That could be a feature of the wallet: do not to display any unconfirmed (or even confirmed) transaction less than x
That is a feature of Bitcoin-Qt. Unconfirmed dust transactions don't enter the memory pool, so they are not relayed, not included in blocks being mined, and not displayed by the wallet. If I recall correctly, if they DO get mined into a block by somebody then they are displayed. Ignoring them and not adding them to the wallet in that case might be a nice feature, although today's dust might be tomorrow's treasure if prices rise another couple orders of magnitude. I wasn't talking about any specific wallet, just that a wallet could just have parameters not to display things. I have always used Armory and it displays the unconfirmed dust transactions. In fact I have 2 of them sitting there for a month. Not sure if this means they are being rebroadcast because most of them drop off after a couple days. I haven't had a chance to investigate why. |
|
|
|
|
Most don't get confirmed so you just see the transaction sitting there.
That could be a feature of the wallet: do not to display any unconfirmed (or even confirmed) transaction less than x
|
|
|
|
|
What if all the miners adopted a selfish mining algorithm? Wouldn't that eliminate any advantage? Maybe if you tweaked the parameters or the algorithm you might gain a slight advantage but then everybody starts tweaking.
|
|
|
|
|
The time that goes by does not matter in the formulas, only the number of blocks. People often say it retargets every 2 weeks or that the reward halving takes place every 4 years but those are just estimates and everything is calculated based on the number of blocks solved.
|
|
|
|
The developers guide already lists the command line arguments. The conf file is a subset of those commands.
Incorrect. The developers reference describes Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) which have nothing to do with the configuration files. Incorrect. I opened the issue proposing that page based on a bitcoin-devel mailing list discussion and, as the issue says, I'm delaying writing that page until there's a setup-free package which allows Bitcoin Core to run as a background service---that means no config file editing will be required. All the information is already within, or will be within, bitcoin.org and there is no purpose in trying to change the Wiki to make a second copy of the same information.
Incorrect, as described above. > if Luke Jr. is going to come in and deny/change the edits so I would not waste my time trying to do that.
Scurrilous. Luke-Jr is the one who suggested you update the Wiki, so he's unlikely to reject a quality contribution. You have already told me the only reason you denied posting the video I had made was because of my "attitude" which is not a legitimate reason.
I disagree. The video promotes your website (Bitcoin.me) and so your behavior is highly relevant. Based on the calumnious statements you've made in the pull request, issues, email correspondence, and this thread, I would recommend people stay away from you and your website. These are the kind of replies you get from the insiders. If they don't like you so they come up with arguments to leave out important documentation. My issues really don't matter that much but they are going to be doing this stuff to Bitcoin businesses who want wallets and services listed there. BTW - Harding is upset over miners because they write about making money and he wants no part of that ... even though that is the key incentive for which all of Bitcoin depends. So we have the Saivann, Harding and Luke-Jr making most of the decisions about what goes up on Bitcoin.org. It has good info but it is basically turning into a donation source for the Foundation. Too few people have control over too much of the resources. |
|
|
|
Investing is a risky business. Always do your homework, don't rush in to decisions and feel confident about your investment before pulling the trigger.
In the case of bitcoin "investments" it isn't just very risky, but it has a negative expected profit in the majority of cases. So why even risk anything? Things will change a lot when some serious broker lets people deposit their bitcoins to invest in the real stock market. That is what I thought too unless you hit a lucky winner. Listen to the Bitpay in Dec 2012 talk about the fees and all the pushback from the audience. It is hard to make a profit in Bitcoin if you just collect fees because everyone expects very low fees. Bitpay investments probably went well but many other companies probably did not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH4rH6wu25U#t=2008 |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin Core configuration files is OT here, this thread is for developer documentation, not user documentation.
This said, as (repeatedly) stated, no permission is required to update the wiki if it is oudated. If someone wants to do the work of duplicating the content and keeping it up to date on bitcoin.org, all this person have to do is to do all the work and convince other contributors it's a good idea, like any other change.
