Looks like his bitoind died - along with the cron job that was supposed to automatically restart it if that happened.
Rest of the site works fine (try going to it in a different browser if you're already logged in - and it'll work fine until you log in again).
Yep, it doesn't affect trade really, just deposits and withdraws. I wonder which time zone burnside is in? |
|
|
|
|
In communism, the state owns everything.
In Ripple, the company behind it owns or owned every single XRP in existence.
They give it out to people in rations, for them to spend on things. Like an allowance.
While keeping the vast majority of wealth for themselves.
They know that if they want their 50 billion ripples to be worth anything, they need to give it out to people to bait them in supporting ripple.
Meanwhile, as ripple is closed source they can make any change including changing how many coins you have.
Ripple is communism. Mining, while it's not evenly distributed, is provably fair and is capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
What the bitcoin network could do is make changes to discourage "spammy" transactions like SatoshiDICE. For example, this could be done by weighing the bitcoin days more heavily, and require a more substantial fee if the bitcoin days are lower. This should not be ruled out, but it shouldn't mean the end of S.DICE - just a small to moderate drop in the amount of players.
|
|
|
|
Again, this sounds great if you just have a few hops. But once you get to a large amount, people will start realizing they're losing all their money because of covering for scammers, people who died, etc. The number of hops is irrelevant. How many people you trust and how reliable they are has nothing to do with how many hops a payment takes. No, it is relevant because people will stop using Ripple the more times they have to pay for other people. The more hops there are, the more likely this is going to happen. Holding ripple is just about the worst thing you can do right now. |
|
|
|
|
By requiring ripple accounts to have at least 200 XRP for it to be functioning, OpenCoin Inc (who I feel is hardly open) is creating an artificial demand for the premined XRP (Ripples). This is akin to tax required in the nation's fiat currency to artificially create use cases for that currency.
|
|
|
|
Confirmed!
guys it shows on block explorer but still does not in Satoshi client ???. (not even in the unconfirmed). Any one knows why. Thanks.
Might take a while I guess? If it shows on the block explorer, it's there :) |
|
|
|
|
Yes, you did. I'm not sure but you might actually get a negative interest rate, I think Bitfinex charges ~2% fees of the total balance.
I would not suggest setting it at market rate - all I need to do to game the system is create a 0.01 btc loan offer at 0% or 0.01%.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't mind, I might be able to continue this "free vanity address faucet" - oclvanitygen works on mine GPU.
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere that too many addresses gum up the wallet. I definitely don't want to see performance issues on the hot wallet down the road.
Is this incorrect?
Not really. It doesn't matter if it's 10 transactions to 1 deposit address or 1 transaction each to 10 deposit addresses - it's still 10 transactions stored in the local wallet. Having a lot of addresses / accounts don't impact performance much. It's not just live performance I'm worried about. Everything gets increasingly harder the larger the wallet.dat gets. Backups take longer. Backups take more space. Bitcoind restarts take longer. etc. Also, if (just guessing) a transaction is 0.5 K, and an address key pair is 1K, then: 10 transactions to 1 deposit address: 6 kb 10 transactions to 10 deposit addresses: 15 kb The site has only been up 3 months and without having an address per deposit the wallet.dat is almost 30M. Sounds like it would be more like 70M going with a separate address per deposit. Gox must have a massive wallet... or maybe they have a custom bitcoind that uses a SQL backend with sharding. I did a quick test run, just for fun. Here's a wallet.dat with just one or two addresses and a few transactions: 92K 2013-02-28 07:54 wallet.dat Here's the same wallet.dat after doing getnewaddress 1000 times: (for i in `seq 1 1000`; do ./bitcoind getnewaddress; done) 548K 2013-02-28 08:00 wallet.dat So every 2000 deposits would be ~1M to the wallet. I know that doesn't seem like much but it quickly multiplies out when you consider that I back up the wallet at fairly short regular intervals. It quickly becomes a storage nightmare.  I'm fairly certain now that I'd need to roll out a custom bitcoind with an alternate "wallet" database backend before I could comfortably support this long-term. Anyone with insider info at Gox about how they do it?  You don't have a dedicated bitcoind server with a quite few gigs of space? |
|
|
|
Remember to sign up at terrawallet.com to use an online wallet!
Wow, nice web wallet! Do you have sendmany support? Would be great if you could add it (if you own it). |
|
|
|
|
Nope, this is the first time I heard of JonDoFox actually.
|
|
|
|
One thing that's glaringly missing in bitcoin stock exchanges is option trading.* Not just the BTCUSD options on MPEx, but option trading on the assets - for example S.DICE. There's nowhere to place call and put options, or get leverage for most assets with any actual value. *I am aware that Cryptostocks has this, https://cryptostocks.com/shareoptions but I'm not sure if it's because of the exchange having about two serious assets or if the bitcoin community isn't interested. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
That's great, so why don't you purchase some LTC and make even more profit without the 100% APR?
The answer to that lies in the link I posted. I'm already doing this with my own LTC. I'd like to leverage up. I just saw that you're pretty much converting LTC to BTC, and expecting the LTC prices to keep falling. It won't forever. |
|
|
|
|
This is just a https connection. Nothing to be worried about.
|
|
|
|
|
Great, so Krax could take your idea and make his own business?
|
|
|
|
|
Your chart is great, I spotted about 12 bubble crashes there.
|
|
|
|
They have nothing to do with bitcoin so I don't think it's allowed in this board. Through, why are you paying more than 100% APR?
Because I've been making more than 100% APR at btc-e.com. So far so good. That's great, so why don't you purchase some LTC and make even more profit without the 100% APR? You're going to have to do it regardless if there's an unexpected price movement. |
|
|
|
What's the right way to get developer / reputed member's attention for my post
I believe you did. No. This can't be done.
Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do. Sorry.
Transactions work in the way we make it work. We do have similar constructs in Bitcoin ecosystem; like, nlocktime. Really, I didn't get any valid negative points from that thread. Most of the posts are either from me, or people saying it is not possible. No one explained me how to keep single address for receiving funds, even some casual usage could leak private key, like unencrypted wallet. So, there are two ways to do this. One, implementing it into Bitcoin client / protocol / transaction, or external (like a firstbits variant) Actually you got your answer - cannot be done without changing the current bitcoin protocol. So no need to push the issue further, if you want to prove your point you're free to implement it yourself. Then you can provide a patch to bitcoin developers for review. Cheers. +1. Sure, it's *possible*, just like how everything is possible, but it'll require a lot of changes and simply won't be a good idea to implement. This idea is one of them. |
|
|
|
Part of it might be that the early investors you speak of are all but cashed out.
Source to back up your generalizing statement? |
|
|
|
|
They have nothing to do with bitcoin so I don't think it's allowed in this board. Through, why are you paying more than 100% APR?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
