 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
|
I don't actually need a gold membership, but... Done!
|
|
|
|
if you use the word "decentralized", expect that nobody understands it. even if you explain it in a few sentences and tell them, that this means it cannot be shut down, they will not understand you. trust me ... the concept behind this word is way out of reach for these folks. good look finding a good analogy!
The analogy you're looking for is easy. The word they all know that perfectly describes decentralized is, "Internet." |
|
|
|
Well, Like or hate BFL they are bringing Luke-Jr and Kanoi in, for a entire week.
Wait, you kidding, both is same room? I noticed Kano carries a ninja sword lately... Curious about Luke's weapon... "Use the force, Luke." |
|
|
|
No need to look for conspiracies [...]
+1. Bitcoin is a high flying UFO. [...] I want to believe. |
|
|
|
|
This is why your mother and I can't get you nice things!
|
|
|
|
[...]
Professional, my fuckin' ass!
[...]
I should forward you some email from my last general manager. This was positively lucid in comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Professionals? Perhaps.
Spellers? No.
|
|
|
|
[...]
The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value.
[...]
Keep in mind my analysis wasn't completely generic and assumed that the profits on the sale of each option were split equally between the house and the option owner. If you re-run the numbers using different ratios you will come up with different final values. Roughly, if you split the profit on the sale of each option with P percent going to the house and 100 - P percent going to the option owner, the house will have made P percent of the final value of the object when the option price reaches the value of the object. |
|
|
|
Maybe I'm tired, but I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. You clearly know that the price increases only 10%, and you're using an example of it doubling, but to what end?
No, not doubling, just going up by 10% each time. We start with 1 BTC. The next price would be 110% of 1 or (1.1) * 1 = 1.1. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * 1, or (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.21. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 or (1.1) * (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.331, etc. ... That is, the Nth price is (1.1)^N. Make sense? |
|
|
|
I am thinking of this as a program that runs all day and night and promiscuously finds random swapping partners, repeatedly swapping coins as soon as they meet a minimum threshold for confirmations. I suppose if such an application wants a dependency on a pastebin site that doesn't mind being polluted with transient traffic and doesn't require a captcha, it would work.
Such traffic could be broken into multiple IRC messages to avoid need for pastebin. It could also do direct client to client communications.
This is essentially: http://blog.ezyang.com/2012/07/secure-multiparty-bitcoin-anonymization/ |
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time to understand your logic.
Site owner profit < Last player bid
The last bidder would be paying more than the prize is worth, since the money used to fund the prize is less than the amount paid by the last bidder.
Unless the guy running the campaign is willing to lose money, it's not viable.
Keeping asking questions, all, for I'm sure I'm able to come up with a unique answer. For sake of argument, suppose the last person to purchase was planning on buying this Vette anyway. Further suppose that the dealership is offering some undisclosed discount. Even if the last person to purchase doesn't get the above, the premium paid may be worth it for the right to be known as the guy who received the Vette via this route. The domain and hosting would be paid for five years to guarantee the maximum mileage on this particular campaign, of which would be linked via the subsequent campaigns. What I'm trying to relay is a completely new form of advertising/marketing. No Ponzi. No pyramid. No scam. Period! To be clear, this is also not an auction, hence refraining from using the word bid. [...] It only works if you are willing to sell the final object for half its worth. Or, equivalently, if the purchaser is willing to purchase the object for twice its worth. Consider the following. In round 0, the current option is 1 BTC. When sold, the house gets 1 BTC profit. In round 1, the option will be a BTC, where a is the ratio that we are using. (For example, if the price increases by %10 each time, then a = 1.1 .) When sold, the house receives (a - 1) / 2 profit and the option owner receives (a - 1) / 2 profit. (In our example, the profit is (1.1 - 1) / 2 = 0.05. That is, the house gets 5% of the profit of each sale and the option owner gets %5 of the profit of that sale.) In round 2, the option will be a^2 BTC and the house (and option owner) profit for this