It wasn't a "choice" so to say, it's just what I have installed on my Ubuntu 11.04 system, and I started developing with it not realizing that some of the features I was using wouldn't be backwards compatible.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate your answer. |
|
|
|
Sounds like I better work on getting this working in 2.6. I didn't realize that 2.7 wasn't available in 10.04, and that's definitely a distro I want to support out-of-the-box.
If you don't mind telling me: why you've choosen 2.7? What change in the Python language made your development easier? I just looked into our build machines for the commercial software that we sell. Python versions were 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. The software is selling rather well, and nobody asked us about "requiring support of newer version of Python". Our software is to the large extend like yours: finely tuned C++ engine plus an assortment of SWIG condoms I mean wrappers. What is that we are missing? Do you mind telling me? |
|
|
|
I tried to get this working in Python 2.6, but found it's not a trivial change. For now this will only be compatible with Python 2.7
So, if I'm on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on default repositories, is the Python 2.7 available for me without going the compile-your-own route? I see 1227 packages with the word "python" in the name. As far as I can see there's only python 2.6 and python 3.1 to choose. Am I doing something wrong? |
|
|
|
|
The only thing obviously wrong in your picture is that it isn't P.O. box.
It is a legitimate address of an office suite that was/is vacant for over 90 days:
10100 Santa Monica Blvd
Ste 1300
Los Angeles Ca 90067-4114
Last known tennants:
80s Baby Entertainment Inc
Orbed Productions Inc
Vacant
This building is about 1/4-1/3 vacant/no-delivery and has always been a high turnover location.
|
|
|
|
CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx:149: fatal error: Python.h: No such file or directory
Just install the appropriate python-dev for your system. Edit: To fix the next little buglet change -lcryptopp to $(LIBRARY_OPTS) in the g++ invocation under swig. |
|
|
|
I'd like to use this thread to urge the Bitcoin community to adopt one of well-tested middleware messaging protocols instead of trying the roll-your-own approach on top of JSON-RPC. Please investigate ZeroMQ, RabbitMQ or anything else that is available and open source before reinventing the whell. For example: Microsoft had experienced significant delays in shipping DCOM in large part because of the difficulty of correctly implementing "connection points" (their terminology for the distributed RPC callbacks). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98MQhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RabbitMQIt is my personal opinion that the best long term goal for Bitcoin would be to simply adopt serialization of block- & txn-messages over FIX as a sole communication protocol between wallet-less "bitcoind" and blockchain-less "bitcoinui", even if "bitcoinui" is just another daemon program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Information_eXchangeThere are multiple open-source implementations available for FIX, eg. QuickFIX. Something should be agreable as far as licensing goes. I understand that the libertarian-oriented portion of the Bitcoin community will not like being associated with the established financial industry. You can think of FIX as Fuck Immoral banXters (using their own tool). The additional benefit of FIX is that it is naturally DDoS-resistant, unlike JSON-RPC, where sudden spike of legitimate trading or mining activity is indistinguishable from DDoS. Thank you for your attention. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is definitely not a synthetic security...a synthetic security is something designed to mimic the returns of some other underlying asset.
[...]
I might characterize bitcoin as an artificial commodity.
You bring a very important distinction. The definition of "synthetic security" under financial contract law is different than the definition of "securities" under criminal law. I wish the precedent in the USA would be set under the contract law. It would be nice to ponder if "credit default swap" is similar to "chain reorganization swap". Or maybe bitcoin is some way equivalent to a participation in an advance royalties pool created by movie studio? But it will be probably a case of some obviously unscrupulous promoters tried under the criminal law that will set the precedent. We'll see. |
|
|
|
This is a beautifully written essay, but it focuses only on the lawfull applications of whatchamacalit called bitcoin. I wish some tort lawyer wrote a contrasting opinion when whatchamacalit was used to defraud a class of citizens from their lawfully earned USD. John Nagle had posted a link to the actual case where "not a security" argument was actually litigated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46486.msg555870#msg555870 , except that he grossly overshoot the financial damages target: 80 mln USD is currently beyond the wildest dreams for BTC litigation in the USA. It is certainly an interesting area to watch. I wonder if there still a chance for lawfull applications of bitcoin to race ahead of the unlawfull uses. In the common-law country like the USA, the law will be set to suit the legal precedent case. The race is on. I truly with that the precedent would be set by some boring details-of-contract-dispute case not by scandalous investment promotion case mixed with mail&wire fraud and perjurous affidavits. In the counties with civil law system bitcoin is quite neatly falling into the old Roman law category of "depositum irregulare". And thus it invokes a set of quite traditional rules. It remains to be seen what else can be mixed in to create the new rules. It just barely escaped litigation in Poland where MtGox came as a white knight to save the insolvent bitomat.pl. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this is a joke thread, I presume no.
Bitcoin is neither money nor commodity.
Bitcoin is a synthetic security, that is unfortunately receiving a lot of fraudulent promotion. The existing laws about illegal offerings of securities will be used to prosecute those promoters who perpetuated and are perpetuating the deception.
