I tried again, this time having ~/.bitcoin/ be a ram disk. $ mv .bitcoin .bitcoin.real
$ mkdir .bitcoin
$ sudo mount -t tmpfs -o size=1600M tmpfs .bitcoin
I thought 1600 megabytes would be big enough, but forgot to take the database logfiles into account, and it ran out of space after about downloading 136k blocks in 26 minutes. The shape of the curve is still the same. The CPU very rarely was flat out during the download, and so I'm thinking the limit now is how quickly the blocks are coming over the network. The blocks get bigger with time, so take longer to transmit.  |
|
|
|
The bulk wallet page says "daeman", when it should say "daemon". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing). Also, step 5 of "How do I use a Bulk Wallet to accept Bitcoins on my website?" says "Use the original wallet file you generated in step 1", but step 1 doesn't involve making a wallet file, just a list of keys: "Use the Bulk Wallet tab to pre-generate a large number of bitcoin addresses (10,000+). Copy and paste the generated comma separated values (CSV) list to a secure text file on your computer. Backup the file you just created to a secure location."
|
|
|
|
Having a rather interesting issue. About 3% of returned public addresses from the bulk wallet are one byte short. Here's a few for your perusal:
Some addresses are bigger than others. It's perfectly natural, and nothing to worry about. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding#Creating_a_Base58Check_string (particularly step 5) for the technical details as to why the length isn't fixed. |
|
|
|
I timed the initial blockchain download with v0.6.0rc4 and rc5. rc5 is faster, but still gets very slow after a while. Notice both charts have a flat point at around 93k blocks, and the shapes are otherwise very similar. The graph shows blocks downloaded against time hh:mm  |
|
|
|
Strike Sapphire Bitcoin Casino also has 4 free poker tournaments each day. They're just as free as the SealsWithClubs ones, and with the same restriction. The balances there are denominated in US dollars even though the deposits and withdrawals are done only in Bitcoins, at the current mtgox price, and the minimum withdrawal is $5. They don't accept players who are in the USA. Currently there are 2 tournaments worth $1 each, and 2 tournaments worth $3 each, every day. The games run in the afternoon US time, or late night European time. https://strikesapphire.com/?afc=NG3Vhagxta(or just https://strikesapphire.com/ if you don't want my affiliate link) |
|
|
|
I am not too familiar with your site. Could you answer a few questions please?
When you say a "free tournament", what does that mean?
Does that mean there is no entry fee?
Does it require member/players to risk their own money?
Is membership at your site free?
Are bitcoins/chips given for free to allow people to play in those tournaments?
Are players allowed to withdraw all their winnings afterward with no conditions?
Thank you.
I can answer that: "Free tournament" means it's a tournament that is free to enter. There's no entry fee. The players don't have to deposit any of their own money at all. Membership is free. The winner of the hourly freeroll gets 50 chips; each chip is 1/1000th of a bitcoin; the minimum withdrawal is 100 chips, so you have to win twice before you can withdraw (or you could deposit enough to put your balance up to 100 chips, then withdraw). The only condition is that you can't withdraw less than 100 chips at a time. There's no requirement to play a certain amount of "real money" games before you can withdraw. I think this qualifies as a way of getting bitcoins for free. |
|
|
|
Received 7 hours ago via email from Andre: Hi Chris,
This is starting to get very ugly on the forums i didn't want it to come to this as i wanted to take full responsibility for this situation, what you have posted on the forums has now involved investigators and my lawyers they will be in contact with you, very sorry (you can post this if you want)
I don't know if that means I won't be able to post about this in the future, but if I stop responding here, that may be why. |
|
|
|
For your information i did offer chris 5% and he accepted(i can back this up with IM conversation through gmail),
On 28th July 2011 I was offered 5% of incoming commission fees: (09:43:12 PM) andre jensen: hay when i start charging for the services would you be intersted in reciving 5% plus ill pay you for any fixes you do (09:43:32 PM) Chris: sure  (09:43:51 PM) andre jensen: i need someone i can trust and you have shown that (09:44:35 PM) andre jensen: good I proof read for spelling, grammar, and punctuation, not content. After having read the help page I did question the "partnering" text. I think the following made it clear that I didn't want 5% of the business, although I didn't explicitly ask for the text to be removed from the help page. On 2nd August 2011: (05:12:21 PM) Chris: by the way
(05:12:30 PM) Chris: you mentioned giving me 5%...
(05:12:42 PM) Chris: does that include 5% of your losses when someone hacks in?
