|
Related to this, I would be more interested in web hosts that are reliable for this kind of thing. What hosts do all the big pools use?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question about how the CrowdFunding platform would operate (I am new to this idea, but have heard of Kickstarter vaguely). A person submits his proposal for his project and seeks funding. People pledge different amounts of coins to help the person reach his target. Say the target is reached, then what happens? Does the person just receive the funds? If not, when? And who judges if the resulting work by the fund raiser satisfies the objectives laid out in his proposal?
|
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders... For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted. That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts). I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me... The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money. What happened was obvious. Someone either really hates WDC for some reason or was bribed to vote it down. Whatever happened, we can't change it now. There could be a legitimate reason which is not sinister. However it's certainly not fair nor representative of the community, as proven by the forum poll. |
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
Well, one obvious thing to point out is that forum members are not all Vircurex shareholders... For all we know, those that voted on the forum could be an entirely different set of people to the Vircurex shareholders that voted. That is obvious but with respect not relevant to anything. If you poll 600 people in a presidental election and the results are roughly 300 vs 300, and then you poll 600 different people and the results are 570 vs 30 then something is up. If each voter has an equal count in the voting process the chance of that occurring mathematically is extremely slim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) if you are unfamiliar with the math behind these concepts). I'm not familiar with how the Vircurex voting process was carried out, if it is true that votes were weighted according to the number of shares the voter has then that could potentially explain it. For example if someone has 90% of the shares and voted no against WDC then that is going to massively affect the vote count. But that doesn't seem very fair to me... The strangeness is compounded since WDC has 59BTC of trading volume in the last 24 hours on mcx now, and while that is a higher than average day it has been pulling in good trading volume figures since it launched (I would bet much higher than DGC, lifetime), and trading volume is what makes the exchange money. |
|
|
|
|
What regulation would such an exchange have to abide to, if it wasn't serving US customers?
I know in the US you have the BSA, MSB's and money transmission licenses, as well as any bonds. What are the terms I should be looking at to comply with EU regulation?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
WDC won the forum vote by a very small margin. Yet on the Vircurex shareholder vote WDC gets 95% of the downvotes? Either something went wrong with the votes or this is not a representative voting system.
I own a large amount of both coins.
|
|
|
|
Not even anerror now, totally offline. DDOS?
Remote server or file not found
They've been goxed. |
|
|
|
|
LTC going on mtgox is good for LTC long term because it will allow a legit payment processor to work with LTC. This will cause a tidal wave of LTC vendor acceptance. People are going to get burned badly when they see the price of ltc double on mtgox and panic dump, because the price is going to more than double once we enter mtgox territory, it will be a whole new ballgame.
|
|
|
|
{3} In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.
The key point of this definition comes down to the final part of the sentence: 'or other value that substitutes for currency'. Because the exchange I am talking about here accepts a de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person, but it's in exchange for another virtual currency (not currency or funds). So does a virtual currency count as a "value that substitutes for currency"? If it does then the exchange is a money transmitter. |
|
|
|
Just locate your exchange outside U.S.
Apparently the laws still apply if you serve U.S. customers, even if the company and the servers are not based in the U.S. |
|
|
|
|
I've always wondered something about 51% attacks. Take Litecoin as an example - 18gh network hash at present.
Does one need 9gh to 51% attack it or 18gh? The reason being, if an entity attacks with 9gh, that makes the total network hash 27gh and of course 9 is no longer half of 27.
So does an entity need 9gh to attack with success, or is it 18gh?
|
|
|
|
Bumping this topic due to the increasing emergence of virtual currency only exchanges: coinmarket.io dgex.com coins-e.com cryptsy.com openex.pw coinedup.com mcxnow.com vircurex.com Some of these exchanges are doing very large volumes (>1000 BTC) of trades per day. Yet none have money transmission licenses? Are they just hoping US regulation won't apply to them? Or is it likely they are exempt? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi all, I am seeking opinions and consensus on whether a bitcoin exchange which only allows trading between bitcoin and other virtual currencies (eg litecoin, namecoin etc) would require a money transmitter license in the US. My understanding based on the recent fincen guidance is such an exchange would certainly count as an 'exchanger' and thus need to register as a money service business but it is unclear to me that a money transmitter license is required (this is the recent guidance I have been reading: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html) I have had slightly different answers from the different people I have consulted with privately on an informal basis. I would also be interested to know what people think of an exchange such as cryptsy.com, which is an exchange business model I am talking about (no US dollar deposits). They do not appear to have a money transmitting license of any nature. |
|
|
|
It's not easy as that, it would be cheap coins if it stayed at that price tag for day, two or three... but it's there for long time and many, many "cheap" coins are bought and that makes price rise harder as dumps will occur very often.
