|
this might make it easier to visualize too:
dollartrader 7.08%
payb.tc 49.41%
gigavps 1.44%
malevolent 1.10%
nuke 0.26%
bitfoo 3.64%
bitsinmyhead 3.29%
ermsman 6.89%
Tril 1.52%
gzup 25.36%
p.s. thanks mason.
|
|
|
|
how did you actually find that link? it's not on their donations page, and not even on their 'anonymous donations' page. nm, i see you can get to it by clicking the B logo... but it's strange that there are no other links to it. |
|
|
|
It seems sort of backwards/unfair to wait for people to come forward to claim their money.
that's how it works in most real-life company liquidations. (in aus anyway). |
|
|
|
|
X=$0.05 (price of a lollipop in 1980's prices)
each BTC will be worth [not much]
|
|
|
|
I still feel bad for that old couple that will still fall for a Nigeria scam.
Thanks for the heads up about these douches.
heh, funny wording. there's not much point shutting down scams. that's like trying to wipe out a disease by killing one bacterium at a time. they will always outpace you. |
|
|
|
You're probably right. Whatever the initial form is/was, that's how a person will be paid out. I don't think we should use ppusd payouts at this point, so I'll use mtgoxusd coupons instead. If anyone has any objections, please air them.
Well, payments can still be made in BTC to each person - it's easier, publicly auditable, and I'm guessing everyone prefers BTC. What I meant is that the value of the debt should be kept in USD. (Eg: If shakaru paid 10 BTC just now, he now owes $47.50 less). i disagree. you can't generalise and say he owes $47.50 less, when some debts (maybe only mine) are BTC only. imsaguy would have to make a call on the distribution of the 10 BTC first, and then say for example he owes me 1 BTC less and everyone else $4 less or whatever it works out to be. |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a secure server.
Based on this statement, you should exit the internet business. Too many people punt the security aspect just because it is hard. So who do you think is worthy to stay in the Internet business? People who can. sony? |
|
|
|
|
even though i previously said any amounts should be equally distributed, i think under a certain threshold is fine just to pay off the smaller ones...
eg. i'm happy for this first 10 BTC just to clear nuke's debt.
|
|
|
|
|
i'm also happy for imsaguy to mediate... thank you.
can use 1Amw6UEAx8TovmRHg2vDeTW516cmXDCAgh for me.
|
|
|
|
OP has been updated. I'm no spreadsheet guru so check. I believe I have taken all information from the thread as for settle amounts. Correct me if wrong.
I agree with the earlier post about a non associated trusted 3rd party watching over this, if anyone is up for it?
thanks dollartrader. the only issue i have with the spreadsheet is the irrelevant (to me) USD column... i'm only really interested in the coins, whether they're worth 2c or $2000 each. |
|
|
|
Dude, don't act stupid, you are usually smarter than that...
It's the distribution of miner softwares, softwares to conceal miners, etc. that gives it the reputation of malware distribution, not the flame wars.
i thought it was the distribution of cosby-related text and images. actually maybe the surge of freddie-related posts has affected the rating. |
|
|
|
|
just a heads up: i've just now accidentally re-used the repayment address for something completely unrelated. the 7.4696 btc transaction is NOT from bitcoinhero.
|
|
|
|
it may be best to clear thoese two (smaller debts) up faster than the others to limit the total number of people involved.
i think this is unfair because it means the more you have invested, the longer you have to wait. so i'd get paid last even though i invested rather early. Only a suggestion. If you feel its unfair, then we wont go that route. well, i think bitcoin is one currency where it's a lot easier to pay a fairly distributed % to everyone, because you've got so many decimal places to work with  |
|
|
|
you keep getting hung up on # of wallets. # of wallets would have no effect on fees. Amazon could have 1 wallet or a quadrillion wallets running on a quadrillion computers. It would have absolutely no effect on fees, spam, transaction volume, etc.
actually d&t i think it would have a negative effect. imagine a wallet has 3 transactions: 3 btc: old 3 btc: old 4 btc: new you could make 2 x 1btc spends from that without incurring fees. but let's say you had them in 3 different wallets: a = 3 btc: old b = 3 btc: old c = 4 btc: new if you spend from the 'c' wallet, you'd have to pay a fee because it can't find any old transactions to spend from... even though you've got plenty of old transactions in your other wallets. |
|
|
|
it may be best to clear thoese two (smaller debts) up faster than the others to limit the total number of people involved.
i think this is unfair because it means the more you have invested, the longer you have to wait. so i'd get paid last even though i invested rather early. |
|
|
|
You are helping me settle an argument with someone.
So, there is no amount small enough or large enough that (since you don’t like 20 we’ll say a few computers) you could send in a continuous stream of transactions increasing the size of block chain to a point that it would be difficult to hold it on a single hard drive (my position on the issue)? Correct?
that's ridiculous in 2012... even an 'old' hard drive is 80gb+ a 'not old' hard drive is 500gb+. |
|
|
|
So, if someone had 20 computers and 40 clients, one running in a VM and one on the desktop. That machine with the proper script could be made to send coins to itself in a continuous loop or to one of the other 20 in a series. Yes?
sure, if they had RPC switched on i guess. |
|
|
|
I’m going somewhere with this eventually.
So you can send one coin transactions repeatedly without a fee if the amount in the wallet is large enough because effectively the client will always look for the oldest coin to avoid fees. Correct?
EDIT: Repeatedly
it also depends on how your wallet is constituted... if all those 'old' transactions are millions of 0.00000001 inputs, then you'll still get fees because of the data size (in bytes) of your transaction. Ok, then what is the minimum Tx amount? How is that determined? you can spend 0.00000001 without a fee if you have an old incoming 0.00000001 that was sent to your wallet. If I send one coin a day to the wallet for 60 days could I then send .1 60 times an hour without a fee? best guess: yes (for ONE hour) then you'd have the remaining 90% as 60 x 0.9 btc in new change addresses. after the first hour (the first 60 x 0.1 transactions), all your wallet would contain would be new addresses with 0.9 in them. |
|
|
|
|
is your project hosted on a dedicated server, or VPS? if so, do you know what OS and what version? is your server already running bitcoind?
|
|
|
|
I’m going somewhere with this eventually.
So you can send one coin transactions repeatedly without a fee if the amount in the wallet is large enough because effectively the client will always look for the oldest coin to avoid fees. Correct?
EDIT: Repeatedly
it also depends on how your wallet is constituted... if all those 'old' transactions are millions of 0.00000001 inputs, then you'll still get fees because of the data size (in bytes) of your transaction. Ok, then what is the minimum Tx amount? How is that determined? you can spend 0.00000001 without a fee if you have an old incoming 0.00000001 that was sent to your wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
