Is there any chance to know who are their biggest clients? I have heard that Overstock processes close to $100,000 in Bitcoin payments every day. What about the other big players?
Most of their clients are private companies so for private companies to release figures isn't really something they do. Overstock is public so at sometime they have to release earnings, so they are doing it in a way that is making buzz for them. Also overstock is powered by coinbase not bitpay. |
|
|
|
https://apicoin.io can do this, it has been stress tested to 5000 queries a second and currently we are moving to even more powerful server that will hopefully make that number alot more  Plus it will cost you a lot less than 3-4 BTC and we can work with you on a custom plan.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have heroes in business, but the people I try to emulate for sure Mark Cuban. Cuban is very honest, blunt and wants to kick ass 24/7. That is me to a T, if I didn't have to sleep I would be working hard to claw to the top of my market.
Second I would say Gary Vaynerchuk, again he just puts it honest and hustles 24/7.
|
|
|
|
When I minimize armory to the dock, I can't get it back up by clicking on the dock icon. I have to instead do "Right Click" > "Show All Windows" then select armory from that. But if it isn't minimize then clicking on the dock icon will bring it from the background to the foreground.
Thanks. Can you submit a bug report? I'll look into this when I get a chance. That being said, I can reproduce this, so hopefully it'll be easy to fix. Just did thank you. |
|
|
|
Outside from blockchain, can other wallets like btc qt do the same?
If so, where is this option?
No |
|
|
|
|
When I minimize armory to the dock, I can't get it back up by clicking on the dock icon. I have to instead do "Right Click" > "Show All Windows" then select armory from that. But if it isn't minimize then clicking on the dock icon will bring it from the background to the foreground.
|
|
|
|
I think we are missing some essential elements. When doing real-estate transfers, escrow is necessary (at least deals with me). Coinbase and bitpay come up short. Even CryptoThrift offers escrow. There are about a dozen semi-reputable bitcoin escrow providers, but they have fees associated with their service. I may in the end grow through Cryptothrift, I know one of the partners from trading over the last couple of years, and their system legit. http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/04/how-vulnerable-is-bitcoin-payment-processor-bitpay/To be honest the escrow wouldn't be protecting you, it would be protecting the buyer because it is easy to validate the person has the funds, that is why escrow is used in real-estate transfers. In this case it would to protect the buyer that you really own those pieces of land. Also these are going to have fees attach you can't get away with that, even in real estate transactions you have many fees for escrow, title, commission for broker. Right here you can save on the escrow and broker fees. |
|
|
|
|
Let us help you,Will also give you a free production month of our subscription product, which is the best PaaS system for users. We have 5 large companies that use us in production currently and respecting their privacy we don't release who they are. We are also consider the market leader due to the sheer volume of users we have.
|
|
|
|
1. In order to even pay my taxes, I must convert the crypto to fiat. That is not a quick process, and there is a lot of risk in doing so.
Use bitpay, you can create an invoice and they will automatically turn it into fiat, not that hard really. 2. Crypto is far more volatile than fiat. My fiat while it is being inflated, and the value being deflated.
My fiat has not lost half its value over night, like my crypto did. I bought a bunch of crypto at $1000 USD, and then a week or so later, it bombed out to less than $500.
Because the market went up and down, I now have to pay much more for a building? When the dollar lost a lot of value against the Euro did people start marking up their houses in the USA? No this is what happens currencies go up and down. |
|
|
|
I would like to standardize what is needed to the most for a better infrastracture, sharing my personal experience as API caller. If i am the only one or just a few with this needings, then, i am agree that there is no need to standardize.
In your methods personally i miss, information about spent transaction for address. For unspent, getunspenttxforaddress is missing senders and receivers address.
I am not developing another block explorer, but the information i need is almost the same.
Well then the next question do we want innovation or just the same api calls being used over and over? I personally would want a low level api call that can just do simple things, and let the higher level apis go where they must. None of our clients have requested seeing spent transactions, so it has moved down our list of what to get done, but I will probably get it out soon As for unspent transactions again our clients use this to build transactions so they don't need that information, so it doesn't make sense to add it. |
|
|
|
|
How much for blockexplorer.co.uk?
|
|
|
|
Investors always === bottom line, glad to see nothing has changed.
This has nothing to do with investors. This is about making Armory usable for a wider array of power users and businesses that would like to use it. If there's no way to hook their local systems/resources into it, it has limited use to them. If we felt that there was a compromise of security involved, we'd be looking at other options. See that is where you are wrong, you say businesses want to tap into armory, but instead you should be saying business want to tap into bitcoin, if armory allows them to access that network the easiest and best way possible then so be it. That is where armoryd should be coming into play for them, not a function client and believe me you will be turning off power users like myself. |
|
|
|
@gweedo
Ok maybe it's not much work to create two builds but an online system has hundrets of vaunerabilities.
You can't deny that only an offline system is secure.
If you have a virus on your computer, a keylogger, or screen-capture software Armory can't do nothing about it.
So there is no point making something extra secure that only a offline computer can provide.
