is there any FAQ related to XT/core stuff and basics? I see those kind of threads daily and it will be obviously helpfull to summarize it to some sticky thread..
I think a sticky would be a great bit of info. There was this epic thread debating the fork which went on for pages and literally hit that Hitler moment sometime towards the end, but that one was too emotional. If someone knows the best thread on this with the most concise and clear set of facts, I'd love to see a mod do a sticky as its a really important topic in our community these days. |
|
|
|
It was simple enough. -mt isn't needed on any of these so after dropping that it compiled fine.
Was the "mt' already in the Makefile that you downloaded with the project or was that something that you added? A tip I just learned when getting ld missing errors is that you can run: $ ldd -v name_of_library to see what paths are being searched. This was helpful for me in compiling a recent application on a system where I had no root rights and had to have all these headers and shared libraries in my userspace. |
|
|
|
Hi, I'm writing a c++ library to sign Bitcoin transactions (you can find it here: https://github.com/sgeisler/EasyBitcoin). I tryed to send a transaction from 1HikVCL5PsR75toN23yEifLqmg8uXAepoz to some other address. At the moment only the code to sign the input is implemented, so I first created a raw transaction with coinbin and then replaced the unsigned input with the signed input generated by my script. 0100000001883971b9025799b61040fdd0bc516a4c631f8753f689962fc72980de4f2aabc8000000006a47304402207a57c1db269e2ab4706279309a4d1d91112478d92132c2580d4b6f21670dce0502200590c8be6be1616c41db4663800c3b3d9d36ffa0e4d1c7b08082b0b00f679f9a01210440af8583e795691debf6331605a444a1bd2ae3e3978b38ff1d2c7f69443b6c01ffffffff01905f0100000000001976a914ed25801aa39644aaa7fcef2944ba200e05e615be88ac00000000 Coinbin shows it as signed when I try to verify it: verify at coinb.inBut when I try to broadcast it it shows: 64: non-canonical I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I mainly followed this tutorial. Do you know if a bitcoin transaction debugger exists? It would be great if you could help me  EDIT: I think I've found my error, I'm only hashing the input and not the whole tx (silly me), will try to hash the whole tx. But why did coinb.in accept the signature if it wasn't correct?My best guess is that coinb.in isn't actually verifying the signature. I can see that it "decoded" the transaction and it has a check next to "signed". But, alas, I'm not familiar with this interface, perhaps it turns green or something if the signature is valid? Did you go back to try the coinb.in again after you figured out the error? I'm curious what you found. |
|
|
|
I'm registered in 10 june when i will receive payment ? i think this signature is weekly payment ?  You will receive your payment 7 days after your registration date (so June 17, basically). Unlike other signature campaigns, the payment periods for this campaign are individualized. Everyone is paid at their own unique schedule. Just wait a few more hours and it should arrive. Yah, and it's been said above in this thread (and I can attest to is as a former user) that they pay you at the exact same time every week---to the hour. Be patient Valanor and enjoy the consistency |
|
|
|
Omg it is based off of the saw movie
Indeed! I'm wondering if that name is going to hinder their growth in the future---I mean if they were to get really big, it seems like they might risk trademark violations. If they stay small, obviously it won't matter, but then again, they'd be small. i think this site is going to stay small, there are plenty of more established, already popular dice sites (PD, 999dice, etc), i dont think theres much room to come into the market here especially with that copyright limiting the future of the site. if there's no new challengers in the industry it will stuck dead, counting only on existing won't do any favor to the gambling business. copyrights is not the most serious problem facing the bitcoin dice sites but i do not think we break any copyright and if we find that the name or the theme make any problems for us in the future we can change it or re brand it in the worst scenario which is not a big deal too FWIW, it's more likely trademark violations than copyright, in your case. I agree that at the moment you don't have to worry but, in my opinion, it does make your sight seem like a fly-by-night kinda thing. Maybe you should consider a rebrand. |
|
|
|
I trusted Quicksilver with my Private key, yes my PRIVATE KEY. My Trezor went haywire and he helped me get it back, he could've stolen all the coins but didn't. I think it was about 1200$+ worth of coins on that address.
I would trust Quicksilver any day of the week.
I understand, but this thread is about quickseller, not quicksilver https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=17818Lol, apprantely Sakarias-Corporation will trust anyone who's name starts with quick on any day of the week. Good thing he got luck and Quickseller was nice to him. |
|
|
|
Satoshi cared that people using Javascript (?) or other languages which encode all numbers as 'double' (64-bit floats) would not have to jump through hoops to avoid stupid accounting mistakes.
Your 64-bit float has 52 bits of mantissa, so, in order to avoid rounding errors ever going the wrong way, the number of units involved in bitcoin-related math must never be more than 251, which is 2251799813685248 units. 21 million coins times 108 divisions (Satoshis as they are now called) is 2100000000000000 units - comfortably just below the limit allowing "simple" accounting implementations in such languages to be accurate.