(05:13:00 PM) andre jensen: no
(05:13:13 PM) andre jensen: of course not ill send
(05:13:29 PM) andre jensen: you something to confim that
(05:13:33 PM) Chris: it's a concern
(05:13:40 PM) andre jensen: yes it is
(05:13:44 PM) Chris: you mentioned on the help page something about "partnering" with me
(05:13:55 PM) Chris: that could be read as I have a 5% interest in the business
(05:14:00 PM) Chris: and so am liable for 5% of any losses
(05:15:54 PM) andre jensen: no i will put in writing that you will not be liable for losses
(05:16:13 PM) andre jensen: my company has forcasted for this
(05:16:28 PM) andre jensen: in the event it dose happens
I never received the confirmation or any kind of a contract and never again heard anything about this "5%" until now. this is why i trusted him to handle a major part of the BTC component of the exchange which didn't give the power of the exchange to one person, he can confirm this ask him.
I understood that holding the site BTC was a temporary measure until Andre set up a more permanent store since Andre's home computer at the time was running Windows. It was never brought to my attention that this was about sharing "the power of the exchange", but rather a temporary measure to prevent the bitcoins being stolen from the shared hosting. On 15th August 2011 I brought up the subject of how it's not a good idea to leave bitcoins on a shared host: (02:46:57 PM) Chris: what do you think about keeping most of the bitcoins off-site? (02:47:10 PM) Andre Jensen: yes great idea (02:47:18 PM) Chris: there are 39 BTC on the site at the moment (02:47:21 PM) Chris: that's like $400 worth (02:47:27 PM) Chris: and that's only after the first day (02:47:43 PM) Chris: it's already well worth stealing... (02:47:58 PM) Chris: the support guy I spoke to said he was having his server guys look into the problem (02:48:05 PM) Chris: any of them could see the bitcoin wallet and take it (02:48:11 PM) Andre Jensen: sure (02:48:27 PM) Chris: I just think it's best not to keep all your eggs in one wallet, as they say (02:48:34 PM) Andre Jensen: yes (02:48:39 PM) Chris: the question is where to keep them (02:49:27 PM) Chris: the exchange software itself is fine with running out of bitcoins (02:49:42 PM) Chris: if someone tries to withdraw, and there aren't enough in the wallet, it just waits until there are enough (02:49:56 PM) Andre Jensen: ok (02:50:36 PM) Andre Jensen: ill come up with a soulution (02:50:50 PM) Andre Jensen: brb (02:51:10 PM) Chris: did you hear about offline 'paper wallets'? (02:51:28 PM) Chris: it's a way of storing bitcoins without a computer, or something (02:51:52 PM) Chris: so they can't be hacked (02:52:22 PM) Chris: http://casascius.com/ talks about it On 22nd August 2011: (08:27:50 PM) Andre Jensen: ive got some key contacts looking
(08:28:04 PM) Andre Jensen: at puting large deposits in the exchange
(08:29:12 PM) Andre Jensen: the BTC is my concern at the moment
(08:31:10 PM) Andre Jensen: so finding a solution would be good
(08:31:18 PM) Chris: you mean getting people to deposit them?
(08:31:21 PM) Chris: or keeping them safe?
(08:31:31 PM) Andre Jensen: keeping them safe
(08:31:34 PM) Andre Jensen: sorry mate
(08:31:50 PM) Chris: I think the solution is to keep the majority of them somewhere you control
(08:32:01 PM) Chris: I don't know if you have a secure system
(08:32:06 PM) Chris: preferably not running Windows
(08:32:20 PM) Andre Jensen: ok
On 29th August 2011 I was asked to hold Bitcoins for the exchange temporarily: (05:11:01 AM) Andre Jensen: mate is your system secure
(05:11:14 AM) Chris: pretty much
(05:11:18 AM) Chris: I only run linux
(05:11:46 AM) Andre Jensen: good can you store half the bitcoin on the exchange
(05:11:52 AM) Chris: I spoke to [deleted] about linking to your exchange today
(05:11:57 AM) Chris: I can
(05:12:00 AM) Andre Jensen: great
(05:12:16 AM) Chris: he said he wanted to wait a few months before linking back to you
(05:12:24 AM) Andre Jensen: just untill i sort out the bitcoin storage problem
On 9th October 2011 I tried again to suggest using a paper wallet for cold storage, but it never happened: (09:58:21 PM) gorkalitus@gmail.com: mate anything you need
(09:59:52 PM) Chris: no, I don't think so
(10:00:03 PM) Chris: thought I do think it's a good idea to do the paper wallet asap
(10:00:16 PM) Chris: though*
(10:00:25 PM) gorkalitus@gmail.com: ok
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the transparency i appreciate it, please return users BTC using this forum or however you think is a open way in doing so safely, You still have Admin access to WBX and i will not change this until all BTC is returned also you can view the user database i left that open for that reason.
