Não tenhas esperança de vender muito com pagamento em BTC  Aliás, em PT o pessoal ainda tem muito medo de comprar na net, quanto mais com bitcoins. Talvez daqui a 10 anos, com as novas gerações q já cresceram a usar a net, habituados a pedir o CC ao papá pra pagar a subscrição do WoW, a coisa mude de figura. |
|
|
|
Please excuse a noob's ignorance, but I understand that even if the transaction is generated offline, the online armory client need to download the full blockchain to broadcast the transaction message.
My question is: why ?
If I try to broadcast an invalid transaction and the originating address does not contain enough coins the miners will reject it anyway. Why do I need the whole chain?
Because most people who would commit such a mistake most likely wouldn't be able to recover coins not spent if they were sent in an invalid transaction without coming here crying for help. The technical reasons may be different, but this one sure is one heck of a reason. Never trust user inputs without validation. Thanks for your answer. What kind of errors could be prevented by downloading the blockchain? If we're talking about inputting bad addresses then the embedded checksum should prevent that. No, I'm talking about armory not knowing if some of the coins on "your" transaction were already spent in a previous transaction. Now imagine that mixed with those already spent coins you also send some coins you didn't spend yet. What would happen? Those "valid" coins would be "stuck" on an invalid transaction that nobody would accept or relay. Maybe you or me could recover those coins with 5 or 10 minutes of work, deleting the tx or exporting and importing the private key(s) into another wallet, but most users won't. Not allowing users to do stupid things is a great reason, don't you think? Certainly there may be are other technical reasons for it. I'm sure etotheipi will come here and give you a detailed explanation. |
|
|
|
May not seem logical, but it's the rules of law. Coinabul is disputing the liability. When you say "in fact liable", unless you've got some black robes and juris doctorate we dont know about, you can't "in fact liable" anything.
You've got some kind of PROOF that shows Coinabul DIDN'T have any insurance for this shipment? It's a liability dispute. Coinabul believes that they are not liable. Buyer believes Coinabul is liable. Up to a judge to decide in a civil decision.
If buyer decides to go through with a civil subpoena and prove that Coinabul didn't insure the package, then go ahead with your scammer label.
Good enough logic fer ya?
This forum has its own rules, so tagging Coinabul as a scammer is completely separate from the court of law. You're right. However throwing that tag around without some kind of proofs will diminish the "scammer tag" to the point that it's meaningless. In my opinion? You've got to show some clear intent that Coinabul wanted to save some profit by not insuring or under-insuring the package. Excuse me, but what would they be saving if the customer was the one who paid extra for the insurance? I wouldn't call it save some profit, but stealing would fit right in... MY STORY: I paid Coinabul 81.8251 btc for an order of silver on July 30, 2012. I paid extra for insured shipping. |
|
|
|
We need communcation ahead of time every time there's a major change to the site if we are gonna be able to trust it 100%.
Trust it 100%? With Bitcoin involved in the business? Don't get your hopes very high. And I'm not talking about the operator running away with your coin, in case that's what you're thinking. One piece of regulation can kill any bitcoin business from one day to the other and there's nothing you can do about it. Just keep your private keys safe with you, ok? Don't make yourself dependent on anyone or any service. |
|
|
|
I see that LiqPay hasn't made a verification deposit into my bank account yet. As an American I would expect such deposits to make milliseconds. Apparently foreign banks do things more slowly.
I don't know how is it in the US, but where I live banks are closed from Friday at 3:00 PM and will only open again Monday at 8:30 AM. And those verification deposits usually take a couple business days or more to reach your bank account. |
|
|
|
Please excuse a noob's ignorance, but I understand that even if the transaction is generated offline, the online armory client need to download the full blockchain to broadcast the transaction message.
My question is: why ?
If I try to broadcast an invalid transaction and the originating address does not contain enough coins the miners will reject it anyway. Why do I need the whole chain?
Because most people who would commit such a mistake most likely wouldn't be able to recover coins not spent if they were sent in an invalid transaction without coming here crying for help. The technical reasons may be different, but this one sure is one heck of a reason. Never trust user inputs without validation. |
|
|
|
|
And what about you guys take down those links that are still alive and most probably lead to malware?
You can leave the link, but don't make it clickable(add some spaces in between, for example), please, or you may get the exact opposite of what you intended.
|
|
|
|
I am not affliated with Satoshi Dice in any way. But just a head up here since the new SD policy would render the new patch mostly ineffective. Unless you are blocking the specific SD address like Eligius pool.
Yes, tx's sent to 1dice addresses are dropped. And I know you're not affiliated with SD |
|
|
|
I am not sure why no one has mentioned it here. But starting today, Satoshi dice already changed its method of sending out 1 satoshi for confirming losing bet. Instead, they are now sending out 0.5% of bet amount back for losing bets, regardless of bet size. Given that minimum bet is 0.01 BTC, now all Satoshi Dice losing bet tx starts at 5000 satoshi and up. I presume that SD changed its policy due to the introduction of this patch here.