And as Hal Finney pointed out in 2008, even if the entire M1 money supply of the world as of that time were expressed in Bitcoins, the smallest division would still be worth less than 1 USAmerican penny, so there is no need for more than that many units.
Cryddit, of course it's fun to look at the facts post-hoc and try to guess about their motivation, and I have to point out the fallacy of that (in the general case). But your speculation is the best one yet! That's a very cool observation. |
|
|
|
Many people suggest blockchain.info (BCI), but they have a lot of issues. I'd recommend either using Electrum (I know it's not what you're asking for, but it's hands down the best wallet out there), or using BlockCypher.com (because they have a great API with lots of features [and three coins: btc, ltc, doge]), or blockr.io
After reading the other posts I'd sat that block trail is actually what he wants. He wants to be able to do an HD chain for unique addresses for each customer upon each deposit and I'm not sure that blockchain.info does that. I haven't used Electrum so I don't know about it's api features. |
|
|
|
Omg it is based off of the saw movie
Indeed! I'm wondering if that name is going to hinder their growth in the future---I mean if they were to get really big, it seems like they might risk trademark violations. If they stay small, obviously it won't matter, but then again, they'd be small. |
|
|
|
|
For a while I thought maybe this thread had become a little irrelevant, but now, with that bit licenense thing in New York, it's sorta seems important again to consider which jurisdictions are attempting to punish bitcoin users/innovators and which ones are encouraging it.
|
|
|
|
If another state wanted to encourage high tech business (or an entire country for that matter), they could declare themselves "bitcoin friendly" with minimal licensing/id requirements for btc based exchanges/businesses. You could offshore it like corporations do with Cayman Islands.
If you create your btc business in a bitcoin friendly state/country, a bitlicense becomes irrelevant.
There is no jurisdiction over the bitcoin blockchain, only at the point of exchange.
While I agree with you, Hollingsworth, I know that there must be some folks who back down from their rights just because they can't afford to pay the money required to defend them against governments (etc) who are legitimately infringing. Patent-trolls are a prime example of this kind of thing, I think. |
|
|
|
BTC Guild is closing partially because it considers BitLicense regulations have enough “grey area” that BTC Guild is at risk. They arne't prepared to go to court to fight the New York Department of Financial Services and have decided to close instead. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-mining-pool-btc-guild-close-june-30-2015-risk-loss-new-york-bitlicense-cited/BTC Guild will shut down its mining servers on June 30, 2015 at 23:59 UTC, the company announced on its website. Users will be able to log in and retrieve their history and request withdrawals until Sept. 30, 2015. The notice marks the second time BTC Guild has announced its closing, “but this time the decision will not be reversed.” In addition, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) BitLicense regulations have finalized. The regulations have enough “grey area” that BTC Guild is at risk. The fact that BTC Guild is not in New York does not matter since it does business withNew York residents. NYDFS can attempt to claim jurisdiction to enforce regulations. Whether or not BTC Guild could win such a challenge does not matter since the cost of defense would outweigh future income. Very interesting about BTCGuild. What I've seen from gambling sites attempting to prevent this kind of overstep of jurisdictions is just to avoid doing business with the people in those jurisdictions. I'm surprised that BTC Guild doesn't just say "okay, newyorkers can't mine in our pool". Then reject connections from NY IP addresses. Sure, people could get around that, but then presumably that's on them for misrepresenting themselves. This is like Stunna of Primedice no longer accepting deposits from accounts signed in through US IP addresses. |
|
|
|
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story. His motivation for that would be if the miners and the rest of the community disagrees. This would occur if the majority of the miners don't want to switch but the majority of the users do. Since the current method of forking (which is coded into Core) watches the number and percentage of the last 100 blocks that have a certain number, the miners have the power to control whether the fork occurs or not. What Hearn is doing is to ignore the mining majority if they don't switch and put checkpoints into Bitcoin XT to ignore the miners, thus violating the >90% of the last 1000 block rule. You can find out more about this around the 58 -59 minute mark in this video interview with Mike Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8wAlas, videos. Ah well, I'll try to find a time and some headphones to check out that link. Thanks! I guess what you said about miners potentially having a different set of motivations from other users makes sense. But only to a certain degree (at least to me). Miners also have to be users if they want to spend the bitconi they've mined. I have one last follow-up question here, did Gavin Andresen end up switching to develop on XT or was that just a maybe that never happened. I would guess that Gavin wouldn't be for throwing away the forking rules. |
|
|
|
Hola amigos, recientemente me he hecho un blog al cual me dedico en algún rato libre, llamado Bitcoin gratis en el cual enseño unas cuantas faucets, como gastar las bitcoin o cambiarlas por dinero e información útil para principiantes (llamadme hipócrita, ya que soy un principiante, pero poco a poco se va aprendiendo xD). Es un blog muy sencillo e incompleto, me quedan por hacer varias secciones y mejorar la plantilla. No creo este tema para hacer spam, el dominio me salio casi regalado, así que no hay presión alguna por recuperar la casi inexistente inversión. Aunque sea cierto que tenga enlaces de referido en el blog, no deja de ser una afición, algo que hago para pasar el rato. Creo el tema para que la gente que pueda y/o quiera pueda critique mi blog para poder mejorarlo. Un saludo! Hola, tu enlace está roto en la primera post. Quítale los " y la repetición de "http". Saludos y suerte con el nuevo blog. EDIT: bueno, frankfuekstein ya habia dicho (que rapidez!): Buenas albertorma, gracias por compartir el blog con nosotros! Voy a darte un poco de feedback a ver qué te parece  Para empezar, el hipervínculo en el OP está mal puesto, jeje. Utiliza este código: [url]http://www.bitcoingratis.es[/url] Pero para ponerte un título en el hipervínculo usa este: [url=http://www.bitcoingratis.es]Bitcoin gratis[/url] |
|
|
|
|
I don't know that I can swear to remain in-or-out of compliance since I'm not running a business (and I don't plan to).
