Just learnt that ViaBtc have a nice tool you can use to push low fees txs through (min 0.0001/kb): https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/

Tried and tested. They would include submitted txs in the next block found by them.

Not really, they already have loads of negative trust ratings, but those have no effect on the trust-score visible under the name. But one/few more from DT listed member(s) could be helpful. Where's Vod when you need him most...

Not bad overall, but I'd definitely re-word it a little bit. I'd go for a short intro under in each paragraph and do a bullet points for major risks, so it's easier to read/comprehend.

Quick comments:

In the "Risk warning for normal bitcoin users/consumers" - there's potentially a lot to add. "Don't download wallet from unreliable source" and "always secure the back-up files/passphrases" would be worth to mention. Also, some info about sending BTC with sufficient tx fees would be useful.

"Do they have contact details or are they completely anonymous?" - consider removing this one. Having a registered company (especially in the UK) and contact details doesn't mean much, a lot of recent scam sites have this.

The "Arbitrage" info in the "Risk warning for bitcoin investors" para doesn't really belong there, as it hardly falls within definition of 'investing'. Or you could just add: "...for bitcoin investors/traders"?

It's understandable when you look at the wider context. It's not limited to Bitcoin in any way, it applies to all kind of forex. They just protect their currency (Krone) from speculators after the 2008 banking system collapse.

But if you run a mining-farm and sell your bitcoins outside of the country, that doesn't have any impact on Krone, so that's why it's not disallowed.


Sell abroad (ie for EUR) --> convert EUR to Krone (within allowad limits) to cover mining expenses.

The problem is not so much about Chinese pools conspiring together (but bear in mind that all major operators probably know each other pretty well), but more about Chinese gov being able to take over the majority of hash-power, or just force pool operators to attack the network if they ever see Bitcoin as a major threat.

Don't mine directly to Polo address if you're solo-miner or using a pool that sends out your share of mining profit automatically. Just use a pool that allows you to initiate withdrawals manually (ie Minergate) after you accumulate some decent amount.

Poloniex can change deposit addresses with very short notice and also (afaik) wouldn't show dust-amounts deposits.

https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/823146829701259264

Apparently 3 major Chinese exchanges: OKCoin, Huobi and BTCC announced charging trading fees (0.2%), effective from 24th January.

This must be a result of the Government's probe that happened earlier this month, which also resulted in suspension of margin trading.

That's a dangerous logic. Not adding a particular campaign because of it being likely a scam creates a precedent. Now (if you want to be fair and consistent), before adding any new campaign, you'd have to research every company and evaluate whether it's legit or scam. That, in turn, would create impression that every position on the list is filtered and vouched by Mitchell as being legit.

So it's best to keep it purely informative and keep the judgements outside the table (or maybe red-star the obvious scams).

Roger Ver has his own pool, currently 1.4% of hashpower. ViaBTC, other pool that openly opposed segwit softfork has 7.9%, meaning, if nothing changes, segwit will struggle to get 95% support.

Lol. There's literally few people on this forum who understand both segwit and unlimited and those have somewhat informed opinion. The rest is just cheering for the camp they feel is right.

Anyhow, segwit support stuck at 25%, you can hardly blame 'some forum trolls' for that.
Apparently, to get things moving one way or the other, you have to organise few closed-door meetings with the miners, because that's how decentralisation works nowadays.

OK, let's settle this:

https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all


31 Dec 2012: 4.3 gb
31 Dec 2013: 13.4 gb (+9.1 gb; grew by x3.1)
31 Dec 2014: 27.8 gb (+14.4 gb; grew by x2.1)
31 Dec 2015: 53.6 gb (+25.8 gb; grew by x1.9)
31 Dec 2016: 96.2 gb (+42.6 gb; grew by x1.8 )

So far, as per above data, it's definitely more appropriate to say the growth was exponential, not linear. With the capped block-size the trend should change though.

Nope, it's 227 sats for me.


OK. What I would really like to see is something like the 'Birds' service (https://birds.bitcoin.com/about), so basically paying/getting paid for re-tweeting. The problem with 'Birds' is that they operate on-chain, making it pretty much unusable for anyone with less than 10k followers.

