I guess.. because what else? Are you going to appeal to people to do less transactions, hoping that it would solve the problem?
I don't believe you can i.e. convince satoshidice to drop down their lucrative business, just because other ppl's transactions are getting queued...
Why should they care anyway, if they pay the same fees as you do?
Since we don't have other solution at hand, scaling up the storage limits seems to be the only option ATM.
Unless we're OK with increasing the fees?

You are missing the fact that it was a great opportunity to double spend any coins.
Once: you send 1000 BTC paying to merchant that uses bitcoin 0.8
Second: you pay the same 1000 BTC to another merchant who has an older client and thus is "looking" at the alternate branch, where the 1000 BTC has not been spent yet.

I believe he means that if you have a constant rate of 6 blocks/hour and a fixed number of max-transaction-per-block, when the number of transactions is going up, they eventually go above the "bandwidth" limit (which is: 6 * max-tx-in-block / hour) and instead of being mined at the time when they are announced, they are getting queued, to be mined later...
Which is exactly what I have been observing for the last few weeks - even transaction with a proper fee needed like hours to be mined.
And this is very bad.
Bitcoin really needs to start handling bigger blocks - otherwise soon our transactions will need ages to get confirmed.
The network will just jam, if we stay at the old limit.

if you are talking about the files from the main data dir (not in the "blocks/" subfolder) - you don't need these for 0.8
they were only used up to 0.7.x and while using 0.8 you can just remove them.

but to be sure, better close your bitcoin client, move the files to some temp folder, start the client and see if it still works fine - if it does, delete the files, otherwise restore them.

when you start bitcoin-qt (or bitcoin-qt.exe) add -rescan to the command line.
it will take much longer to start, but all the transactions inside your wallet should eventually appear confirmed, assuming that you see them confirmed at i.e. http://blockchain.info/

did you try to start it with "-rescan"?

Sure. But how is it unintentional to accept blocks longer than 250KB, after the "majority" (expressed in the hashing power) upgraded their clients to a version that accepts blocks larger than 250KB?
And they upgraded it not because they had no reason - they actually had a very good reason.

The longer one would have won.
Depending on how much power is already at the new clients, this could have disabled the old clients from the network - made them obsolete.
Which maybe would have been a good thing, considering that this needs to happen anyway, if we don't want to wait weeks for our transactions to get mined, in a month time or so.

awesome!
good night, friedcat

Yea, I agree with you, but it was friedcat's decision (nobody has pushed him into it), so we can only thank him for being so generous

It was already said. Nefario is still holding 1688.188 BTC that used to belong to ASICMINER, but friedcat has put his own money to cover this missing amount.
When nefario pays back, this will go to reimburse friedcat.

In other words: nefario did not pay back, but ASICMINER's funds are all there, after friedcat covered the frozen funds from his own pocket.

Well, it's a workaround only if you're fine with single transaction per a recipient address (I was).
In such case, just sum up the amounts using a map with the destination address as the key.
Something like:
After this you have only single addresses in $addrs (with the amounts summed up), so just:

Yeah, it's a bummer that you cannot specify the same address twice - I once suffered from this as well, but a workaround was fairly simple, especially in PHP.

A bigger issue I've had with sendmany is that the command requires the "<fromaccount>" parameter and you cannot just say to it like "whatever account"...
So the way I use my client, having coins spread across several "accounts" (which I personally only use to label addresses), then it seems like someone had made this parameter mandatory just to piss me off...

Well... but since, despite of refraining, you have pointed out me being unprofessional, let me tell you that your friend Nefario had been all about being professional, and look what has happened now.

Besides I assure you that I am very professional - I just don't work in sales, nor in marketing, neither in any other useless profession that would require me to sell bullshit.
I have a good product and so I don't even need to advertise it.
For this product, it is enough to just wait for people to learn. Because similar problems with other asset exchanges seem inevitable to me, and it is just a matter of time before another gets hacked or something, and again nobody will be able to prove anything.

How many exchanges need to blow up before people finally learn how to protect their assets?
Hard to say, but from what I see I should probably say: too many...

Anyway, you already said several times that you're not going to use my idea, because you find its inventor and developer unprofessional.
Fine, then don't use it - who asks you to?
I'm not even sure why you are repeating yourself again, but you called it - so here I came.

Therefore answering your insinuations, I would like to make it straight for other people, such who would actually be interested in parking their bitcoin-based assets outside traditional exchanges, that Cognitive is welcome at assets-otc. And I don't expect delisting it ever, because doing business with Garrett has always been my pleasure and I believe it was also the other way around. So I cannot imagine any reason for it to change.

And you stochastic - you are just talking bullshit, as you usually have.

I think you are talking to me, though addressing your speech to someone else. In which case, I am going to do exactly the same

Why am I unstable?
The only reason you have to support the theory that I am unstable is that I delisted your friend's asset from my generously free contract management service, after he had offended me.
So what is so unstable about it?
If Garrett had ever offended me, I would have delisted his asset as well - surprise? I don't think so.
And moreover, I don't think he will ever offend me because he is a normal honest guy who can listen to reason and never talks bullshit. So I believe he will listen to my reason, publically if needs so. And you - you keep selling bullshit to him, but don't dare to use my name with it, hoping for no reaction. There will always be a reaction - you can bet on it.

