- The expected value of Kingcoin has increased to be competitive with other games. It is now approximately 0.984.
That's excellent! - Each game is logged in the database with more details (in case I have to process refunds)
Is that no longer publicly visible? (at least the last 100 plays like was available previously)?
I suppose that isn't really useful as I cannot verify that the plays that weren't mine were actually for other players, so it provides really no value for verification but it was interesting to see someone else's string of luck giving me hope that maybe, just maybe, the next string like that will be mine. :-)[Edit: History is still there. I'm not sure how I didn't see it before. - http://kingco.in/history.php ] |
|
|
|
It is possible to verify that some private key received it isn't it? So if this private key is publicized it would be the equivalent of throwing coins away. Anybody who grabs the key and transfers the coins to his wallet first has them after. Of course it could be possible that this way whoever grabs the coins would forgo the possibility of converting his existing coins in that wallet, but I think that depends on how rigorous the implementation is. Ok, I'm totally not following whatsoever now. You are babbling nonsense, it appears to me. Why would a party that receives a payment "give away" their private key to "the public"? |
|
|
|
Now have 29 BTC in my wallet, I dont know Why or where is the rest..
Without knowing the exact details I cannot be certain but am most likely accurate in summing up your scenario with fewer words: You never had 41 BTC of CONFIRMED funds. You made wagers using UNCONFIRMED funds that may have increased the balance that shows, but that balance can't be trusted because it includes UNCONFIRMED funds. Or using even fewer words: Don't count your chickens until they've hatched. You have 29 BTC not 41 BTC. |
|
|
|
You can buy Android powered smartphone's for less than £40 now brand new. It probably isn't the cost of the phone that is excessively prohibitive, but the cost of the Internet/web mobile data service on top of voice/text. Fortunately, these smartphones are functional with just a Wi-Fi connection and no mobile data service is needed. (I'm presuming a person can use a smartphone but only subscribe to standard voice/text, or maybe not, I'm not sure.) If merchant and local exchange agents can provide Wi-Fi (at the least for accessing the blockchain or for web-based Bitcoin EWallets) then not every Bitcoin user with one of these smartphones ends up having to pay for Internet/web data subscriptions. But still a £40 device used just for use as a digital currency wallet is not going to foster wide adoption. I've read there are bitcoin SMS wallets being developed?
There is Coinapult's SMS wallet, but that only works for U.S. and Canadian mobile numbers. WalletBit just launched an SMS mobile wallet that eventually supposedly can send to unregistered mobiles but today it required an Internet/web data connection to be able to follow the Claim URL. A way is needed tho to make bitcoins to seem more attractive to them then Mpesa already is. Well, technically an SMS EWallet system that works like hoow M-PESA works is easy to build. (Coinapult built theirs in a matter of weeks, if I remember correctly.) The problem is that text messaging is not secure. There is no ability to know if the text came from the handset or if it was spoofed. M-PESA doesn't have this problem because merchants are supposed to get info from a sender's gov't ID when a purchase is made and when redeeming or exhanging M-PESA e-float for fiat (i.e., exchanging out). So this system would work until scammers figure out that fusnd from a person's account can be spent by simply spoofing a text message from a mobile number. That would probably have a half-life measured in days. Thus it could very well be that there is no method where bitcoin would work with feature phones by themselves. But smartphones change all that as you can do client-side encryption on the phone before transmission (over SMS/text messaging even) or simply use a secure channel (e.g., https) on an Internet/web data connection (subscription or Wi-Fi). [Edit: This is assuming the mobile itself is a secure operating system, which is something that I'm not comfortable believing. If you buy an $80 smartphone from a carrier, is it a managed device where the carrier can put software on the device? If it isn't open source, you can't prove they aren't able to do that.] |
|
|
|
Yes, ... M-PESA is not a "digital currency". It is a representative currency In exchange for cash deposits, Safaricom issues a commodity known as “e‐float,” measured in the same units as money, which is held in an account under the user’s name.
[...]
The cash collected by M‐PESA in exchange for e‐float is deposited in bank accounts held by Safaricom.