You are completely missing the point, it would open up even more holes, on an already sensitive platform. Everyone to certain degree keeps some money in a hot wallet, but yes most of my funds are offline. Just cause I keep $100 in hot wallet doesn't mean I want it to be stolen, or don't care, it is just worth less to me than my entire holdings. Doesn't mean I don't want it protected. Sandboxed plugins are the not the answer, the answer is if you want that to be insecure then you fork it and add prices and anything else. Not the other way around, security should be first. Investors always === bottom line, glad to see nothing has changed. |
|
|
|
First off wrong api you are working on, we are standardizing block explorer api which is not meant to be a powerhouse of apis, but rather an easy to switch in time of need or attack to get low level data.
Why are you saying it's the wrong API? i personally need this endpoints!  Joke apart, i don't think /q/ endpoints are enough even for a small bitcoin related services wich need transactions information. Really a good start tough. Why should we implement such high level api calls, when we each can do it our own way on our services? Having very low calls would be the better choice, it allows for innovations at the high level. Also you are very much wrong, I have a client we just worked with to switch over their api calls to us and they were using it, it actually works fairly well if you just need to get balances and can respect the rate limit. you were right if with low calls you can extract the same information... I read your api doc and i can't find a way to retrieve the same information i get on https://blockchain.info/address/{BTCADDRESS} happy to be wrong if it's not the case Can you reiterate what you are trying to standardize? I am lost, because in your op sounds like you are trying to standardize the block explorer api. Yes we have the same information, it is broken down differently due to the fact that users of my service, don't need the same information. Remember blockchain.info is taking that same page without the api call and giving it to the people that need it in a json format. https://apicoin.io/api/v1/doc/#callbackscripthttps://apicoin.io/api/v1/doc/#getaddresshttps://apicoin.io/api/v1/doc/#getunspenttxforaddressAll three would get you basically the same information, but since most of our clients don't need all that information at once, for scalable we broke it down to 3 different calls. |
|
|
|
But nothing would be enabled by default, and it would be very isolated.
I get it, but that is why you need to create a build without a plugin system. Bitcoin is attracting more and more black hats and things like this just give them a playground, the money and motivation is there. Also please don't say you going to isolate things, that is how a project fails. Sandboxing apps are not secure, chrome's sandboxing has been hacked a couple times and lets not talk about java applets... By "isolated" I mean that the new channels enabled by the "plugin" system would be isolated. Any extensions would requiring signing, and virtually no code within Armory would be any different with or without the extension (there would simply be one extra loop that checks the directory for python files and signatures, and then adds a new tab for each one). Everything to do with it could be disabled by simply deleting the extensions directory or giving it root permissions that prevent reading or writing (then that loop would skipped and Armory would run identically to a version that doesn't have this). I understand your hesitation, but do keep in mind that I have spent the past 3 years being really careful with Armory's security profile, and I'm not going to recklessly "destroy" it. I am certainly open to suggestions for improving things like this, but we are very comfortable that this will be airtight as-is (i.e. the overall security profile of the app is the same before and after the change). Apple does the same thing with code signing pretty sure that has been broken since day one. But nothing would be enabled by default, and it would be very isolated.
I get it, but that is why you need to create a build without a plugin system. Bitcoin is attracting more and more black hats and things like this just give them a playground, the money and motivation is there. Also please don't say you going to isolate things, that is how a project fails. Sandboxing apps are not secure, chrome's sandboxing has been hacked a couple times and lets not talk about java applets... By creating two builds you add extra work to the developpers and slow deveopment down. The only rocksolid solution is keeping your coins offline. How does that slow down development down? They could just have a switch in the make files, that build it without that code. This would also help them keep it separated from the actually armory code. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think he means signing and verifying messages.
I think he wants what blockchain.info supports messages in the blockchain. You can do this with blockchain.info wallet but it is only visiable on their site, it isn't a feature of bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
But nothing would be enabled by default, and it would be very isolated.
I get it, but that is why you need to create a build without a plugin system. Bitcoin is attracting more and more black hats and things like this just give them a playground, the money and motivation is there. Also please don't say you going to isolate things, that is how a project fails. Sandboxing apps are not secure, chrome's sandboxing has been hacked a couple times and lets not talk about java applets... |
|
|
|
Just a future note, when the time comes, please have a build of armory for the mac OSX system that has no plugin capabilities as I look to armory as a fort knox for my bitcoins and a plugin system would make it very unsafe.
They don't need to create a plugin-free edition. Per default you have no-plugins. And if its "fort knox" for you, then you work with a watch only wallet anyway. With a watch only wallet, your private key is not on the online computer, so there is no thread to it. Plugin systems bring a whole set of new problems. Armory was a secure wallet but now people like you will make it into some Facebook wallet kinda sad. Stop requesting things that compromise the secure. Online is screwed no matter what, offline shouldnt matter what they add Well it does matter, I keep a small amount online and large amount offline. To have them build something as good as armory is, and what it does well, to be brought down by a stupid idea of a plugin system. That is why it is open sourced, so people like that can build and add stupid features of price checkers and other ideas. That is the real plugin system, not some that that will open open bugs and holes. Armory the company needs to focus on security, coinjoin, mutli-sig (which lockbox looks amazing) these are the features that will keep wealth around. Not these facebook users. |
|
|
|
|
Just a future note, when the time comes, please have a build of armory for the mac OSX system that has no plugin capabilities as I look to armory as a fort knox for my bitcoins and a plugin system would make it very unsafe.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
