You know you're cheap when you can't even afford a logo.

You know you're destined to fail when you compensate by stealing someone else's copyrighted work for your logo.

But hey, everything that has happened before will happen again.

All great in theory, but institutional investors need things that a decentralised exchange could never provide, and they will never achieve the speed required to operate at comparable levels with a centralised exchange. Things like binary trade protocols, for instance, will either be hard to implement or useless (due to the inherent lag with distributed datasets).

You also forget that due diligence is just the first step in a process. Action must sometimes be taken by the exchange to, for instance, delist a security where there is attempted trade book manipulation, or where the operator is proving themselves untrustworthy. A decentralised exchange won't have that, so scams will just stay up forever.

[citation needed]


Because the judgement call when determining an exchange to trade or list on should be whether it has a whole bunch of JS. It certainly shouldn't be "does it work" or "has it been around long enough to be trustworthy".


Havelock isn't registered with the Panama's SMV - since you seem to think that the MPEx owner is going to be extradited by the SEC, how long do you think Havelock will last considering their false claims of local compliance?


"Personally, I like being beaten regularly with a pole except for the head trauma and bleeding involved." - AcoinL.L.C, 2014


I happen to really like the interactions I've had with Ethera, I think he's a great guy and quite savvy. He was fast off the bat when LTC-Global shuttered, and he got LitecoinInvest up in record time. When the exchange has been around and reasonably scam free for 2+ years I will definitely consider using it.


Bye

mikemikemike - when evaluating something it's important to evaluate it in the context of time. Even the most dedicated of scammers pulling off a long-con is smart enough to only waste 6-12 months before ducking. So ask yourself: if it were a scam why not just do a runner ages ago? I mean, it's been in operation for years, there's been plenty of opportunity to pull out ahead of the game and setup a brand new scam all over again.

It's all in the keys file. You need to backup the .bin *and* the .keys file, as the two rely on each other if you're restoring from a backup.

EDIT: this seemed to be the case when we were trying to restore a deleted wallet when someone ran "make clean" before the warning was added. In testing now I see you can just backup the .keys file, in which case your restore would go like this:


We didn't make the connection during our restore attempts as we restored the .bin file before restoring the .keys file.

I'm unsure as to whether or not ActiveMining do any actual accounting of any nature, but if they do Bitpay's QuickBooks integration is a clear separator between two reasonably similar offerings.

It literally is that simple:) Also, Bitpay has had a Prestashop plugin since November 2012. So this isn't a new thing.

There's incompetence, and then there's just plain stupidity. This is an example of the latter.

1. Sign up on Bitpay. Use their start package with 1% fees if you're just testing, or pay your $30 a month for no fees.
2. Download their Prestashop plugin from here or clone from the github repo
3. Follow the 5 steps required to install and configure it

Oh look! You now accept Bitcoin! And it pays out in USD and/or Bitcoin in whatever ratio you like!

Do you want me to invoice you for the time I spent explaining this? Or better yet - fire your "project manager" and hire someone that has 2 braincells and we'll call it even.

LOL. When I've been here long enough? You're a joke, guy.

Please enlighten me and name some non-scamming people that have been involved in Bitcoin from 2012 and aren't in the WoT.

I ran the same test on my dedicated boxes (mostly Xeon E5-2620 v2 processors) on Ubuntu 12.04. Hashrate pulled from screenlog (screen -L) and averaged after an hour of mining. Boost 1.55 is installed from source, and built with gcc 4.8. The results:

1. Original build from source: 9.8741h/s
2. Original build from source w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 10.2491h/s
3. Pre-compiled binaries from this topic: 20.7734h/s
4. Build from updated source: 21.8741h/s (faster than pre-compiled binaries!!)
5. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs: 22.8004h/s
6. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs, w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 23.0526h/s

Out the box the changes NoodleDoodle committed are faster than his precompiled bins. I am not building with icc at this stage, but that might give a slight improvement.

Why not just go straight to satoshis?

You mean to say that the cost of electricity is irrelevant when 95% of your monthly opex is for electricity? Sure. I can see the logic in that.

That's still ridiculously expensive if you're in the business of mining.

Well we've shared some details of it in this thread and on the Vertcoin sub-reddit, but obviously there are a few key tricks we'll be keeping up our sleeve instead of handing our competitors all of our plans on a silver platter;)

WTS 0.0015 / 2000 / 3 BTC

I'm happy to do it in smaller chunks, minimum of 200 MRO.

^{Edit: I accidentally a letter, thanks davidlatapie:)}

You're definitely going to have to talk to Correo Paraguayo, from what I've read they have a worse postal system than we do. I can't even figure out where the tracking is on their website, best I can find is a tracking hook from trackitonline.ru - https://i.imgur.com/ykPBaXZ.png

Still, our standard terms are still in effect, if it goes past the maximum transit period for surface mail open a support ticket and we'll file for a refund and sort you out.

I think what you may need to do is get someone that isn't necessarily in the industry to buy in, even if it's a relatively small holding (<20%). You can sweeten the pot by giving them an extra 10% or something, but that only vests after a period of time (12 months). That will give them a vested interest in the site's success, a reason to stick around, and will allow the responsibilities to be shared between you and them. If you find a person that fits that profile it's unlikely they'll steal the idea and go it alone, why bother starting from scratch when you're already involved in something successful? And if they DO choose to do their own thing after a couple of years...well, that's the nature of business, you're not going to prevent that in the long run unless you particularly want to throw money at pursuing action based on a restraint of trade agreement.

Ooof. Dude. His single negative trust rating was because he was a new user doing an IPO. Nevertheless, he has consistently paid dividends and proven himself a relatively stable and reliable operator thus-far. I have no doubt he can ask Tomatocage to remove the negative trust rating at this juncture.

On that topic: he's in the XXX space at the moment, and is running a site that is consistently earning money. Maybe instead of being an asshat you should humble yourself, acknowledge you don't know everything, and get some advice from someone who is already successful in this space? Then again, that's probably something you should have done at the outset.

Full disclaimer: I hold no shares in XXXProfit, and was quietly critical of it at the beginning. My opinion has changed over time, although my shareholding has not.

Nearly 11pm here, and tomorrow is nationwide voting (so another public holiday, bit of a comedy of errors from that perspective) - I see the reply on the support system, and I'll phone Robert tomorrow for an update and then either let you know the status or put in for a refund:)

Ah yes - Jorge and I were talking about creditors forcing their hand, not investors:) I think it's safe to say that there are plenty of creditors left (not least of which are employees who are owed salaries who, in most places, become preferred creditors in the wake of insolvency) who have a marked interest in forcing this matter and possibly, maybe, creating some residue for the bag-holders.