(free bumb, i need another post) i like your site  i hope rewards go back up soon.  I hope they don't. That would mean Bitcoins are worth less than they are now. In fact you guys are getting paid at an exchange rate of $38/BTC and you will continue being paid at this rate for the next 1.5 BTC won at the site, then I'll need to buy more bitcoins and adjust it, so, if the exchange rate keeps the current values they will go down again, not up. |
|
|
|
What do I do to get the previous owner of the coins I receive, with certainty?
You need to ask the person who sent the coins. Just because someone sent you coins from one address it doesn't mean they control it. It's a slippery slope... |
|
|
|
Yo! You should try selling your music on coindl |
|
|
|
Explanation is up now at least..
What, the moving servers page? That's an old page from 6 months or more ago when he switched servers. |
|
|
|
|
<moderator_hat>
If you wish the whole thread deleted you'll have to ask everyone to delete their own replies before I can delete the entire thread. If you don't manage to get all replies deleted, maybe you can move it yourself to the archive, or something.
</moderator_hat>
|
|
|
|
|
Using the site trough facebook twiter or linked in? Those are just buttons for you to share the site in any of those services, not to login and use it.
About the videos, that is dependent on the country you are in, and ofcourse if you already watched them at another similar site, and they come and go all day long. Keep the page open and check it once in a while and you'll start seeing the videos there, as it refreshes automatically every minute or so.
|
|
|
|
|
What I do is I send ALL the balance in my wallet to another of my addresses on the same wallet once or twice a week.
Usually I have enough coin in it that I can do that without paying a fee, and I end up with only one address containing 100BTC instead of having 56 addresses with 1 or 2 comprising 90% or more of the wallet balance and the rest of them with very low value inputs that will ask for outrageous fees if I wish to spend them.
|
|
|
|
Was there ever a post with an explaining the issue?
No. |
|
|
|
Eleuthria has been an upstanding and respectable member of the bitcoin community for as long as I can remember, and I am touched he gave back the transaction fees he received by mistake in that block that was mined.
OK, don't let us speculate. What did you mean by: Ahahaha you so funny  Stop looking for things that aren't there. How can I be looking for things which aren't there if I'm asking him to explain us what he meant?  |
|
|
|
Not possible. The Bitcoin client will not send it and give you an error.
All the outputs need to be different addresses.
I do not see, that this would be a requirement on the protocol level. Well, may not be a requirement at the protocol level, but if you use sendmany, be it trough Bitcoin-qt or bitcoind, it will throw a error if you insert the same address more than 1 time. Does this mean it would be possible, if you wrote your own client, to construct a 2-outputs-to-the-same-address transaction? Two McFlys, with the SAME GUN!!
LOL Like someone said you can maybe use the raw transactions API to create one of such transactions. But be careful... Already 2 times someone paid 100 BTC on fees using such raw transactions. Not telling you how to do it because I really don't know how. Maybe someone here will want to teach you, or you may read up on it here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions |
|
|
|
Why not simply refuse to relay transactions where any of the outputs is less than the transaction fee?
What? And drop most of sendmany transactions with it? No thanks! I only want to drop SD transactions, The dust filter to drop tx less than 10k satoshis is just a add-on and can be modified to only drop tx's equal or less than 2 satoshis, which woud drop all of SD "you lose" messages and not many more tx's. |
|
|
|
people will learn to make their transactions and addresses truly anonymous, and make it impossible to filter them on any arbitrary parameters, like addresses starting with "1dice". SD will have to have certain fixed addresses. Whether they use a vanity name or not, it will always be possible to hard-code the list of their addresses in the code. This having been said, the OP's patch is a temporary hack designed to provide immediate relief but it is not viable in the long term. The correct technical solution is to punish the bad behavior (economically unviable outputs) no matter who it comes from. Note that SatoshiDICE is not the only entity that put unprunable spam in the block chain. ASICMiner recently sent a 1-satoshi dividend to all it's shareholders. A good technical solution would filter that as well. If you don't modify the patch it will drop all tx's that are equal or less than 10,000 satoshis, so those ASICMiner dividends would also be dropped, not relayed and only verifyed when they got into a block. |
|
|
|
Eleuthria has been an upstanding and respectable member of the bitcoin community for as long as I can remember, and I am touched he gave back the transaction fees he received by mistake in that block that was mined.
