is 215 bytes in size, and the number of bits in a byte don't come into play here)
Technically correct, but a very strange way to write it. If you ask me, they should have just listed it in bytes.
That might be the day it was released to the public, but I wonder when it was conceived and how long it actually took him to develop bitcoin from his initial idea. It seems to me like it would have taken quite some time to figure out.
Well, bitcoin.org was registered in August of 2008 so it's safe to say Bitcoin has already been conceived, at least in SN mind. There are interesting bits and pieces out there but very little from the founder himself - he was strictly business and shared very little of his life struggle and personal journey thing with the public.
I'd guess that he started working on Bitcoin in earnest by June 2008, likely earlier.
Also, was Bitcoin the first blockchain?
AFAIK, yes.
When Satoshi was born, Bitcoin was born
Jump to: