Hmm, I have been running Hobonickels for quite a while, on and off. Every now and then I forget about it.

The other day I started my client up. It didnt seem to work well and after a while I noticed HARD FORK UPGRADE!!

So I did but it still didnt work well, it re-downlownloaded the blockchain taking several days but never caught up.

So I started a fresh installation , it synced, shutdown and then and then put my wallet.dat in that and restarted.

Now I have 0.001 HBN and roughly 5700 unconfirmed worth of pos mined transactions.

Unless I am mistaken I have just lost the entire contents of my wallet due to the 1.5 hard fork, or is there a way to recover this?
These are all dated within minutes of me starting the 1.4 client on the 31st Jan, after the hard fork on 17th.

No I didnt have any idea this was going on and I still dont understand why it was necessary.
I thought such things were generally done slowly and with plenty of warning?

This post id about the situation in the United Kingdom.

Lloyds is certainly very Bitcoin hostile. (See my post about how they shut down an account I used for Bitcoin related activity. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581747.0)  They confirmed that they would under no circumstances allow me to open a business account for my business which is a Uk legal business.

I then asked every other highstreet bank in the uk if I could open a business account. I made no secret of anything. All quickly declined before the process had got very far. Every high street bank? Well almost. HSBC I did not ask because everyone said they were generally useless and indeed they failed to get back to me, but I did't ask them. I asked several overseas banks as well such as bank of China, Bank of Cypres, all have Uk high street branches in some place, but the answer was a similar no.

Most said it was either their choice of their choice as a result of government guidelines.

One bank does for sure. Its Lloyds Bank (Isle of Mann.) But although I spent well over an hour trying to get to talk to them eventually when I did get through we couldn't hear each other. Perhaps the string on the telephone system over them mountains wasn't good and tight, I don't know. but I was put off sufficiently by the difficulty of getting through that I did not follow this up. I think also they only deal with very large accounts but they did not tell me that. (Or anything useful at all actually!)

Yes it looks like you can - but you can't, it doesnt work. And my understanding is this cannot be fixed because of the way the hardware is configured to use memory (RAM/ROM) . YMMV.

You can (most likely) configure your router to configure a port of your choice for each ant miner and to translate this to 421 the default ssh port for the address of the miner. You will probably need static addresses for the antminer.

But hold on, as far as I know it is not possible to change the default root password on the antminer so that this will give anyone who knows your ip address or scans it and discovers the ports, access to your antminers. I suppose that the worst that they can do is reconfigure the pool for payment, and so long as you detected this it may not be too big a problem, but I would want to be careful about this and would not really be too happy about it.

1. The Vision
Single generators are often connected to a maze of parallel connected loads. The generator is conected to the prime mover (the engine) through a regulator that attempts to regulate the voltage. A flywheel, or the momentum inherent in the system ensures that the voltage cannot change too suddenly even in the face of a sudden change in load, because energy is supplied from or dumped to the flywheel (resulting in a gradual change in speed) when a sudden load change occurs and this change in speed can then be dealt with by the engine regulator by for example changing the fuel settings to the prime mover so that the fuel being used is still in check with the electricity being demanded. This is a continuous process and although of itself may not be perfect (lights may still flicker when large loads are turned on or off) combining this with some electronic regulation based around the generator can provide a very stable and compact system that works well within its parameters. 

Any number of loads can be connected so long as the system stays within its rated load and the system will cope pretty well with this.

A more complex system that involves more than one generator needs more complex regulation because not only does the load for the system have to be met by the combined outputs from the generators but each generator needs to supply power within its own parameter set. Nonetheless multiple generator sets have been common in medium sized installations for decades, and a simple example of the need for this could be that during times of low demand only one generator is run. But its does get complicated: you dont know what the future demand is going to be, it may take time to “switch on” a generator set because it does not start immediately and there is a cost concerned with running it if no or little power is being used. Such uncertainties always make it possible that small networks can have power outages caused by poor load estimation.