The developers guide already lists the command line arguments. The conf file is a subset of those commands. Bitcoin.org is also doing a page on running your own node (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/issues/410). The page about running your own node was suggested by an insider and approved by you and Garzik without any argument about posting user documentation. You are going to need the conf file explanation on that page so my issue was 100% on topic as I see it. I would suggest putting in with the command line arguments in the developer's guide and linking to it from the "Running your own node page." maybe you can explain more why this "off-topic." All the information is already within, or will be within, bitcoin.org and there is no purpose in trying to change the Wiki to make a second copy of the same information. Especially if Luke Jr. is going to come in and deny/change the edits so I would not waste my time trying to do that. Many people have stopped editing the wiki due to those types of complaints. The "other contributors" are mostly the 2 or 3 people who go around calling anyone who disagrees with them "trolls." There is no viable way to reach any sort of community consensus under the current system. You have already told me the only reason you denied posting the video I had made was because of my "attitude" which is not a legitimate reason. I am starting to see other similar questions being raised, such as which wallet programs get listed, so I am glad this is bringing everything out into the open. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin "investments" are in general just scams. Scams or mining "companies" that, when are honest, aren't even profitable. We had an exception with Just Dice, but it was closed because of government interventionism.
Yes, even if they are not scams they are extremely high risk. You have some real idiot-savants in Bitcoin who know Bitcoin very well but do not have the slightest idea how to run a business or even basic common sense. |
|
|
|
Don't feed the trolls.
Thanks to you and to the foundation for the Developer Guide. Most of the conversation is on-topic. Not trollish behavior I believe. Crowdsourced projects need to air their issues, while achieving consensus on their policies. Thanks. My point is to clear up the confusion. I provide support to new users who have no idea what is going on and they spend all day communicating with experts so issues are seen differently. What I see happening is that people are referencing outdated or incomplete Wiki entries and it is creating confusion. Right now census means 2 or 3 insiders decide everything. Generally the discussion are abruptly cut off in the middle of a discussion once the 2 or 3 insiders comment and make their decision. If you argue you are a "troll " who is "wasting their time." for instance, look at the wiki discussion of Bitcoin addresses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address#Address_balancesseveral of these statements are confusing and they appear to contain editorial comments mixed in with fact similar to incorrect things always Luke-Jr says. While you can't read the balance directly off the blockchain it can be calculated contrary to the way the Wiki describes it. The discussion appears to be associated with luke-Jr's dislike of Blockchain.info so he makes all kinds of statements about Bitcoin addresses to try to make Blockchain.info look bad. As for address reuse Bitcoin was designed so you can use different addresses for each transactions but some users have a specific purpose for address reuse. People who claim Bitcoin was "meant" to be used one way or another are really inserting editorial comments and not fact and they treat Bitcoin like a religion. It is a tool that can be used many different ways and not reusing address may be advisable under some circumstances but you can't make blanket statements like that. If changes are made to the Wiki the same 2 or 3 people who run both the Wiki and Bitcoin.org deny any changes and keep their personal preference which, in this case, is wrong. An argument ensued last week involving someone who pointed to the Wiki Bitcoin address definition and took it as fact. Then you had people pointing to Bitcoin.org and claiming something different based on that description which is completely different. Also, several users are interested in changing their bitcoin.conf settings which is why I raised that issue. The developers often raise the issue that users can change their settings. the Wiki entry is outdated. Now the developers (at least Gregory Maxwell) says having users edit the conf file will cause to many tech support issues and they say users should be using command line. Many users never use command line but they may want to change their setting. For instance, they may wish to connect only to a specific node to prevent their IP from being captured on sites such as blockchain.info. I am no longer allowed to discuss this on Github because the one person who makes the decisions banned me from the entire site. It is apparently the same person holding the sock puppet account who just labeled me a "troll" |
|
|
|
In the US the companies are generally restricted by law to offer only to accredited investors: To qualify as an accredited investor, one must meet one of the three following criteria: 1.Have had an individual annual income of $200,000 for the past two years with an expectation that it will continue 2.Have had a household annual income of $300,000 for the past two years with an expectation that it will continue 3.Have a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding a primary residence Then you have locate companies that need investors. try https://angel.co/ and https://www.secondmarket.com/ to start looking. |
|
|
|
An overall community change of the bitcoin logo will never happen. I support your efforts in designing a "new" logo. Yet this will only be adopted by few and will be recognized by bitcoin users if they run across this logo at a shop or online store, but not used as the main theme for bitcoin's logo.