Andre, the problem is that until you know how many dollars you are going to be able to get back from the banks, you don't know what the total assets of WBX are. And so you don't know what percentage of the liabilities you will be able to repay. I propose holding on to the BTC until the situation with the bank becomes clear. Do you agree? |
|
|
|
Andre, thanks for responding. I think it's best that this happens out in the open so people can see what's going on. 2. Yes i Intend on returning all funds once i have access to these funds but unfortunately i can't guarantee it.
3. If this is what the clients of WBX want then yes i am happy to comply and listen to the responses.
As you can see from this thread, at least some of the clients want it done this way. Some even suggest it has to be done this way. 4. Yes i locked you out as i had to minimise further risk to the Exchange Database and code, sorry Chris its nothing personal i am just protecting my self and WBX client information.
OK, I thought you must have. Just so you know, I have backups of the site from shortly before you locked me out. As you know, the hosting company hasn't exactly had a good track record of looking after the server themselves, so I regularly made offsite backups. That includes encrypted backups of the exchange's bitcoin wallet. The wallet has a large keypool, so I will have access to any funds that are deposited into the exchange wallet for some time to come. To properly minimise risk to the exchange I would advise you to transfer the remaining funds from the exchange wallet (less than 1 BTC I think) then start from scratch with a new wallet. I also still have admin access to the WBX site, so can see client information. Disable that by setting "is_admin" to 0 for my row in the users table: UPDATE users SET is_admin=0 WHERE uid=1001; or use the web interface to the database. 5. Yes i have returned correspondence on these issues and these accounts have been locked (unverifiyed).
6. Chris you have full control over the 1768 BTC as they are in your possession if you want to handle returning these BTC to clients then i am happy for you to do that, I have other major issues do deal with at the moment, i just want to know that WBX users BTC is safe and will be returned its one less problem for me to sort out.
I have the 1768 BTC and will keep it safe until it is clear who it should be given to. I've proven in this thread that I have it, and everyone can watch the address where it is being held to make sure it isn't being spent. It seems to me that we need to find out how much of the frozen AUD will be returned by the bank before we can know how to split up the BTC. Do you agree? |
|
|
|
I just received an email from Andre. It doesn't address any of the flags I raised about suspicious looking accounts on the exchange with positive BTC balances, and doesn't answer my question about my access to the web host no longer working. All it says is: Hi Chris,
Please return the bitcoin you have asap users are trying to withdraw there bitcoin. I replied asking if we could discuss it in this thread: Andre, can you address the concerns I and others have raised please? 1. Is there any news from the bank about when you can expect to have access to the WBX accounts again? 2. What happens if the bank never releases the frozen funds. Will you be paying their balances back in full? 3. If not, should you not wait before allowing users to withdraw bitcoins, since the assets of WBX should be divided equally between its creditors. 4. Did you intentionally lock me out of the hosting account? I'm no longer able to access the code or the database. 5. I've emailed you about several accounts on the exchange which have suspicious trading patterns, but you've not commented. It seems you want me to return the bitcoins so that they can withdraw them - have you thought that through? |
|
|
|
Certainly looks like a move of coins. I'm assuming that is an address you have, rather than sending to some random location.
Indeed. I'm simply demonstrating that I really do have control of the coins I claim to, by announcing the move and the new address a day before the move happened. |
|
|
|
So: 38521.51589602 + 5.661 38527.17689602 |
|
|
|
For a long time people said the "waiting for six confirmations" was a significant drawback, but most people understand that problem has been almost entirely eradicated.
How was it eradicated? I don't know what you're referring to there. |
|
|
|
There's a new posting on the news page at WBX, presumably from Andre: Dear Clients, Again we would like to apologize to all our clients for the delayed customer support provided over the past weeks, Effective immediately 15th March World Bitcoin Exchange (WBX) will be shutting down trading / deposits and returning all client funds. Due to increasing fraudulent transactions on our accounts, WBX cannot operate in its current capacity. Combined with multiple bank account closures, we have deemed the best course of action is to halt trading and return funds
As of the 20th of March we will start returning all clients BTC, we currently hold the majority of our BTC off line, which is managed by Chris Moore our Technical lead, you will be required to logon to your account and request a BTC Withdraw to your personal wallets.
