|
I got my first one by a combination of:
1) freeroll winnings + ring games on sealswithclubs.eu (now defunct)
2) writing some javascript for some websites
3) some gambling on dragon's tale casino
Now I have a bit more than that (from mostly the same activities), but I still haven't gotten to 10BTC.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Something that has been bothering me for a while now is the fact that PM's are red but so are tips. This makes it really confusing when you are trying to talk to people with pm's. It would be awesome if you could change the color of one of them. Just to make chat easier to read!  Actually, this is a good idea. And since they just changed mods to Gold, maybe they'll be able to do this quickly. I think red used to be the only color to highlight the messages. Now that there's two colors, maybe three will be easy as pie. What I mean is that once you've got code to select a color, then that's all you need to select any color (at least in theory). |
|
|
|
|
What's an sp31 spondoolie? Is this related to bitcoin!?
|
|
|
|
btc on the raspberry pi is very slow and laggy compared to a normal laptop. Only run lightweight wallets on the raspberry pi.
I think he said it's working fine on his pi2 and failing on windoze. @rupy, I know nothing of windows, can't help you. But as you said, since this thread is about bitcoin on raspberry pi, maybe you should start a new thread. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
hey, you are good at fantasy! you could write children's books!
way to go, pal!
I know the poker sites compete, but it would be nice if Moonbind's IPs were shared in some way so that he's not playing online, anywhere. well, there's a thought i wanted to share with you - this particular poker site, bitcoinpoker.gg is already dead with it's outdated cheap software, incompetent staff and dime-cheap budget/investment return plan! You didn't seem to think so when you were multi-accounting their freerolls 24/7
also, this is not about me,
You seem interested in keeping it about you. If you really don't want it to be about you, you could just leave off please don't flame/troll Isn't flame/trolling exactly what you're doing? and make your own topic, like:
"Moonbind - the killer of online poker" or something along those lines in your crooked little head!
or, best of all - go play barbie-online with the rest of your age group, apparently poker is too difficult to you...
Daaaayemm, moonbind made a joke or whatever! |
|
|
|
...after having read through that BIP, I can't tell if it's been implemented or not...
It was implemented with these three lines of code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/c1fb0e1075f626ea23d832b07b2070e0638f4215/src/main.cpp#L1198-L1200I also can't tell if the author is merely pointing out a quirk in the C++ code which formed the reference standard or if he's referring to Satoshi's intentions that the supply not be finite.
The author is using humor, pretending that Satoshi is incapable of having bugs in his code and therefore the bug MUST have been a hidden intended behavior of the protocol. The effect of the bug is that in some implementations of the protocol (specifically those that use C++ and calculate the block reward the same way as the reference client used to) the block reward is re-set back to 50 BTC per block every 256 years. In any case, I'm sure DannyHamilton can enlighten us on it.
Thanks in advance!
I've done what I can. It was enough. I understand now. For the record, I also thought there was a tongue-in-cheek to the author's suggestion that Satoshi wanted to keep bitcoin expanding, but then he made that reference to gold mines being discovered and I just couldn't tell. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up. |
|
|
|
In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. Well, now I'm confused for sure. I thought that the point of XT was to develope a branch which would enforce a hard fork only after the super-majority consensus. Now you say XT will ignore the majority check---but that seems to imply that the consensus check is in core. But if it's in core, what's the point of XT? |
|
|
|
To not ever reuse any address already used once is one of the prime principles of bitcoin.
If you only ever want to use the same address to receive coins, you can go to myb.tc and create a shortlink for that address.
However, as pointed out, the app also creates a new address for every changeback transaction, so that's not of much use.
Right, if you really only want to use one address (including for change) you might be able to use an old version of this app. If I recally correctly, older versions would just use the same address as change address (maybe before version 2 or something?). It's quite onerous and you'd pay alot of fees, but another thing you can do is keep sending the change back to that address yourself, from within the app. However, maybe if it'd actually be easier just to modify the soruce and recompile && install. |
|
|
|
|
@Michett Maybe it'd be a good idea to put campaigns that don't use escrow in a special color on the table. Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
I think BIP42 is also relevant here. In fact, after having read through that BIP, I can't tell if it's been implemented or not. I also can't tell if the author is merely pointing out a quirk in the C++ code which formed the reference standard or if he's referring to Satoshi's intentions that the supply not be finite. In any case, I'm sure DannyHamilton can enlighten us on it. Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
Staking my BTC address here: Bitcoin address: 1KnRu4FsaXbnuwV1H8uohaM4oLQreLorTj
Quoted for you! |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out if you already know *how* you want it to be "bitcoin compatible" and you just need someone to implement your idea or if you're looking for someone to help you figure out the details of the idea.