For a bet of up to 0.10 BTC they will still send a single satoshi because after them taking out the tx fee the value is zero or less. Unless they didn't update the following part Transaction Fees
On a win or a lose a transaction fee of 0.0005 is subtracted from the payment amount. If this makes the payment amount zero or less the payment is set to 0.00000001. In the event that the transaction costs us more to send back to you, we pay the fee over 0.0005. Now I wonder what % of SD bets are equal or less than 0.1 BTC... Dooglus? etotheipi?  Err.... no. I am mentioning it here because starting today, Satoshi Dice does NOT send out 1 satoshi losing confirmation bet anymore. It sends out 5000 satoshi tx even for losing bet of 0.01 BTC. That is, Satoshi Dice now absorb all tx fee, and return 0.5% of bet amount, even for minimum bet. Previously, it will deduct a tx fee first and send you 1 satoshi. So you need to bet at least 0.2 BTC or so, to get 0.5 mbtc back. But now even 0.01 BTC minimum bet gives you at least 5000 satoshi back. I presume the change is made today because of all the heat and the patch here. Then the website needs to be updated with the correct info. |
|
|
|
I am not sure why no one has mentioned it here. But starting today, Satoshi dice already changed its method of sending out 1 satoshi for confirming losing bet. Instead, they are now sending out 0.5% of bet amount back for losing bets, regardless of bet size. Given that minimum bet is 0.01 BTC, now all Satoshi Dice losing bet tx starts at 5000 satoshi and up. I presume that SD changed its policy due to the introduction of this patch here.
For a bet of up to 0.10 BTC they will still send a single satoshi because after them taking out the tx fee the value is zero or less. Unless they didn't update the following part Transaction Fees
On a win or a lose a transaction fee of 0.0005 is subtracted from the payment amount. If this makes the payment amount zero or less the payment is set to 0.00000001. In the event that the transaction costs us more to send back to you, we pay the fee over 0.0005. |
|
|
|
yeh i noticed that thats why i think its a hack or the owner doing a runner
Is he making so much money that it's worth running for? Kind of doubt it...  |
|
|
|
|
Poor guy... Couldn't find a place to sell his 143 BTC...
His neuron must feel lonely.
|
|
|
|
|
For a crowd who is so anti-Bitcoin they sure do like to post about Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
It could end up in a fork, right?
............................................................................... .................WRONG |
|
|
|
So, where is it? Still pulling it out of your ass?
Shits given = 0. Happy? The french chick inside you must be expressing herself, because you're making ridiculous amounts of drama about such a useless and pointless thing. International woman's day was yesterday, you're a bit off schedule. I'm not the one pulling math out of my ass to pretend I'm smart and showing that after all I'm just a smartass. And I'm not making any drama. You and and the other guys who don't agree with this are the real french drama queens in here. Nobody needs, wants or asked for your approval. Live with it. |
|
|
|
I started it with my comment, so an explanation is due: I don't think I'm touchy because of scams, but because I feel people - even nice people - often manage to convince themselves how world is full of selfish assholes who would never return lost or stolen property to the original owner. This assumption makes even nice folks act not-so-nicely, in defense from an erroneous image of reality.
Things are better than that, but will keep getting worse if we assume the worst. I am sure the majority of people reading this would return the money sent to them by mistake like this. There's a saying that an optimist is a happy idiot, and a pessimist a sad idiot... Most people are by default evil and won't do something good without some ulterior motive. On the other hand, most people have motives: staying out of jail, better reputation, etc. The approach I usually try to use is to assume the best of people, but expect the worst. That being said, this forum is particularly full of trolls. While I can't speculate on readers, realistically I think the majority of people who might reply to this post would not return the fee. Says the person who used the Eligius pool to destroy an alt coin coz he wanted to ... Remember: Always assume the best... but expect the worst! |
|
|
|
psy: IMO you're not helping Bitcoin by spreading scripts to ban some transactions. If bitcoin can't be used like SD does, bitcoin doesn't work. We can't just go ban all the SD-like transaction spamming services, Bitcoin needs to -HANDLE- it. End of.
We can't? Who's gonna stop us? And for the last time: This isn't banning nor censoring, it's filtering and it's within the protocol rules. If SatoshiDice can do whetever the fuck they want because they are following protocol rules, then so can I and everyone else. Don't like what I'm doing? Write a patch for it...  |
|
|
|
I sure doesn't seem like it since my balance on this wallet is only 0.00157
Are you using Multibit by any chance? If so, reset the blockchain and transactions and you'll see the missing coins. Multibit is a buggy client who sometimes doesn't see incoming transactions, despite being a fucking network hog. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