- http://www.mit.edu/~tavneet/M-PESA.pdf (PDF) - http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.mit.edu%2F~tavneet%2FM-PESA.pdf (Web view of PDF) So even though this e-float money is referred to as being airtime (and can be redeemed for airtime), it is a current account, denominated in the nation's fiat currency and every unit purchased is held in deposit at a bank. M-PESA e-float is thus a representative currency and not a digital currency. Also, there is further discussion about this interview here: It took me just fifteen minutes of listening to Bill Gates on Charlie Rose to confirm that billionaires don't and won't like Bitcoin.
Mr. Gates throws around a lot of "we did this" type of statements, and what he really means is "we used our power and influence to get governments to do this". I'm not saying the accomplishments were bad, but anything that lessen's a billionaire's influence will not be something the billionaires will support.
[...]
A few takeaways from that:
1.) For government spending where there is the need for transparency, there's no reason why triple-entry accounting shouldn't be mandatory. Most of that can be done today, without the need for Bitcoin even.
2.) Mr. Gates might want to have someone explain to him the difference between a "digital currency" and "mobile banking", "electronic currency", "representative money", etc.
3.) ill Gates once said in an interview that he reads every page of The Economist. If he still does, then he'ld know that it is not just Kenya where mobile banking and mobile payments are widely used: |
|
|
|
Because blockchain.info/wallet allows people to make wagers using funds from transactions that have not confirmed first, what happens is that you get cascading double spends, and players thinking they won big when in fact their wager was invalid if the funds for making the wager never confirm. This isn't really a problem for most wallet users, and is probably specific to those using the SatoshiDICE page: - https://blockchain.info/wallet/login#send-satoshi-diceSo might it be a good idea to check the coins that would be used and warn in advance that the wager used funds which had no confirmations, or to display the caution after the wager is placed? (or, alternatively, in the Account Options, to let me choose how many confirmations are required before Blockchain.info/wallet will use a coin in my wallet for spending?) |
|
|
|
I do not know what to do, it's my money and I want it back and nobody helps me, what I can do? Well, technically it isn't your money unless the payment you received and then used to wager with confirms. And that's where the problem lies. Blockchain.info has a good tool to help understand the details, and you get this from clicking the "enable" advanced (at the bottom): - https://blockchain.info/tx/d1d6f0e127d066d418f445a7463e10277ee86acd7513c539b8377dda2d7e449fThen click on Output for the 24.09017 BTC amount on the left, which brings you to: - https://blockchain.info/tx-index/34253280/0So when you placed that wager, whatever client you were using (Blockchain.info in your instance) assumed you have 24.09017 to wager with. Unfortunately, you didn't. Part of that 24.09017 BTC, the amount of 2.48699998 BTC came from 12Cf6nCcRtKERh9cQm3Z29c9MWvQuFSxvT. Except that ended up being a double spend against you. And thus the entire 24.09017 BTC coin that you had used to wager with was never yours to begin with. That 2.48699998 BTC sent to you will never confirm (as it has since been spent elsewhere). So your wager using that money too will never confirm, and thus you aren't owed anything from SatoshiDICE because their payouts clearly only confirm when the wager confirms as well. ---- There are two ways this can be solved going forward. One way would be for SatoshiDICE to NEVER send payouts unless they are only using funds that have first confirmed. That would require SatoshiDICE to either maintain a bigger hotwallet to accommodate payouts or to hold off on payouts when funds are running low to wait for other people's wagers confirm before using them to pay out the winners. But that would require SatoshiDICE to change their backend system. The other solution is for you to NEVER place a wager unless the funds you are using to wager have first confirmed. Blockchain.info is more lenient than the Bitcoin.org client or the SatoshiRoller client -- both of which require one confirmation before letting you spend the funds. So you are using a client that is susceptible to this situation happening again and again -- and it does nothing to warn you that you are spending funds that haven't confirmed. So your choices are, use a client that only will spend funds that have at least one confirmation (like, perhaps the new SatoshiRoller app, available for testing now) or accept that not every wager you make will be a valid wager (for the reason, you are trying to spend funds that might not actually be yours.) |
|
|
|
That's exactly the point. The goal is to make the bitcoins spendable by anybody. This is just a variation of the commonly agreed on hypothetical migration strategy. (Except it would not be voluntary in a sense that bitcoin would remain valuable) It would be the equivalent of throwing bitcoins away in a provable fashion instead of destroying them.