|
|
|
|
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both. While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause. There are several problems with this and I hope it does not come to this, but as users we have a choice and most importantly can just sit out the storm or even move to an alt for the time beeing. Those of us with full nodes on proper servers might have somewhat of a vote, but I doubt thats the deciding factor. The big questions are #1 which coin do the merchants accept (usefullness), #2 which coin do the exchanges accept (exchangeability to fiat and other currencies) and #3 which coin do the miners accept (network security). The coin that gets all of them will win eventually, the biggest problems will arise if no coin can get a majority in either group or even worse can e.g. get a majority of the merchants, but not a majority of the miners. What good is a widely acceped coin that can easily be attacked by a large pool of "another" coin? Even worse these two coins battle for the same historical blockchain. Someone recently described this not as a simple Y fork with two chains, but as a hydra with multiple chains poping up. Every orphaned block potentially creating another chain. This potential clusterfuck is why I hope the issue at hand can be solved calmly and without putting foots down. Now I couldn't agree more with what you just said. I was imagining just such a terrible situation if miners are using one fork and the merchants that have been facilitating the economy (coinbase, etc) were using the other---then imagine the media shitstorm and the huge selloff and I think our coins would become worth very little (probably on both forks). Anyway, I'm with you hoping that the community can find a way to move forward without issue. As far as I know, though, the fact that the fork isn't supposed to happen (ever) unless 90% of the last 1000 blocks are new version, that part is comforting. Seems to basically guarantee consensus if/when it happens. |
|
|
|
|
@fbueller, thanks for the discussion and th elinks. I'm checking out that thread you linked me to now.
@DH, your description is a much better way to state the problem. I was mainly just trying to capture the question of whether there's a smart way to know how deep in the hd tree (or chain, if there's just one branch) to generate when loading a wallet. Seems like the principle here is kinda heurisitc, generate addresses until you find a large sequence of addresses which seem to be unused. It's a good point that software can also prompt the user for whether to keep going on this (if the balance looks right).
Thank again for the info, folks.
|
|
|
|
~~
For a true offline/online solution look into Armory and I believe a similar solution is available from Electrum as well.
~~
Not trying to deter you, but since you say you're not familiar with Linux, have a look at other options and learn about them.
since i am currently using electrum, i created another one on my linux and it was easy and successful. i think i am going to use that for cold storage. i mostly want to become more familiar with linux, that is why i chose this option. and as for bitcoin-core i just wanted the main client that's all. You will need to be online to do this, so connect your computer to Wi-fi or ethernet. ~~
thanks for the help, but the whole reason for what i am doing is to create an offline wallet, with me just copying a wallet installation file there. I believe he wrote that because he gave you instructinos for installing the build tools, and you have to be online to download them @knightdk, It's not clear from OP that he downloaded a source tarball, he may have the binaries in there and just not know how to run them, he only says that ./bitcoin-qt returns an error (he doesn't say what error). Ie, he may not need to build, he may just need to make his binary execurable. Also, "make install" probably requires root elevation. @OP: But more seriously, you have to actually post what the error messages are if you want someone to help you. I have to say it again and again on these forums: there are people who know how to read those messages even if you don't---post them here if you want real help. Saying "I got an error" is too vague. sorry about that, you are right. i followed these steps except for the "wget" part which i downloaded tar.gz file from bitcoin.org and transferred it with my USB flash drive and after typing "./bitcoin-qt" i get: Ubuntu 14.4.2bash: ./bitcoin-qt: No such file or directory
and also "$chmod +x bitcoin-qt" returns: an screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/ebYGnW2.jpgScreenshot shows that it worked. The second time you typed it correctly. The "$" represents the prompt. When people say type: The dollar sign just shows you that it's intended to be a shell command (specifically, the $ means bash shell but that's another story). Anyway, you should try running ./bitcoin-qt again now that it's executable. I should also say that there may be something more going on here as it seems weird to me that it says "no such file or directory", I would have expected "permission denied" if the issue was permission to execute the file. You should type the command "ls -la" to see the listing of the files in that directory and their permissions. |
|
|
|
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both. While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause. |
|
|
|
Okay, I got sucked in and lost like 4 hours of my day the other day to this game. I got to like 3rd at one point and oh my god.
But one thing I couldn't really figure out was how there doesn't end up being one blob that eats like the whole game. Since I never got to 1st, I don't know, but how is it that one blob doesn't get to 1st and then become unbeatable and basically own the board? Maybe it's because eventually one of those green things will appear in your stomach and burst you?
The are a few things which keep the big cells in check: Every blob loses a small percentage of its mass each second. This becomes significant for large blobs. The bigger you get, the slower you travel. If you 'feed' a virus 8 (?) times, it will spit out a new virus. Small players can take advantage of this to shoot a new virus into you, blowing you into small pieces which they (or a friend) proceeds to eat. I didn't realize about the shrinking---I figured that's the most logical way to keep the big guys from ruling forever, but I hadn't noticed the shrinking in playing. I definitely didn't realize about the feeding a virus 8 times thing. I saw the "spit out some mass" instruction but didn't know why it would be useful. What a fun game anyway, I had a blast with it. There must be somewhere that people are talking about tricks and strategies and whanot. |
|
|
|
In a way, I suppose it's a good thing that this problem even happened. 34 BTC isn't a lot of money for a company like Blockchain.info and it certainly exposed quite a few serious technical issues with their programming practices which we didn't know about before. EDIT: I'm taking programming courses at college right now, and I can totally see how I might accidentally mess up inheritance of methods for classes and subclasses in the same way Blockchain.info did especially when I'm not completely focused so I do have a bit of sympathy for them too.  Sure, programming can be difficult and takes concentration, I don't disagree. But if you want to use HTTP, you may as well learn the return code for "success" and check for it. That's not too difficult to do and there's a big difference between writing one-off programs for a class when you're sleepy and deploying a commerical scale app that's meant to manage other people's money! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