I think problem is in too big coin production compared with still low difficulty so coin is still profitable to mine even at this price. It's gonna take some time to move it from there as lot of coins in miners hands are stopping people to even try to push the price up. It was tried only once and people started dumping very soon after it started.
PPCoin was 2 cents for many months and 16 million 'cheap' coins were created. You've seen the price pattern since then for PPCoin in the last 3 months I am sure. |
|
|
|
what exactly are yall tryin to show with your clients? Blanked out? I dont get the joke.
Read OP. |
|
|
|
This is only the most recent example, but something like that happens every day. Someone post something which is extremely shady, and possibly without any apparent benefit (at least scammers usually try to lure you with greed, here there's nothing). This was so patently an infected file that I was amazed how many people jumped in anyway without thinking, leaving their brains completely powered off. Me and others posted warnings, and some people were still jumping in nonetheless. I find this both entertaining and interesting on a social perspective, it is like looking at lemmings jumping off a cliff, without even the excuse that they might be stupid rodents: those are people who willingly refused to think, knowing that this would make them risk a lot of money and time, without any benefit, and did that anyway. What do you think about that? Do you consider it's ok to exploit them, since they took efforts into being exploited? Or at least it's partly justifiable? Or do you think it's still 100% wrong nonetheless? Irregardless of what you think about the exploiter, do you think they should receive some extra punishment, since they fueled a system which affected more users after them? (i.e. somebody notices that someone is downloading, so he stupidly assumes it means it's ok and downloads too...) There are stupid people everywhere and I would count yourself among them if you think a victim's stupidity makes exploiting them justifiable. |
|
|
|
|
coinchoose.com has the adjusted amounts accounting for stales
|
|
|
|
We have a new merchant, coingas.com, make sure to check it out. You can buy steam games directly for DGC.
That's an awesome site. Glad to see some vendors accepting DGC. I was expecting a bunch of crap games, tbh, but those are new releases. Excellent.  For the lazy, www.coingas.comWow. DGC gaining real world usage already. I am going to spread the word about coingas |
|
|
|
Time to put you on ignore.
+1 +2 |
|
|
|
Shitcoin that had a 60% instamine on day one. Why would you want to buy?
60% of what? LTC had 10100 blocks mined on the first day, which is 30% of all outstanding coins at the 1 month mark (approx 30k blocks mined at the one month mark), I guess LTC must be shit too? Agreed, as a matter of fact bitbar has been the only one of the new coins to bring something new to the table and that has been consistently more profitable to mine then bitcoin. Cannot wait until it hits btc-e  As a curiosity, what was new about it? It's pretty much the slowest coin out there. That's all I can think of. I take my question back. It was innovative because it perfected the biased instamine. If I remember correctly, it was announced by xorxor, who started mining the coin with the creator at the start. Then everyone else was allowed to jump on after that. 2,000 coins were minted within the first 4 hours of that post, with the first two days pulling in 2,500+ coins. Since that day, only ~500 bitbars have been minted. The only competition with that kind of instamine scam is mincoin, where the first few hundred (or was it an even thousand?) blocks were worth 500 coins each, and then every coin since then has been worth 2 coins. Your math is wrong, there's 3400 bar outstanding, how did you arrive at 500? it's least 800 or more. At least with BTB, the instamine is not by design, but by protocol. The protocol says the more popular the coin gets, the less reward is produced by block(same as PPC and NVC). So the amount of reward is directly related to how many people mining it. Early adopter is key to every coin, LTC when one month old, has 33% instamine on the 1st day (10100 blocks mined on 1st day). so what? the amount is tiny today, anyone care LTC had a 33% instamine nowdays? no, because that's tiny now compared to the size of LTC outstanding. It's because BTB is based on the ppcoin source code. 2 million of those were created in the first 2 days and then production slowed down dramatically... 9 months later that 2 million is a much smaller % of the coin supply now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