The withdraw of AUD is on hold until we have a clear indication when FUNDS are returned by our bank.
We appreciate your patience. WBX Team
I have a few comments: 1. I've never been appointed any position at WBX. This is the first I heard about being their "Technical lead". I set up the exchange for Andre originally, using the open source Intersango code, and made improvements as requested, and also agreed to hold Bitcoins offsite for Andre rather than leaving the whole wallet on the shared hosting server that WBX runs from. I don't think that makes me "Technical lead". 2. I am still holding 1768 Bitcoins for WBX. Until recently I have been depositing them back to the exchange on an as-needed basis, to keep the number of coins actually in the wallet on the exchange server to a minimum. I used to try to keep between 200 and 300 coins on the server to allow for day to day withdrawals, but since the Linode incident I've been keeping the exchange wallet pretty much empty. Here's a link to the address the coins are held at, so anyone can verify that I have them still: http://blockchain.info/address/1KnAveDXHDSdXmsNdE5itum459dkNp2pnW. Actually, doesn't prove much, just that 1768 coins are owned by someone. So around this time tomorrow I'll move them all to 1DodGYjF5LFoKg186jANZV9U8znXjagSzS. Perhaps someone could quote this bit before I do so. 3. On March 15th I noticed that I could no longer log in to the WBX web host. I don't know if Andre has changed the password, or if it's a technical problem of some kind. Each time I attempt to log in, I see: "Received disconnect from [IP Address]: 2: Too many authentication failures for [username]". I immediately emailed Andre asking for clarification, but have received no response so far. 4. Also on March 15th I received an email from Andre asking me to send him the 1768.0540 BTC he thinks I am holding so that he can start returning them to the exchange users. I suspect the 0.0540 discrepancy is due to network transaction fees. I replied saying that I have been returning the coins as and when they are requested for withdrawal by the exchange users, but that the most recent withdrawal request looked suspicious, and that I was awaiting his decision about what to do about that withdrawal request before returning funds to the exchange that would allow it to go through. I received no reply to that so far. 5. Although my login to the web host is no longer working, my login on the exchange is still an administrator account. This is confusing; if Andre was trying to lock me out of the exchange then leaving me an account with admin privileges seems like an oversight. Using the admin account I am able to see that nobody has attempted to withdraw any Bitcoins since before my login stopped working until just a few minutes ago. Now another user is attempting to withdraw Bitcoins, but again it looks suspicious. If Andre was reachable I'd recommend that he try to get further ID from the user, since PDF mobile phone bills are pretty easy to edit and so aren't much good as a proof of ID. I don't want to be holding these Bitcoins any more, but I do want them to go back to their rightful owners. This leaves me not knowing what to do for the best. Does anyone have any words of wisdom? Quoted and witnessed for you. Thanks. If you are happy to do so, I think you should keep managing the bitcoin return process rather than Andre, especially since he has stated this in his message. Having a (somewhat) third party manage it is a better look, especially when many here are already suspicious of Andre's actions. I am not suggesting or accusing Andre, but returning the cold-stored bitcoins to him could lead to suspicions of him doing a runner.
I'd really like to hear Andre's take on that, but he's so hard to get in touch with recently. I'm not sure about payb.tc's suggestion of spreading the burden between AUD and BTC holders. I think it would be complicated. I also have a conflict of interest in that I have already withdrawn my BTC, leaving me with only AUD funds remaining.
Dooglus, are you able to see the total balance of AUD funds still held? We would need to know the proportion of BTC to AUD if losses/delayed withdrawals are spread between BTC and AUD.
I'm not sure about payb.tc's suggestion either. I can see that people with AUD balances will be likely to want that, and people with BTC balances won't. I've no ability to see anything about the WBX bank account(s) themselves. All I can see is what the admin view of the exchange shows. I can see the AUD held in accounts, and the AUD pending withdrawal. What I can't see is whether any AUD has arrived in the bank account(s) but not made it into the database, or if any withdrawals have been marked as "processed" in the database, but never entered into the banking system. Either of those scenarios would add to the amount of AUD outstanding. Both of these scenarios are something that AUD depositors to the exchange would have a better idea about. I also don't have access to the WBX support emails other than those that Andre manually forwarded to me when asking for help, so have no idea how many users have been complaining about payments going missing in either direction. |
|
|
|
There's a new posting on the news page at WBX, presumably from Andre: Dear Clients, Again we would like to apologize to all our clients for the delayed customer support provided over the past weeks, Effective immediately 15th March World Bitcoin Exchange (WBX) will be shutting down trading / deposits and returning all client funds. Due to increasing fraudulent transactions on our accounts, WBX cannot operate in its current capacity. Combined with multiple bank account closures, we have deemed the best course of action is to halt trading and return funds
As of the 20th of March we will start returning all clients BTC, we currently hold the majority of our BTC off line, which is managed by Chris Moore our Technical lead, you will be required to logon to your account and request a BTC Withdraw to your personal wallets.