But you can't prove that these are thrown away. You can only prove that they haven't been spent. Thus they simply are non-circulating coins. [Edit: In re-reading your answer , the "spendable by anybody" is something I glossed over, but after re-reading that I now am not sure I have any clue what you are talking about. I'm guessing that the ten minutes you've put into this idea hasn't been enough time to lead you to the flaws in it that others just assume would have been considered.] |
|
|
|
Im talking about people on here. They have the currency exchange section where a people i see trade moneypak for bit coin.
You could try. There are plenty of people who buy MoneyPak with their bitcoins from the two services which offer it (FastCash4Btcoins and BTCPak.com), but with that comes the assurance from a reputable party that has traded hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of these things. It is a different risk profile with an individual. But who knows, with the exchange rate rally, someone might be wanting to cash out right nao and be willing to chance it. |
|
|
|
Is there a reason you didnt mention coinbase in your reply in my thread?
Well, they use the ACH network to transfer funds from your bank account. This is the same method that PayPal supports (by linking your bank account), and Dwolla, Serve, etc. all use the same method. You had said no ID, and a bank transfer implicitly has your ID (as the bank has your ID associated with your account.) |
|
|
|
But also, would they accept my trade offer for moneypak if i provided proof that i purchased the card?
About the only interaction a bank has with MoneyPak is being able to use it to load a prepaid debit card. There are not any standing offers to sell bitcoins for MoneyPak that I'm aware of. |
|
|
|
What is currently the cheapest way to get USD from a US bank account or cash to an exchange like btc-e?
Dwolla is among the cheapest methods of moving funds from your bank account to an exchange. The exchanges which accept Dwolla are Mt. Gox and Camp BX. The cost is just $0.25 per transaction. The drawback is that there is a 30-day probation period after your first funds are pulled into Dwolla before you can then transfer money to a Bitcoin exchange. Another method is Coinbase. They charge 1% and their exchange rate is close to Mt. Gox. The problem is that they max out at $100 per transaction. - http://www.CoinBase.comFor larger amounts, Bitcoins Direct, a "bulk" dealer, is inexpensive. They have a minimum $1,000 per transaction limit though. They also don't always have coins for sale. BitMe allows cash deposit at a Chase bank location. The problem is that the liquidity isn't always that great, and slippage can occur -- sometimes even for a few hundred dollar's worth. - http://www.BitMe.comIf you have or can get ING direct, then that method to BitFloor might work. There is a history though following their security breach that you may wish to familiarize yourself with though before choosing this option. So that leaves bank wire to an exchange (such as Mt. Gox). Bank wires are a costly method for anything but larger transfers. Now there may be somone local who is trying to sell. Sometimes they are just looking to trade at the current exchange rate (no fees). - http://www.LocalBitcoins.com |
|
|
|
20,000 enroute, as stated covers all preorders to specified date plus extras.
30,000 follow up in Jan-feb
They are targeting the ability to have next day delivery once pre orders are caught up. Ok, now how many will ship in the first batch (following the "1/3rds approach" that they promised)? They aren't saying, and certainly it will include just a fraction of the 20,000 chips. |
|
|
|
1.) Create a cryptocurrency of superior design. 2.) Make it possible to convert bitcoins to a prelocked part of it by sending bitcoins to a bitcoin adress for which it's private key is stored within the new blockchain and can only be done once. 3.)  4.) Profit. discuss. I get #1 but am not sure if I understand your #2. There's no such thing as having the "private key stored in the new blockchain" as being something that can "only be done once". Private keys are data and thus can be copied, so there's no way to prove the funds still can't be spent on the bitcoin network. You could spend them to a black hole (e.g., by sending it to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) I suppose and that would prove [Edit: eliminate most any remote chance] that they can't [Edit: could] be spent. But each bitcoin you destroy (e.g., sending it to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE) takes it out of circulation. Because bitcoin is divisible, you simply cause price deflation (fewer coins serving the same size economy). That doesn't kill bitcoin (though it does increase volatility which introduces challenges). Now if this cryptocurrency of yours was truly a superior design, people would be trading their bitcoins for this currency with the superior design. |
|
|
|
arent there people that do it though? like as a service with a fee..