A further complication comes when you have multiple distributed generator sets along with distributed loads. In this case you want to minimise the transmitted power (since power transmission is in itself wasteful) but still ensure that the local load is met and that all generator sets are running within their parameters. (ie not overloaded!!) Such a situation describes the national grid in this country, and although it works well it depends massively on a stable political system and on massive centralised injections of money to set up and build in the first place and to expand the system as needed. There is no chance to do this in a “small” way, or in a way where the incidental cost of introducing a new generator is something that can be done by the man in the street. It is reminiscent of the way many industries were run in the 60's – big nationalised corporations. I believe that there is a better way to do this, particularly in parts of the world where there is NO infrastructure whatsoever, and a high population density. A key part of this is to allow someone who has a generator to trade power with his neighbour but this has not happened except in an informal way because there is no “internet of power supply”

This project aims to examine what would technically be needed to create a geographically separated network of generator sets which could be run by individuals in their own right. These generator sets would supply power to the owner's house or community as needed, or if additional capacity is available or needed, and at a price agreed or set by the operator would import or export power externally as needed.  The price set could depend on the many variables such as the price of diesel, the current efficiency of the generator set, the time of day (perhaps nightime noise is a factor, perhaps its not.)  The generator sets would be interconnected with cables that would include a data connection so that off-chain bitcoin micro transactions would occur on a regular basis as power was supplied.

2. Economic Considerations
I envisage each set being able to accept power from up to 2 external sources as well as generating power itself. In addition (since this is technically easier) there could be a greater number of power outputs, which would likely include the two inputs. So lets imagine a set with two Input-output (IO)  connections and two “output  only” (OO)  power connections and a power distribution (PD) output connection.

The IO connections can be connected via a cable to another IO connection on another set or to an OO connection. OO connections can only be connected to IO connections (which will remain in input mode). PD connections are paralell connected to the local network, possibly via conventional meters and this is considered the local load. The IO and OO connectors have data as well as power connectors that will be used for negotiating supply and demand parameters as well as sending payments.  Special cables supplied for the system carrying data and power would be used for distribution.

Negotiations between OO and IO connections about supply and demand can occur and use rules built into each set that change the current price. Each set determines what it will generate depending on these rules and would probably come with a set of preconfigured rules that involve things like the cost of diesel, the importance to be given to the local load, weather it is desireable to run at night etc, and even how much diesel is in the tank.  Arbitrage is possible, if the price of one of the two suppliers drops below any of the other output connectors, then this power can be transmitted at a profit. Its highly likely that at night the local generator set will not want to run, or if it does most of the power will be supplied externaly for bitcoins. During the day power can be “brought in” from outside if the current set does not have enough capacity for the load. As well as paying for power used or supplied, its also possible that permission to use a greater amount of power or a promise of standby capacity could be traded as well, although this is harder to verify and perhaps more complicated than needed.

In summary, designing a suitable generator set that can be connected over a few hundred yards to other identical sets could bring into existence a complete new micro power industry which could be extremely useful in parts of the world that lack infrastructure. The single unit could be expanded into a family of different capacity generator sets, with adaptors to plug into an existing  national grid, where one exists. Eventually, it could even be that this technology displaces big players, but such a thing is of course a very long way off.  Other forms of generation such as wind, solar and hydro could be brought into the system, all using Bitcoin as a currency for negotiation of supply and demand.  But the first thing is to design at least in principle a small integrated generator that can be charged with Bitcoins or diesel fuel and can use these commodities to control electricity flow between its input and outputs.

 3. Technical Considerations
As has been mentioned above a single generator can easily supply a mixed load but having more than one power source demands more careful control.  From a network point of view, each generator would need a control board and this would need in practice to have at least two inputs for other generators.  I imagine that the generators would be single phase AC 240v for local distribution  and that each of the inputs would have its own AC-AC inverter as part of the mechanism that would control incoming power. This avoids the need for synchronicity between distant generators and the problems that this can cause, and modern solid-state electroniccs makes such things increasingly cheap to produce. I think that initially 240v distribution would be sufficient, envisioning quite short distribution runs. But higher voltage could be used but would likely increase the cost of the generator sets. DC distribution at around 240v could also be an option and would eliminate capacitive loss in the cable, would mean that transformers could not be used to extend distribution cables and would probably have a neutral effect on the cost of the AC-AC converter (which would now be and DC-AC converter! )    
 The OO connectors on the other hand would (probably) be supplied at the local phase.  This would be metered, and would be sent with instructions as to how much power was allowed to be taken in any given time period.  If this command was abused then the supply would be cut.  In this way hardware is minimised since the control on the output can be a simple on-ooff control. The time periods involved could be quite short, perhaps 10 seconds.  Our designed generator sets would use the solid state control on the input to ensure that comands from a distant station were never flouted in this way. Although of course, if the local station has a demand crisis of its own, it would need to have pre-negotiated permission to take more power to satisfy that.

