![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gateworld.net%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fsg1_season4%2F420-Entity%2Fphotos%2F420_entity_04.jpg&t=664&c=2WPaeLx1TjhA5w) caption: yep, we got 100 Ghash/s coming on-line! (1) Michael Daniel Jackson, look what you've done! (2) Not without another three Zed-PMs, you don't.
|
|
|
Just wanted to let folks know that I've lowered the commission at http://bitcoinlaundry.com/ to 0.5%, effective immediately. Churn, baby, churn!
|
|
|
@Gavin: Document? Always a good thing. This is tricky stuff, as ArtForz has shown. My own experience goes like: 1: If you don't really have to lock, push into a serial action queue; 2: when you really do have to lock, prepare everything beforehand, then lock, alter and unlock as swiftly as possible; and 3: er, yeh, document, at least so that you can recall what the heck you were up to when you decided you needed that lock.
Obviously, this becomes real hard when we're dealing with what are essentially library primitives for manipulating the dataset.
If I were sober at the moment I'd produced a precompiler macro that would flag potential nested locks in the control flow. Fortunately, I'm not sober.
|
|
|
ArtForz, you've got BTC 5.00 incoming from me for spotting this. Very well done.
|
|
|
Thanks! I will try the Virtuemart first and report back.
Lemme know how it goes, please. I'm not running an active VirtueMart shop myself, so the code is kinda alpha-ish.
|
|
|
Anybody know how to make the browser part for firefox & chrome that will trigger program X with the URL? If so, then PM me and I'll implement this.
See http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1877.0 for NSIS installer script code to register the URL handler under Windows, as well as pointers to interfaces for doing it on other platforms.
|
|
|
It's actually a kind of bitcoin laundering. Someone will set up an automated service for this soon enough, if it's not done by the summer then I will set one up, call it bit-laundering.com or something ahahahahahaha
It's already here: http://bitcoinlaundry.com/(not my site) Heh, that's mine ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) It's simplistic for the moment. No guarantee you won't get the same coins you send, but it does add a bit of complexity to the history of any given coin.
|
|
|
Awesome!
Who's with me for hookers and cocaine?
|
|
|
Went to upvote it, then remembered it was me who posted it...
|
|
|
Mike, thanks for bringing that very good article to our attention. It's particularly interesting because it's written by a practicing attorney.
You bet. I spotted via the Orlin Grabbe memorial website, http://orlingrabbe.com/, which is worth following for any number of reasons. Oh, you follow that site too ? Yeah, and about 250 others.... Google Reader FTW ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
Mike, thanks for bringing that very good article to our attention. It's particularly interesting because it's written by a practicing attorney.
You bet. I spotted via the Orlin Grabbe memorial website, http://orlingrabbe.com/, which is worth following for any number of reasons.
|
|
|
Pushed an update to Github today to bring this in line with the 0.3.19 API. Some functions lack unit tests, so be warned!
|
|
|
Promised BTC sent
Ďakujem!
|
|
|
david@bankbox:~$ bitcoin validateaddress 1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLY72hsM7 { "isvalid" : false }
Interesting -- the checksum for that address is wrong. Maybe a bug in Bitcoin? The actual address seems to be: 1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLYBmgs6s I'm not sending funds to an address with a wrong checksum ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) SMF bug. The "number of characters left" display on the signature input box appears to be wrong. Someone else had pointed out to me that my address there was invalid, and thought I corrected it by adding a "3" to the end: 1F417eczAAbh41V4oLGNf3DqXLY72hsM73 Should be working now, since I shorted the text in other places.
|
|
|
I don't see why is it coercive or bad attitude to insist on adopting a more freedom-enforcing lisence for technical reasons?
Enforcing freedom is rather like fucking for virginity. The MIT license is basically a grant of use for any purpose, plus a disclaimer of liability and the (coercively enforceable) requirement to include the original author's copyright notice and the license itself on derived works. That is, if you as a software developer take MIT-licensed software and distribute a derived version or copy of it without adhering to the license terms, the legal system permits the author to bring a lawsuit. That, in turn, means things like courts, judges, police, fines, imprisonment for "contempt" and the well-oiled .45 that lies underneath every pile of government paperwork. Doesn't sound like freedom to me, if you as a software developer can be subjected to all that, just because the original author objects to how you've twiddled some bits. And the Gnu licenses are worse, since they add more restrictions. All in all, the MIT license is fine. But if you want more of that freedom stuff, you ought to be arguing the opposite: put the Bitcoin code fully into the public domain, like the world's very first web server, CERN httpd was. Or like the stuff listed here: http://unlicense.org/
|
|
|
|