Which one is the "main" logo, the orange one or the gold one used for this forum? |
|
|
|
Many of the same old Bitcoin Foundation members are making the decisions. They are using some interesting criteria about what gets posted. I ran across some confusion over the settings in .conf and I tried to have the Wiki entry updated and merged with the current developers guide. I was met with all kinds of resistance and told that Bitcoin Core should not even be on the site!
The primary guide is indeed *not* about Bitcoin Core config files, but trying to best describe the protocol(trying to avoid the debate about whether p2p networking is a part of the protocol or not. Config files surely aren't). The guidelines for what is included were designed in the open, and everyone was encouraged to contribute. The fact is that only a few people ended up writing most of it because only a few volunteered. If you want .config stuff included you're going to have to argue your position on this and not just cry about the Bitcoin Foundation. Yes, the site was hijacked from its original purpose which was the site for the Bitcoin Core project. Because it has good SEO it is now being used for other purposes. as for the config file info the commands are already there in the developers guide for the most part. The config file information for end users is on the wiki but it is outdated. I wanted to move the wiki entry, update it, and combine it with the information that is already in the developers guide because it all goes together and bitcoin.org is kept up to date as far as the command line items. Because the Wiki is outdated and information is now being posted at bitcoin.org you have 2 sets of (sometimes) conflicting information. I suggested the stuff be updated and moved to bitcoin.org and I was ready to do it. then Luke-Jr started with a bunch of nonsense and started claiming the site was not for Bitcoin Core and that info should be moved off the site. After that argument Luke-Jr and Saivann told me my video was good but it was not going to be added because of my "attitude." They want to control what I say and do on other issues in exchange for posting the video I developed. the content should be posted on merit, not on deals struck with those who got the site from Satoshi. Of course whoever owns the site can do what they want with it but I object to the claim that it is "community" developed. Basically, they are pushing people away so they can control things for their own purposes. I have seen several people in the past who wanted to participate but they became disenchanted with the way these issues are being handled. Now you have a tiny group of people running the entire site and dictating its content. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin.org is about Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Core. And Bitcoin Core isn't appropriate as the default choice for most new users, so this is actually intended; Bitcoin Core is displayed equally with other wallets.
But ultimately, I think Bitcoin Core should have a dedicated website too like other wallets. But current website is probably "good enough" to not make this a priority.
Bitcoin.org was set up by Satoshi as the site for the Bitcoin Core project. Now a small group of people associated with the Foundation control it use it for promoting certain things. They want the SEO for their purposes so now they say Bitcoin Core should be somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Sorry, it's said in OP that the foundation might pay $2000/month for this project, so it made me thinking that they were driving this spec.
Beside supporting the project, the Foundation is uninvolved with decision-making. Most of this money was allocated to translations. Many of the same old Bitcoin Foundation members are making the decisions. They are using some interesting criteria about what gets posted. I ran across some confusion over the settings in .conf and I tried to have the Wiki entry updated and merged with the current developers guide. I was met with all kinds of resistance and told that Bitcoin Core should not even be on the site! Of course Satoshi created the site just for that purpose. I also tried to get my Bitcoin.me video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UYpbRO8nw) placed alongside the other third party vids on the press page. The guy who runs Bitcoin.org said he liked the video wouldn't add it due to my "attitude." I have been complaining that the site was hijacked by a small group who shut most people out from these decisions. Just what we need in Bitcoin, a small group exercising centralized control who acts as the "attitude police" to try to force people to go along with their ideas. |
|
|
|
Very nice collection of names. Sounds like you have a solid vision for bitcoin.me; looking forward to seeing it live. Best of luck with your endeavors.
The Bitcoin.me video has been released. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UYpbRO8nwI am working on improving the site content. |
|
|
|
You should use the contact information on the web site: eljreceiver@spencerfane.comI would do that right away. The FTC has been notified of all the money spent here for all those ads so maybe some of those funds can be recovered to help pay the refunds of the users who clicked from here and lost out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