The generator set could be connected to the internet, which would facilitate chargiong with bitcoins and publishing off-line payments, but does not need to be except on an occasional basis since it is connected by private wire (or optical cable) to each generating set that it is connected to for power distribution purposes.

The cables also would need to be specially designed. They could be provided in various lengths, and designed so that breaking the data connection would isolate the cable at its source. Extension by an adaptor or just careful design is also possible.  Maximum capacity is yet to be specified. 

4. What Next
I am posting this idea for comment because the short answer is I don't know. One way forward would be to get a professional power engineer to specify exactly the hardware needed, and industrial trailer – case, connectors (to take power and data) measurement devices, control electronics and computer. Finding someone able to do this and help make some of the initial design compromises I could see as the first stage. We'd need some hardware for testing and then perhaps manufacture a limited number of sets for sale as the 3rd stage.

ShakyhandsBTCer, Baitty,  If you have something to add, please read at least the first page: the accounts were not overdrawn.
It was certainly bitcoins that upset them.  What drew attention to the account was many small deposits and larger overseas payments.

I have now shut down my Lloyds trading account they dont want it and it seems dangerous to keep it open longer.

I have approached every other High Street bank and asked if I can open a Business account and told them that the business involves Bitcoins. The answer has been in all cases, a rapid, "No You can't".
Even a few unusual banks like Bank of Cyprus and Bank of China, (Yes, they are Uk high street banks as well.)

I believe now that the current situation is that if you run a business that involves bitcoins you cannot be upfront about this with your bank or they will shut you down. They will most likely do that anyway once they discover.

This is a script for backing up wallets for possibly multiple coins from the BitcoinQT client/wallet.

Its a basic script - makes backups when needed and not otherwise and keeps 10 backups which are rotated per coin.
There is the possibility to rsync the entire backup to another machine.

Change the config settings near the start, satisfy yourself that there is nothing untoward going on (there isn't but you should look at the script before you use it anyway!!)
Run it from your crontab every half hour or every few days.

You can do wallback.sh -v for additional info
and/or
wallback.sh -n for a dry run.

Here is the script:

Enjoy ;-)

Accounts being overdrawn was not an issue in my case, nor I suspect 5flags.

So I approached Metrobank, I was honest about the nature of the business (fool!!) and they spent a week deliberating during which time I understand it went up several tiers of management, before the answer came back, NO. And they said that they did not want to bank any business in a number of classes, and one of those is bitcoin. I asked for another example and he gave the example of the adult industry.

So, I really would like to know which banks are not funny about Bitcoin, preferably without spending a week finding out in each case.

Does anyone have advice as to which Uk bank to use?

os2sam - Thank you for that. I had looked for such a thing, obviously ineffectively!! I shall try this.

Its an Ubuntu 12.04 system by the way.

I have had a problem running a full node ever since I unblocked the port that it needs. (Before that the client always had about 8 connections.) Now the number of connections gradually rises over a period of a few days if I let it untill there are over a hundred connections, and then my screen freezes and I have to do a hard reset. This may be caused by low memory on my machine.

If I could limit it to a sane number of connections I and perhaps others would run a node all the time.

Suggestions?

Well after several interviews with different bank managers which felt increasingly like Kafkas "The Trial" (You are accused but we will not tell you what you are accused of or what the consequences will be.) I discovered that I had the right to appeal which I did. The rules of the appeal process, I was told (again, nothing in writing!!)  was that I must take printed documents (no computer records allowed) to my account opening branch in Reading, and show these to the manager there. This I did, returning with further details on a second day. She cross checked a couple of random points from my 100 pages or so of data and then sent it of to the "Closures Committee" in Birmingham.  The decision that came back was that they would not right now close my accounts, so I won the appeal. Even so they were not planning on communicating this to me in writing. The accounts will be reviewed in 3 months time when it can all kick off again, without the right for appeal that time.

There is much that I could say here that seems odd to me. For example at one stage a statement was made much along the lines of "Lloyds bank wants to be a domestic bank, not an international bank"  This seems extraordinary to me when surely if Lloyds is to survive it should be a bank that does what its customers want.  They suggested that HSBC might be better for the type of thing I was doing. Now that, although an informal and off the cuff suggestion, is an interesting one, If you believe the advertising of HSBC then they are the bank that would know and adapt to local conditions.