The withdraw of AUD is on hold until we have a clear indication when FUNDS are returned by our bank.
We appreciate your patience. WBX Team
I have a few comments: 1. I've never been appointed any position at WBX. This is the first I heard about being their "Technical lead". I set up the exchange for Andre originally, using the open source Intersango code, and made improvements as requested, and also agreed to hold Bitcoins offsite for Andre rather than leaving the whole wallet on the shared hosting server that WBX runs from. I don't think that makes me "Technical lead". 2. I am still holding 1768 Bitcoins for WBX. Until recently I have been depositing them back to the exchange on an as-needed basis, to keep the number of coins actually in the wallet on the exchange server to a minimum. I used to try to keep between 200 and 300 coins on the server to allow for day to day withdrawals, but since the Linode incident I've been keeping the exchange wallet pretty much empty. Here's a link to the address the coins are held at, so anyone can verify that I have them still: http://blockchain.info/address/1KnAveDXHDSdXmsNdE5itum459dkNp2pnW. Actually, doesn't prove much, just that 1768 coins are owned by someone. So around this time tomorrow I'll move them all to 1DodGYjF5LFoKg186jANZV9U8znXjagSzS. Perhaps someone could quote this bit before I do so. 3. On March 15th I noticed that I could no longer log in to the WBX web host. I don't know if Andre has changed the password, or if it's a technical problem of some kind. Each time I attempt to log in, I see: "Received disconnect from [IP Address]: 2: Too many authentication failures for [username]". I immediately emailed Andre asking for clarification, but have received no response so far. 4. Also on March 15th I received an email from Andre asking me to send him the 1768.0540 BTC he thinks I am holding so that he can start returning them to the exchange users. I suspect the 0.0540 discrepancy is due to network transaction fees. I replied saying that I have been returning the coins as and when they are requested for withdrawal by the exchange users, but that the most recent withdrawal request looked suspicious, and that I was awaiting his decision about what to do about that withdrawal request before returning funds to the exchange that would allow it to go through. I received no reply to that so far. 5. Although my login to the web host is no longer working, my login on the exchange is still an administrator account. This is confusing; if Andre was trying to lock me out of the exchange then leaving me an account with admin privileges seems like an oversight. Using the admin account I am able to see that nobody has attempted to withdraw any Bitcoins since before my login stopped working until just a few minutes ago. Now another user is attempting to withdraw Bitcoins, but again it looks suspicious. If Andre was reachable I'd recommend that he try to get further ID from the user, since PDF mobile phone bills are pretty easy to edit and so aren't much good as a proof of ID. I don't want to be holding these Bitcoins any more, but I do want them to go back to their rightful owners. This leaves me not knowing what to do for the best. Does anyone have any words of wisdom? |
|
|
|
P2Pool computes payouts using a PPLNS scheme, which entails counting the last share only partially, which requires a special case. The special case was broken - The fault was using Python's dict(script=...) syntax instead of {script: ...}. See http://pastebin.com/0RfRWZ21Every p2pool block since 12th Feb 2012 has had this problem, with the exception of http://blockexplorer.com/b/169625, on 4th Mar 2012. Somehow that one's OK. That's 133 bad blocks and one good block. What was different about that one block? |
|
|
|
http://blockexplorer.com/address/1DKMg2KmTyQmfiQxDfDsNKVx4PWYa7xga4 lists 1051 individual satoshis in 32 transactions that are unspendable. They were 'spent' using http://etchablock.com/ which makes up vanity addresses without caring that their private keys aren't known. 2676720 more satoshis were spent by the same address as fees, but they aren't "lost". The above page includes such gems as 11 Bitta1ktvchristmasspecia1WNDvAa and 11 MatthewLovesmandaXXXXXXXXabCJPY. 38521.51588551 + 0.0000105138521.51589602
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