At this time the amounts involved aren't big enough to trigger criminal prosecutions. The litigation under private or commercial law rules had already occurred.
I presume that all those discussions will be resolved in most jurisdictions in the next 2-3 years, unless the unit price of bitcoin drops to such a low levels that the outcome will not be worth litigating.
|
|
|
|
Is there more risk for the issuer, or for the investor?
I think neither. The underwriter has the most risk of being prosecuted. |
|
|
|
until there are three bitcoiners left at $0.10 a coin, circlejerking each other about how "It's really starting to catch on!"
I'm thinking that there will be whole temples of bitcoiners using e-meters to discover the "bitcoin-suppresive people" and "operating crypto-thetans". The bitcoinology e-meters will be made by Cassasius out of refurbished VeriFone Vx570 payment terminals. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_Bitcoin_POS_systemBy that time he will stop accepting bitcoin and only accept FIAT as a part of Purification Rundown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purification_Rundown |
|
|
|
Hello Mapper! - non-reversable
Does your map show the whereabouts of the following code? if (!fFileBacked)
return false;
CRITICAL_BLOCK(cs_wallet)
{
if (mapWallet.erase(hash))
CWalletDB(strWalletFile).EraseTx(hash);
}
return true;
|
|
|
|
OK, this thread because of my involvement had devolved into something bad. I apologize. I want to repeat my quote from Gavin Andresen's speech: we don't much care if you don't approve of the software we writehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koIq58UoNfEand about 1:25 into the clip. Please ponder about this a little bit. All I was trying to say is the attitude like that is preventing the smart businesses from getting involved in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'm proposing moving "do I accept this fee" logic outside of the "always say yes" we have right now, nothing more.
Then your patch is worse than the original problem. It pushes bitcoin further down the path of being an untestable and non-deterministic software. I think the sipa's competing approach is much better. He proposed a "pseudo transaction" that rolls the dice once, selects the coins, presents the calculated fee and allows the JSON-RPC user to commit or abort the transaction. I believe that his patch had a locking and garbage collection problem. If your JSON-RPC Keep Alive and JSON-RPC multi-threaded locking patches are approved then sipa's patch is fixable. As it is your patch makes a user-visible problem hidden under the additional layer of obfuscation and randomness. People tend to notice unapproved fees draining their balance. The current situation is "always say yes" only in bitcoind. The bitcoin client pops up a dialog box. |
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to scam somebody by releasing work as open source.
Actually the opposite is true. Open source makes it extremely easy to scam the unsuspecting by making subtle changes. MKS Software NuTCRACKER is an example response to the popularity of the scams rooted in subtle modifications of the OSS. They pretty much sell their premim versions of telnet, ftp, etc. but unlike their competitors test that thoroughly. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you that forking things will cure all the problems. Finance is probably the third (after aerospace and healthcare) in terms of strict testing and liability requirements. You are doing a lot of excellent design. But somehow you convinced yourself that willfull disregard for principles of accounting is a virtue. |
|
|
|
No, that would be an unrelated change. Right now, the code just does a while(notEnoughFees) { addFees(); findCoins(); }
Are you proposing an iterative solution to a non-monotonic non-deterministic optimization problem? Do I understood you right? |
|
|
|
(stating how much fee is "required")
This would require replacing a PRNG in the stochastic knapsack solver. Currently there is a call to rand() there. This isn' reproducible and testable. Maybe you can think of some repeatable PRNG that is explicitly seeded off with something that will every time select the same coins from the same wallet and thus require the same fee? |
|
|
|
I did a quick test, tearing open one of my coins.
How much do you charge for a "circulated physical bitcoin"? I mean a complete used coin, that was loaded, tamper-evident seal torn off, bitcoin then spent. Something of numismatic quality "very fine grade circulated", I guess the seal will be evidently damaged, but still recognizable and 100% readable, maybe glued back to a piece of transparent plastic? Terms: payment in USPS money order, shipment 1st class contiguous states. Thanks. |
|
|
|
those were two rejected and discarded prototypes
I'm actually very curious and I'm hoping you know a bit about the grey market. Are those even real "swiss made" movements that somehow didn't meet the grade? Or are they knockoff made in some far away Sandcastlistan? Are the Swiss factories nowadays so porous to allow the manufacturing rejects to reach the market? I remember the derisive word "tandeta" from my grandparents, but what is the current state of the market? Thanks in advance for your time. |
|
|
|
Oh hell, give me a break. No need to be such a jerk. If I produce something that sucks, feel free to criticize it. But you are pre-criticizing what you think I might produce if I produced it. Are you a licensed fortune teller? I didn't think so. So you can zip it.
No, I'm not a fortune teller. But I'm a sworn and licensed hunter of scammers. Thus your future product is of great interest to me. The fishy smell is alrady emanating from the blueprints. The whole haz-mat team may be required when the actual product launches. Or you can just take an accounting class. It is your choice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