And, by the way, let me tell you once again that assets-otc is nowhere about anyone's trust to me.
I'm not holding anyone's balls for any moment - I'm only storing contracts.
Being delisted at my page does not mean anything.
In fact soon I'm going to publish the source code so anyone can get his shit and just start it at his own server, if he knows what php and mysql is.

Said a guy who used to be Nefario's big advocate - at the same time when I was already calling him a crook who was backing Goat to cheat his customers, stole 3000 ASICMINER shares, and god knows what else he did to screw over GLBSE users...

There are obviously people who will never learn, like you stochastic, but trust me, dear: I am the last person who would be trying to educate you.

So despite of your confidence in Nefario's honesty, I did not listen to you but chose listening to my reason and thus already in August I preemptively parked my modest share in Garrett's business.
Such a crazy move allowed me to keep receiving the divs while everyone else was shaking their pants  worrying whether Nefario would give the shareholders list or not. The list which BTW nobody can still be sure to be correct. In fact it does not look correct at all if you know that 3 days before GLBSE went muted there were only 7870 COGNITIVE shares, Garrett told you that he did not sell anything outside the market, and if you see at the twitter feed that the total trading volume for that last 3 days was.... below 200 shares!
So how the hell did it end up with 8616 shares?  I guess there must be a perfectly reasonable answer for that, but unfortunately no way to verify if such an answer would be true.
My blind shot is that the extra new shares just ended up as Nefario's "claim", but since we cannot prove that, all we can do is asking Garrett "how has he invested the money acquired by selling the 746 new shares?" - and then, he will most likely answer with "what money?" And not because he is the one who screwed us here - he just cannot do anything else in this circumstances, having no proofs for anything that happen on the exchange, because no single transaction can be proven.

So yeah: be very careful with having PGP signed contracts for what you own!!!
Just listen to stochastic - the guy knows what he is talking about and he will give you the best advise, as he always had yet back in the GLBSE times.


Yeah.
And I like the idea of spending Christmas on a white sanded sunny beach, sleeping under a palm, smoking joints, soaking cold bier, watching crabs and snorkeling with fishes...
But the reality is cruel and so you can't always get what you want.
Or skipping the metaphors: colored-coins is just a theoretical idea, while assets-otc is already a practical reality.

So if you prefer colored-coins then be my guest: keep waiting for your dreams to come true, hoping that the bitcoin enterprise that you are currently in, based on exactly the same security concept as the one that screwed you before, won't just blow up one day, right into your face.
And stay away from simple PGP-signed contracts, because they are so inconvenient that only crazy people use them

Thanks.
This projects looks quite promising and it performs not too bad... at least in Chrome, with 2048b key, on my i5 CPU

Unfortunately it does not work yet, because whenever I clear-sign a message that contains more than one end-of-line character, it does not verify later on.
See an example, if you wish: http://www.speedyshare.com/Gm2gU/openpgpjs-test.zip

Moreover, keeping the private keys in the browser's local storage and entering the password to unlock it via a browser's form, is not a kind of security that I would like to encourage.
So for now I will rather stick to the NAPI plugins - faster, safer and just works.

Today I released an extension for Chrome browser which automates all the gpg related stuff.

Having the extension installed in your browser + GnuPG in your OS (armed with your private key), you basically don't need to use command line anymore with assets-otc.com - just enter the password for your key when asked. It's pretty convenient.

You can read more about the extension and download it from its GitHub repo: https://github.com/piotrnar/aotc4chrome

Unfortunately some binary files are involved - it was the only way to go.
I wish it was possible to provide a web browser with PGP functionality without the binary plugins, but unfortunately our modern and super advanced HTML 5 compatible browsers support basically everything I man could imagine; drawing canvas, vector graphics, A/V streaming with advanced codecs, OpenGL acceleration, and all the other fancy shit... but not a good old fashion RSA cryptography, neither a big numbers math.
So as much as I could research it, there is no way to write an RSA library in JavaScript.
Well... technically it is possible to write such library, but it would be so slow that signing a message with a regular 2048 bits key would be taking like days or weeks to complete.

You're welcome.
Thanks for staying away from my services.

I'm really trying hard to make this project completely different from all the other shit holes, like i.e. GLBSE used to be.
And I remember very well that all of you guys used to be a huge fans of Nefario, back in the old times when I was saying that he was a thief and a liar - and in the response you were calling me a troll who did not know what he was talking about... And then I told you that the time would show... and then the time did.

So you either have not learned the lesson (meaning: extreme stupidity), or you have other reasons (most likely: dishonesty) - either way you are not welcome at assets-otc, since stupidity neither dishonesty of asset issuers is not going to be tolerated there.

Hope that's finally clear now, whose assets are welcome and whose are not, so there will be no more disappointments.

Anyone who either has been dishonest or endorses people who have been dishonest.


My mother used to say that people perceive others by who they are themselves.
So I understand your rationalization of why you think that all the people except few would be dishonest, but I don't share your opinion about this and I believe that there are more honest and smart, rather than dishonest and stupid, people living on Earth...
So no, it wouldn't be faster to list few billions of people.


I don't have TOS and I don't plan to have any.
Do you have a problem with that?