Another strange comment that was made was that the decision (to close my accounts) was being taken for purely commercial reasons. Now I have always paid all my bank charges. Every day I have made an overseas transfer I have paid the amount they asked me to pay (Usually £17.50) I have also suffered terribly because of Lloyds lousy exchange rates on SEPA transfers. In other words they have set the price of the services they offer and I have chosen to use them, how can they then say that they want to close my account for commercial reasons, it seems like that cannot be true.  If they (for example) lost money on overseas transfers then they should charge me more, but that's their problem not mine!!

Its clear that so far as Lloyds is concerned, a business account is what I need, and would have avoided much of this. But most businesses would have been happy to offer advice about which product their customers should be using but Lloyds it seems do not offer this type of advice. 

I will most likely keep my Lloyds accounts for the moment while opening a new account with a more sympathetic bank. I think with at least one potential bank, perhaps HSBC I shall actually tell them that this is going to be part of what I do and see what they say.

Its been an interesting experience, and at times very frightening, because nobody is telling you what the implications are, but it seems that I could and still can just transfer to another bank so perhaps the answer is that the only implication to be drawn from this is that as a Bank Lloyds are still in the 18th century, after all they have not even understood email or mobile phones or customer use of computers in a way that anyone would regard as sane. What chance do they have with crypto currency?  Hell they missed a fantastic opportunity with paypal (as did all uk banks) to "be" paypal.

Got a question:

lynn_402 says


Not fully understanding POS yet, I'd like to ask is this true?

I have used Bitstamp a lot and have always found them honest reliable and efficient.

But recently they have started an initiative called KYC that involves answering questions than no sensible person could answer truthfully - like "What is the source of the funds which you have so far deposited to your Bitstamp account? Please provide any financial documentation which can confirm how the funds sent to your Bitstamp account were acquired." and also questions about the future and purpose which noone can answer any way.

I refused this, and had my deposits returned to me, but - not Bitstamps fault I'll admit - in the process I lost about £800 due to exchange rate moves and differential rates. Now I can make no fiat withdrawals or deposits until they change their minds.

I am a long term user of Bitsamp and fully verified, so this is a real loss to me, but until they change their minds I cannot see how I can use BS again. There are many others who have complained about this initiative as well, and presumably they have no choice about this, but I do feel strongly that the existing questions as asked are untenable and they need to concentrate harder on making something more palatable.

So very disappointed right now with Bitstamp, but if you are not subject to their KYC rules, then all is good.

I am waiting for the Lloyds complaint procedure to see if that produces anything and then will go to the Financial Ombudsman. My situation sounds very similar to you 5flags. A question: is your Lloyds account abusiness or personal one. So far as I imagine, this is in fact the issue.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, the overdrawn balance is within the allowed amount.  The allowed overdraft is higher than this. The other two accounts are in credit. No account has been over any overdraft limit. If this was the problem, they could just change the overdraft limit!!

I have been a Lloyds bank customer since around 1978. Last week I received the following letter from my bank:



There were similar letters for my other 2 Lloyds bank accounts.  The first account I use as my personal bank account, the second is a joint account with my wife, and the third I use for Bitcoin trading through Bittylicious.  This account has been open about 4 months. Its had quite a bit of money go through it but in fact its the same money going round in circles, and I make a small percentage on what goes through.

A visit to the bank elicited only one more piece of information – they would not tell me why they had done this, under their T&C they are entitled to do this without explanation.

This is quite a serious issue for me – my Bittylicious trades can switch banks just like that but I really would like to keep my own bank account, and my wife is livid and does not understand at all.  I think the mistake I have made here is using a personal account to run a business through, although such a thing is not (at all) illegal, banks apparently do not like it. I imagined they would tell me that the account needed to be upgraded to a business account if it did, but I had no other communication from them.  But I dont know what the problem here is, if its Bitcoin related, or not. I could add that the accounts have always been “well run” overdraft limits have been respected etc.  I feel like I am in a Kafka novel, accused but no-one will tell me what I am accused of, and noway for me to even verify if I did do what I am being accused of, because I don't even know what it is!

I'd like to open a dialog, but at the moment they are not talking. Any advice would be appreciated.  

Sell your body - about the only legal way I can think of.

I am in the same position.

Dont really know how to comply without posting massive amounts of personal data.

I think I am going to ask for returnb of money and they try to find out specifically whats required.

Advice?

Fair comment.