|
Hmm. Is there a portable way to find the size of the block device?
My first thought was to just run until it ran out of data to read, but that probably wouldn't work if there are bad blocks on the device.
|
|
|
|
|
Er, Windows UI stuff is complicated. Actually, UI stuff in general is sorta complicated.
The short version, if I'm right, is that the bitcoin software is telling Windows that it needs a dialog box that is X pixels wide, and Y pixels high. X and Y might be hard coded into the software, or it might be calculated based on the default theme, I don't know. Once it has a handle (pointer) for that dialog box, it tells Windows to draw the labels (the texts "Name" and "Address"), input boxes, and buttons (with their own labels, "OK" and "Cancel").
The problem is that Windows is drawing these things using sizes chosen by your theme, and not using the sizes that the software is expecting, so it doesn't fit right any more, with most of it outside the viewable portion of the dialog box.
This is a simplification, of course. Bitcoin actually talks to a generic UI library called vxWidgets, which then turns around and issues the commands to Windows. They use it because the vxWidgets knows how to talk to Windows, GTK and MacOS, so the Bitcoin devs don't need to know how to use all of those systems, only the library.
I would fix this, or at least test my theory, but I don't actually know where any of the UI stuff is in the code. And I know nothing about vxWidgets. And I haven't done any Windows UI stuff in like 10 years, and I suspect that it has all changed. Also, I wasn't very good at it even back then.
So, hopefully this thread now has enough information for a proper dev to find the problem and fix it.
|
|
|
|
No.
Why not? If I can tell I solved a block, and I can fail to relinquish said solved block, why couldn't I just claim it as my own? Nevermind... I think I figured out why. The pool would have already dictated the address that the reward would go to. That is the one reason. The other is that the miner doesn't have the whole block, it only has the header. These two reasons are sorta related, in that the miner could figure out most of the block by looking at permutations of combinations of pending transactions on the network, but it can't make a coinbase that would let the whole thing hash to meet the solved header unless it already knows the private key the pool used. And if it already knows that, it might as well just wait 100 blocks and race to spend the reward before the pool does. |
|
|
|
|
I don't have a fix, I'm using the standard client. It just looks normal for me because I'm using the classic Windows theme.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, double check the sticky at the top here.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are rejected blocks.
Look at the summary screen. It shows 85 (86) for the 5870, 68 (69) for the first 5970, and 107 (110) for the second 5970. Those match up with the 1, 1 and 3 showing in the device tabs.
|
|
|
|
|
If you use the backupwallet command, the client closes the wallet, flushes the write caches, makes a copy, and reopens it, so that you don't need to stop the client.
|
|
|
|
how do I get the your new version?
I think I misphrased that. It should have read: Here is a screenshot of the stock standard 0.3.24 "Add Address" dialog" on a XP computer running the classic theme, next to your screenshot. Yours would probably look fine if you switched to the default theme (or maybe classic, if there still is one), but the widget set should really be smart enough to recalculate the sizes needed by the dialogs even under arbitrary themes. |
|
|
|
What if the relevant regulations just required her to label the product as unpasteurized or whatever, rather than prohibiting its sale?
That may work in this individual case. But think of all the exceptions that will have to be made to accommodate other situations as well. It would be impossible to manage that. And allowing this one case would be unfair to all the others that would benefit from such increased resolution of regulations. It will make the laws even more hellish than they are now and they will propably provide more work for lawyers for a long time to come. I'm not talking about an exception for this one person, I'm suggesting an alternate regulatory scheme where you could essentially sell whatever you wanted as long as it met certain labeling standards. +1 Snake oil salesmen should be allowed, provided that the bottle actually contains 100% snake oil. |
|
|
|
hah yeah I wish I had a 6990 or two.
At this point I've lost all interest in the 90 bit. I'd just be all over the idea of going halves in a tenth of what's left. You're the hot little geek girl, so you do the math.  I was never really good at math, but it almost sounds like you're trying to flirt with me. BRB looking for a calculator... Don't worry, I think he needs a calculator too. That is, unless he really does want to 690 you. |
|
|
|
Just had a thought: Merchants wouldn't need to hedge against 24 hours of movement if they had something that I don't think currently exists... If one of the exchanges or perhaps a third party created some kind of merchant services API that automatically sold the incoming BTC at the current market rate the instant they hit 6 confirmations then merchants would only have to hedge against ~1 hour worth of market movement. At present you could probably hack something together using MtGox's merchant service API and their trade API (basically make a bot that checks BTC balance and sells if > 0) but a polished product not requiring programming skills would be much better. Better still would be a similar service run directly by the exchange themselves... Is MagicalTux or Jered around?  The existing APIs can do this. |
|
|
|
|
You can guess based on the amounts and have a very good chance of getting it right. The code looks for the smallest single transaction larger than the spend amount to redeem, if possible, and then the smallest group of transactions.
For better privacy, the client could attempt to make the spend and the change roughly equal in size, but that will churn the wallet and make you pay higher fees in the long run.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the whole account system needs to be removed from the code. You really should stop using it.
If the client could better handle multiple wallets, would this achieve exactly the same purpose as accounts? No, you don't need multiple wallets, or multiple accounts, or anything fancy. You just need to take notes whenever you give out an address, and whenever you spend. |
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the whole account system needs to be removed from the code. You really should stop using it.
Just track who you give addresses to, and who initiates sends.
|
|
|
|
Looks to me like you have unusual font sizes set. Most likely the dialog isn't calculating the right size, just going with what would be right under default settings. Here is a screenshot of my New Address dialog next to the screenshot of yours.  |
|
|
|
If someone shows up and wants to host a mirror in a country that we are allowed to export to, and that doesn't itself prohibit distribution to other countries, that person will find plenty of people willing and eager to help set things up.
Well, as far as i know sourceforge redirects download links to the geographically closest mirrors from where the download is requested, but people in those block lists don't even get redirected, they just get the part of their terms that say they are on the "forbidden" list, go figure... So, i guess what you are saying is not the complete truth. Doesn't matter how many mirrors they have, the result will be the same. Unless you weren't talking about sourceforge in that paragraph and i understood you wrong. If so, I apologize, and ask for clarification about that statement. Since the topic is getting around SourceForge's compliance with US Government policy, I had thought that it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a non-SF mirror. |
|
|
|
Depends on what you mean.
It's worth noting that your usage of "specific" only applies to anything we're talking about if the sense is "lacking ambiguity".
Isn't this just shifting your argument to defining what constitutes a "sensible definition of pollution"?
Doesn't it still leave you requiring a definition of "worse"?
What keeps a specific definition of "pollution" from being "sensible"?
As I'd take the word "mean" to require intent - how do you "intend" to do something that you didn't know?
Secondly how could you verify that your conclusion is forced for something that you didn't intend to include?
Aren't specific definitions part of the "cluster of concepts"?
Wow. I did not see this coming at all. I'm going to set a reminder to come back and check this thread in a few months. I predict that one of the participants will still be arguing about the definitions of common words. |
|
|
|
mainly because Sourceforge is a puppet on US government hands. For an organization that is said to promote openness they seem to closed to me. And they should to you also.
Dude. You just crossed your own parody horizon. I actually can't think of a parody of your position that is even as bizarre as your own statements. US citizens, residents and companies do not become "puppets" of the government by following federal laws. We merely stay out of prison. If someone shows up and wants to host a mirror in a country that we are allowed to export to, and that doesn't itself prohibit distribution to other countries, that person will find plenty of people willing and eager to help set things up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