MoneyPak is easily obtained by scammers (There are people trying to sell MoneyPak at 50 cents on the dollar here on the forum, as an example. So the buyer would have to trust that you aren't a scammer. And being a new account here on the forum (and presumably no trust history on #bitcoin-otc), good luck with that. If you are in the U.S. (which is the only country where MoneyPak is sold), then you have several options. If you have a Chase bank location nearby, that's probably among the best. You deposit cash into the account that bitMe.com has set up and buy coins at that exchange. No identification needed. - http://www.BitMe.comAs far as the logistics, your account at bitMe is an EWallet, and thus you can withdraw the coins to your own wallet, such as at Blockchain.info/wallet: - http://www.Blockchain.info/walletOther cash methods (in the U.S.): - http://www.BitInstant.com (Deposit at 7-11, Walmart, CVS, Moneygram, etc.,) - http://www.BitMe.com (Deposit cash at Chase) - http://www.BitFloor.com (Deposit cash at Chase or Wells Fargo [temporarily unavailable]) Elsewhere: - http://www.CAVirtEx.com (Deposit cash at several banks in Canada) - http://www.Spendbitcoins.com (Deposit cash at a bank in Australia) - http://BitcoinNordic.com (Purchase CashU or UKash in dozens of countries) - http://www.BTC-E.com (Deposit cash (USD) at bank locations in Russia) - http://www.BitNZ.om (Deposit cash (NZD) at back locations in New Zealand) - http://www.BitInstant.com (Deposit cash in Brazil using Boleto or Banco Recomendito, or in Russia, using Qiwi or Cyberplat.) - http://www.VirWoX.com (Purchase UKash in dozens of countries with cash, then buy SLL and trade them for BTCs) - http://www.MercaBit.eu (Purchase UKash, Paysafecard, and others with EUR cash) Also, Bitcoins Direct will accept cash, but they have a $1,000 minimum order size and recently have been out of coins: - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87094.0 (Deposit cash at Bank of America, Wells Fargo or PNC, minimum $1,000) Another method, from anywhere, is to use credit card to buy SLL (Second Life Lindens) through VirWoX, and then trade those for BTCs: - http://www.VirWoX.comYou might just find a trade on #bitcoin-otc for a small amount, to build a trust history: - http://www.Bitcoin-otc.com - http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#bitcoin-otc-foyerAnd doing a local trade might serve you well: - http://www.LocalBitcoins.comThere are quite a few methods: - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins |
|
|
|
I've submitted this question to both Bitinstant and Coinapult customer support and have received no response.
You wouldn't happened to be in Macau this week?  Us BitInstant guys are in HK and Macau this week... if any Bitcoiners wanna meet up for coffee or drinks or similar, send me an email (erik@bitinstant)
Its a long holiday weekend in the U.S. and the people filling in are probably backlogged. You could try to send a PM though to Yankee, that seems to be monitored pretty regularly. |
|
|
|
Shortly after they have done such, as we've done previously for two other charitable organizations. There may be a little lag time, but not much. Ok, sorry. I was concerned that the funds would need to be collected from pledges first and the possibility that the deal might not be honored in a timely manner if collections fell short. [Update: I've since learned that Bitcoin 100 does a drive to collect from existing pledges and solicit new pledges, but Bitcoin 100 has pooled several hundred BTC on reserve and thus is not at risk of not delivering because of lack of funds should for whatever reason the collection efforts fall short.] |
|
|
|
OK, so their confirmation page was basically just wrong then when it says that Coinapult.com is involved?
That direct to bitcoin option has always been serviced through Coinapult but I don't know if they've changed it so that now it must be claimed using the e-mail. Curious myself to know the current method. |
|
|
|
I just happened across something that is[edit: was] possibly disturbing to me: Bitcoin 100 will gladly donate 100 bitcoins (100 BTC), approximately $1,200 USD (current exchange rate), to your venerable organization. There is only one tiny string attached prior to us contributing said donation. The caveat I speak of has already been accepted by a couple other non-profits of which I'll provide proof momentarily.
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127522.0How long after they put this donation badge on their website do they receive the 100 BTC? (i.e., if they add this they do then right away receive the funds?) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