round is ((a - 1) / 2) * a. Continuing in this fashion, we have in round n, the option is a^n and the profit is ((a - 1) / 2) * a^(n - 1). The total profit for the house is the sum of the house profits for each round: H = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) + ((a - 1) / 2) * a + ((a - 1) / 2) * a^2 + ... + ((a - 1) / 2) * a^(n - 1) = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) * (1 + a + a^2 + ... + a^(n - 1)) = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) * ((a^n - 1) / (a - 1)) = 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2To summarize, the option will cost a^n to purchase and, when it is sold the total house profit will be 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2. If the value of the final object is V, then it does not make sense to purchase that object for more than V. That is, we would expect a person to participate in round n if a^n <= V. At this point though, we have 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2 < a^n <= V. Or, roughly, the house profit is about half what is needed to actually purchase the object at that point. I guess it is possible that people would play beyond the time when a^n > V. (Actually, of course they would given the magnificent gem as an example.) However there is little difference between the gem and this example. The last person to hold the gem just gets ripped off and feels like an idiot. The person to get the Vette just spent twice as much as he should of to get it and feels like an idiot. *shrug* |
|
|
|
Who's paying for the five coin lister fee on btct.co  Do they accept gems? |
|
|
|
|
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Greetings human.
|
|
|
|
While we ponder this, if you are worried about this, there is a fairly straightforward workaround that will make you immune from this.
Run two bitcoin daemons. One that is a full peer in the network, but has an empty, never-used wallet.
And another with a full wallet that connects to the full peer. You could even run them both on the same machine (you'll use double the CPU and disk space, unfortunately).
Similarly, using the Armory client mitigates this issue. While this is certainly not a critical vulnerability, it is very important in terms of privacy. Excellent find Sergio. The root-cause of this information leak is that large transactions with insufficient fees are not forwarded or stored unless that transaction involves addresses owned by the user. Perhaps this should be an option and the default should simply be not to forward? The vast majority of clients will most likely keep the default which makes this essentially equivalent to enforcing transaction fees. However, this may be a good enough reason to do so. |
|
|
|
* Payment type (Bitcoin or credit card): Credit Card (too late for chargeback)
My first order was before yours, my chargeback request was about the same time, and my card gave me the chargeback. It's their judgement call. If you are a good customer with no previous issues (and no history of chargebacks) they have the latitude to allow your chargeback. My advice would be to call back and politely explain what happened: you were purchasing some computer equipment and you were told you would get your device in October, then November, then December, then January. Then the owner disappeared and the person responsible for handling orders told everyone they should just get a chargeback. Simply tell them that you feel real stupid about how you were scammed and that you hope they can help you out. If they still insist they can't give you the chargeback, remain polite and tell them that you still would like to submit some sort of report so that hopefully it will be harder for anyone else to get scammed by the same company. There is still a (small) chance at this point you will get your chargeback. |
|
|
|
[...]
It now takes trillions of Zimbabwe dollars to buy a roll of toilet paper.
I don't think that is a good example. Surely you can use the dollars? |
|
|
|
Nor am I the CEO and I am not taking bets...
You should actually take that bet. |
|
|
|
A secret key, k, is a 256-bit number and the corresponding public key is kG, where G is the generator of our elliptic curve group.
Could you explain how to construct the new public key kG + rG = (k + r)G? kG and rG are (x,y) points on the curve--how does one "add" them to produce a meaningful value?. This is a very good question. In fact, this question goes to the central idea behind elliptic-curve cryptography: how do you put a group structure on a curve? However, there are far better explanations of elliptic-curve groups than I could give already out on the net. Just Google "how do elliptic curve groups work?" and I'm sure you'll find a number of excellent answers. If you'd like examples in code, the Bitcoin Armory client and the vanity address generator are good sources. (Or at least ones I've used before and the first that come to mind.) |
|
|
|
|
