When you call getwork do you specify the transactions you want to include?
Currently, Bitcoin figures that out on its own. As for your other questions, I'm not really understanding what you are asking. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't want us deleting a Silk Road thread, make sure you don't start getting too specific. When I saw the thread, it was a mess.
That being said, if you still have a continued interest in a thread, we will be happy to take the time to edit and restore them. To make this easier next time, I'll probably leave a redirect behind so you know who you need to contact.
|
|
|
|
Put simply, your client always assumes that it will find a block first until it doesn't. Then it just moves on to the next one.
I hope this makes sense....
This is what I was looking for. You (your client) chooses what transactions to put into the block except that it has to have a generation transaction that represents what you would do with the 50 BTC assuming you are the one that solved the block, correct? Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll go put it up on the wiki. That is, indeed, correct. |
|
|
|
The question now is: How can the block have the generation transaction when generation has happened yet?
It's much simpler than you think it is. First off, a block is generated by your client locally using whatever transactions it knows and feels like using, as well as a transaction for yourself to claim the block reward plus fees. Your client then attempts to "solve" this block. Only if it is "solved", does whatever was in the block matter to the rest of the network. Put simply, your client always assumes that it will find a block first until it doesn't. Then it just moves on to the next one. I hope this makes sense.... |
|
|
|
|
The first two are one and the same. The third one I can't easily identify on first glance, however, it is unlikely to have been an ewallet. I see none of the signs you'd typically see in a shared-wallet scenario. But then again, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
I know this seems kind of silly at this point, but we need all the information we can get. Could you guys post proof of payment (screenshots are preferred) as well as all correspondence (preferably timestamped, along with the relevant time zone) with Hollie and Stefanie Andrea?
Also, here's all I can reveal at this time:
Hollie and Stefanie Andrea were indeed both under the control of the same person throughout this issue. However, there is evidence to suggest that Hollie might have been hacked. Additionally, Hollie's signature and Personal Text was not added by any of the administrators.
|
|
|
|
I know big T is the admin I was curious as to the hosting.
I think it's still sirius. |
|
|
|
The investigation proved that there was no evidence that he was a scammer.
so what kind of "investigation" did you guys do? if the guy got the BTC, did not ship the item, and never returned to say a single thing, it's pretty obvious. what did you guys have to investigate, and how did you do it? 1. There is no evidence that any Bitcoins were ever sent. 2. There is no evidence that, if the Bitcoins were sent, you guys aren't lying to get someone marked as a scammer. None of you are reputable. 3. There is strong evidence that this guy doesn't scam people. Although no response to our query was received, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. In order to mark someone as a scammer, the evidence has to be pretty strong. That is not the case in this thread. Of course, I would never personally buy something from this guy after this. |
|
|
|
Tiny cosmetic "feature" request: If the user starts the app once a day, the syncing progress bar hoovers around 99% without any movement for a few minutes. I think it would be better if the progress bar would always start at 0% and can therefor show some movement. What I mean: the old (already downloaded) block count is represented by 0% and the up-to-date block count is 100%. Now the casual user can see some progress bar movement, and all is well  To prevent a massive amount of support requests if you add this, be sure not to use this behavior until the client thinks that they've completed the initial download of blocks. Otherwise, if someone turns off their client in the middle of the initial download, they might think that the client restarted the download instead of continuing it. However, you'd also then need to visually differentiate progress between the initial download and updates. (different progress bar color?) |
|
|
|
If you're walking into a store you're going to expect verification in less than a minute, that's what you get with credit cards or cash. While you are correct with cash, you are not with credit cards. Credit cards take at least a day to actually confirm. The "instant" verification that credit cards do is no different from a 0/unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction. No it's not. An authorization confirms that you have held the funds on the card. After an authorization you do a capture to actually have the funds transferred, and then they will use ACH to transfer funds to your account, which takes a few days but that's just the time an ACH takes. The settlement of all your transactions happens at the end of the day, but an authorization guarantees the funds are good. Fixed it for you: "No it's not. A Bitcoin transaction confirms that you have held the funds in your wallet. After a Bitcoin transaction you wait for a block to include the transaction to actually have the funds transferred, and then it will start accruing confirmations, which takes a few hours but that's just the time a Bitcoin transaction takes. The settlement of all your transactions happens when a block includes them, but a Bitcoin transaction guarantees the funds are good." |
|
|
|
Until a moderator comes along that doesn't like your particular point of view and uses the banhammer to silence your voice.
I'm actually permbanned from an IRC network I used for quite literally less than five minutes. Someone asked a question in a channel, and I knew the answer. Thanks to lag, I answered about simultaneously with an IRCop. We had different answers. He informed the channel I was wrong, but I had included a link in case anyone wanted more information. When everyone said, "Um, actually, the people who make the equipment and posted the reference manual he just linked seem to agree with him..." And off I go, with "People who make me look bad aren't welcome here" as the kill message. He actually banned my entire state on that ISP -- and the ban's still there five years later. (Along with like five users on a good day, from what I'm told.) That is the main reason why the Moderation team here can't directly ban anyone. All bans have to be reviewed. |
|
|
|
If you're walking into a store you're going to expect verification in less than a minute, that's what you get with credit cards or cash. While you are correct with cash, you are not with credit cards. Credit cards take at least a day to actually confirm. The "instant" verification that credit cards do is no different from a 0/unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction. |
|
|
|
|
This will not be changed. You guys are lucky that we even have that forum, since it was that or we start deleting the posts.
Seriously, just move your discussions over to the SolidCoin forum.
|
|
|
|
Its easier than that. You can moderate by not allowing coments claiming something without proof or citation, and even more important not allowing personal attacks (unless they can clearly proof what they are saying about the other forum member is true).
The citations of Bruce's own words have been shown multiple times. What further proof would you like, exactly? I have to say, if it wasn't for the fact that there is actual evidence behind these accusations, I'd be supporting the deletion argument right now. However, I also don't think this would have become an issue if there wasn't evidence, so the point is moot. |
|
|
|
This thread is now being reviewed. We are currently attempting to contact the accused for their side of the story.
As a reminder, we can only react to scammers, not prevent them. Additionally, we are not mediators. We only release information if we are absolutely 100% sure that someone is a scammer.
^^ This. Please do release the IP once the investigation prooves that the topic starter has scammed The investigation proved that there was no evidence that he was a scammer. |
|
|
|
|
Restarting your client from time to time will trim the size down. It's only an issue if you leave your client online for weeks.
|
|
|
|
Do any mods/admins even monitor this thread any more?  Yes, we do, but weekends are busy for most of us. You have time to reply to threads, but not spend micro seconds clicking 'upgrade user'? Before I created this account, I never realised that 90% of the active users were jailed in this subforum. I wonder how many people have simply given up contributing to this site due to your over-zealous and quite franky unnecessary silly moderating rules? For the official forum of an open source project, you sure are making it a closed elitist circle-jerk. I've clocked up 1 hour and 37 mins now. I doubt I will clock up that much more... though I will check to see if the account has been upgraded over the next couple of days. Way to destroy a potentially really good community mods. I did whitelist users when I replied. It's just that you didn't qualify. All you have to do is give me a good reason why you shouldn't be considered a newbie anymore. The standards really aren't that high. If you want to send me an example of a reply to a thread you want to reply to, that will help. |
|
|
|
4. Profit! Great! Now, try spending that money without losing your anonymity. Receiving Bitcoin is anonymous; it's almost impossible to spend it anonymously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