But anyway, I was sorta hoping that this thread was gonna have a little more background about the "crap" so that I could refamiliarize myself with why it is that we don't like the bitlicense thingy. I think it has to do with turning in records to the government or something like that? Maybe it has to do with personal info? Forgive my ignorance (and possibly enlighten me please?).
|
|
|
|
As knight said, I think blockchain.info is the API you're looking for. Here's a link to the docs: https://blockchain.info/apiI also think that if I were you, before I started a project like this, I'd say it's worth it to understand bitcoin to the point that you don't find that running a node is a "hassle". But that's just my 2 satoshi's. (and are you sure the world needs another dice site?) Best of luck! |
|
|
|
I created a paper wallet address that I like to use.
I want to import it on my Bitcoin app on my phone, but when I scan the private code I cant import it because it says it's empty.
I just want that newly generated address to be on my phone. How can I do this?
Depends on the app you use. Maybe if you tell us which you use, we can tell you how to do it. Most phone wallets however only allow you to "wipe" a private key, that is to use once and transfer all funds associated with it to an address the app controls. Depending on the way the app allows you to create a backup an imported key is not part of it. This is true for "HD" wallets, which create a backup in form of a seed (usually several words). I agree with what Shorena said but I think it's usually called "sweep" rather than "wipe" (at least in the wallets I've seen). There are ways to get your homemade private keys into Schildbach's bitcoin wallet for android (the main one I use). If that's the app you're using, you can make a text file with your private keys in WIF (wallet import format) followed by a timestamp and the software will accept it via the "restore" function. PM me if you're stuck. |
|
|
|
What's an sp31 spondoolie? Is this related to bitcoin!?
Yes it is, i am mining in btc guild but it is shitting down and i want to change pool Oh, I see, it's a mining pool. You know, I could have sworn I saw this post in "technical support" and I was like "what is the background on this spoondoolie thing"? Now that the mod has moved your thread to mining support I'm betting you'll have better luck. Anyway, maybe this bump will help someone find you an answer. |
|
|
|
still none of you guys have said WHY, he asked why he choose those numbers not how it work
Well *why* may very much be a matter of speculation. Who can really say "why" except Satoshi himself? And if he hasn't said *why* then how can we infer it? Seems like the next best thing to why is to look at what. Anyway, in this case, I understood DannyHamilton's answer to be suggesting that the why was that the 21M was merely an artifact of the how. Ie, there was no intentionality in the why 21M, that the intentionality was to have the supply diminish on a curve and 21M just happened to be the value for the particular parameters he chose---perhaps suggesting that if there were numbers chosen intentionally it was the 50BTC block reward and the 10 minute block time, and the halving rate. |
|
|
|
ive been playing a little and i noticed this earlier. my base bet is 57 sats as youll see and when i lose its taking 58sats from me? pretty sure thats not supposed to happen.
ive been playing a little and i noticed this earlier. my base bet is 57 sats as youll see and when i lose its taking 58sats from me? pretty sure thats not supposed to happen.
Could it be some kind of rounding error on the multiplier? I admit, it looks like an error to me too. There shouldn't be any multiplier applied - when you lose, you lose 100% of your stake. But it does look like a floating point rounding error. That's what I was thinking too!
you would know better than most of us, all i know is its a bug that needs fixed. and it wasnt just on 1 bet it was multiple bets which can be verified by saw dice admin when they log in. all they gotta do is check the bet history on the account
58 is just a display error it was because the browser did a rounding to the nearest 8 decimal places but it was 57 in the bet calculations and this view problem is fixed now and to be more sure you can recheck the bet id and the server seed and client seed with the verify system on the site and u will see it as 57 not 58 @yahoo62278, if this is fixed correctly, it seems like your balance should have changed as well. @sawdice, probably best to move your code to calculate with Satoshis as the base unit---that's what all the bitcoin wallets I've looked at do under the hood. Obviously you'll still need to represent sometimes as a float because of your floating point multipliers, but if Satoshis are the unit, you shouldn't be having issues of a browser rounding you to the nearest one like you're seeing here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