OK, don't let us speculate. What did you mean by: Ahahaha you so funny |
|
|
|
By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough. What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things: - Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.
- Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.
- Do nothing.
If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal. If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool. I suggest that all the pools and miners take this chance and DO NOTHING, and we will see if bitcoin really end up being driven out by PayPal  I think they are totally two different network and surve different purpose. I use paypal mainly because I want to spend inflative fiat money as quick as possible, and it can guarantee a charge back and give me invoice. But bitcoin just can't do that no matter how low the fee is. Bitcoin protect merchant but not consumer, so it will not be used by mass scale of consumers, maybe mostly gamblers Paypal invoices you for things merchants sell? Kind of hard to believe Merchants are the ones who must invoice you, not the payment processors. Even if you pay with bitcoin the merchant must give you the invoice with the value in whatever is legal tender in his country. |
|
|
|
Not possible. The Bitcoin client will not send it and give you an error.
All the outputs need to be different addresses.
I do not see, that this would be a requirement on the protocol level. Well, may not be a requirement at the protocol level, but if you use sendmany, be it trough Bitcoin-qt or bitcoind, it will throw a error if you insert the same address more than 1 time. Been there, done that, got the error "You can only send once to one address on the same transaction"(or something like that, can't remember the exact wording on it) |
|
|
|
|
SatoshiDice is broken, and this patch proves it.
|
|
|
|
Would it be okay if SD eliminated low-value bets, thus making gamblers play less often and place higher bets?
No. That still leaves those pesky 1 satoshi transactions. What they have to do is their own accounting system. |
|
|
|
|
Not possible. The Bitcoin client will not send it and give you an error.
All the outputs need to be different addresses.
|
|
|
|
You want to use p2p technology, but don't want to contribute resources? That should be being asked of SD, not of me. I give more resources to the network than I take. SD pays the miners and the winners of their game but takes more from the network than it gives overall. Every time you or I broadcast a transaction for our own reasons, we use exactly the same resources and pay same fees as anyone sending an SD transaction. After all the noise here, I still fail to see the difference and a problem. Difference is quantity. And why should I care about fees on the transactions? I'm not a miner. So, for these 2 reasons SD tx's aren't the same as others. Now for some critical thinking: So some of you guys say that SD is just exploiting a "flaw" in the Bitcoin protocol design that allows them to leech resources from us for their own profit and that it's alright to do it, right? Well, I'm exploiting a flaw on SD "protocol"(them always using the same addresses) and that should also be alright. After all the noise here, I still fail to see the difference and a problem. |
|
|
|
also
Normally unless specifically stipulated as otherwise in the sale contract:
If the seller is in the business of selling that merchandise, then the risk of loss does not pass until the merchandise is delivered to the buyer.
Thanks for this info. This is how it works under Australian consumer protection laws, but I had no idea about US laws. Actually this isn't correct. In the USA, normally, if a buyer didn't buy insurance the seller isn't responsible for lost packages. Personally I never offer insurance on my packages, but at my discretion I buy it sometimes (like shipping a laptop). Big companies are usually self-insured, so they can send an another package out. Smaller companies can't really do especially with expensive products like silver. Sorry that is incorrect I am on my iphone but the controlling law in a sale of goods is the ucc. Here is the pertinent extract. If you don't want to read the whole thing skip to the end Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Such considerations generally come into play after the contract is formed but before buyer receives goods, something bad happens. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application: Agreement - the agreement of the parties controls Breach - the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Delivery by common carrier other than by seller. Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligationsIf it is a destination contract (FOB (buyer's city)), then risk of loss is on the seller. If it is a delivery contract (standard, or FOB (seller's city)), then the risk of loss is on the buyer. If the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's "receipt" of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. [1] The last one wouln't be applicable in this case, since this is applicable: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations No, that last one is applicable if the seller is a merchant and will invalidate the rule you pointed out. Isn't Coinabul a merchant? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