Freebitco.in already has large userbase and off-chain payment system, so it's a massive advantage. You could charge even 10% commission and people still will be happy to use it. You already have a massive crowd of people looking to earn small amounts of btc (I'm sure a lot of them have twitter accounts), and there will be people willing to pay for retweets - it's much easier and likely cheaper than running a standard "twitter campaign" (often done manually, as seen on this forum), also it seems a good way to promote ref links etc.

One obstacle to overcome would be filtering out people with thousands of fake followers. But it's doable, you could check the audit score at registration or at withdrawal attempt, set the minimum allowed score or only pay for real followers. Hopefully it could be automated.

---

Other idea: Staking PoS coins for a small fee. Something that JustDice does with CLAMs. You could allow users to convert their btc earnings to PoS alts (CLAM, NXT, in the future - ETH).

---

You could also integrate ShapeShift for deposits/withdrawals (it would probably only work for instant withdrawals though). From the users' perspective, it's always good to have such option, even if the fees are rather high. Afaik, it's easy to implement and ShapeShift pay affiliate commission.

How is it linear?

Linear growth means that it grows by the same amount in each time step.

Try to compare blockchain size at the end of each calendar year and let us know what you found.

Email customer support or ask mod for help. No one is monitoring this thread.

Congrats.

I also confirm that I received my BTC0.1 prize. Thanks again wetsuit!

ps. If you're looking to add something new to the website, we could do a little brainstorming here and share ideas.

If there was a general agreement that those 1 mil coins are "lost" there would be no controversy. There's still uncertainty, which is likely factored in the price (to some degree).


It all boils down to whether such deadline should be set or not. The moral dilemma is to whether it's OK to cut-off anyone from their coins in order to protect the market cap. You can never be sure whether those coins will be 'hacked' or whether the 'rightful' owner will manage to transfer them in the last minute.


It's not theft, but it's ethically ambiguous. You can 'update' your own money and leave the option open to others without a deadline. If they don't transfer on time and get their funds stolen - so be it. The price would get (badly) hit, but it'd all come back to normal eventually.


Of course. But 'disabling' the coins stolen in any of the major exchanges hacks would also be in the economic majority's best interest (hacker can't dump them on the market + your share in total supply increases), but rarely anyone was taking such idea seriously, as it wasn't in line with Bitcoin's principles.


To me, it's not all black/white and I could defend both positions here.

OP, you're very concerned about Satoshi's property being infringed. But what about peoples' right to "fork off"? You want to disallow others from creating/choosing their own forks?

That's exactly what would happen. Satoshi (and anyone else) would still be free to stay on the old (non quantum-resistant) fork and still have his stash (unless already hacked). Have you considered it?

To be clear, I'm also leaning against that, but you seem to be operating under simplified black/white logic, without proper understanding of the reasoning behind that idea.

Good to see they finally responded to you and promised to release your funds.


That's annoying, but you may be dealing with different person who wants to get a clear picture of the situation.

BTW was your gmail account deleted due to inactivity? What happens when you send an email to that account, would it bounce back as undelivered? If so, btc-e should be able to verify your story easily. If not, they have a reasonable reason to be extra cautious.

Hope all goes well. Let cryptodevil know when you successfully withdraw your funds (I assume that's what you want to do) and it would be nice gesture to offer him small tip for spending his time to help you out.

That's a bummer. It would be a great addition. But how could you possibly guarantee a fixed 8%-10% return? You would expose yourself to a high risk, as you cannot possibly know what the difficulty will be like in the future and whether your hardware will still be efficient etc.



Who are those lucky 2?

The first one?


Ignoring misspelling, that's a bit general answer, could cover anything from selling mining hardware to cpu altcoin mining software (or even mining pool etc). Would you count this?

Other guy was more accurate:


But he broke the rules by making 3 guesses within 24h frame.

I believe I was next:

Did I win?

Why half? According to the birthday paradox, you'd have near certainty (99.9%) of finding 2 people with matching birthday with as little as 70 people. So wouldn't you need roughly one fifth (366/70) of the key space?

Also, doesn't the "2^160 generations" relate to finding any collision (defined as randomly generating 2 identical priv keys), so including zero-balance ones (also those previously generated by attacker)? If so, finding collision with specific (non-zero) addresses would be a lot harder.

And is the birthday paradox even applicable for targeting specific addresses? I thought it's only about finding any matching pair.