If it still says unconfirmed an hour after you see it, something definitely is wrong.
Confirmations supposed to happen every 10 min on average.
It's because the sender didn't pay a fee. If it still says unconfirmed an hour after you see it, something definitely is wrong.
Confirmations supposed to happen every 10 min on average.
I don't believe you are getting scammed - and my reasoning is that I've had transactions like this in the past. Give it time - I don't see anything telling me that it won't be confirmed. The sender didn't pay a fee. This. The seller didn't pay a fee. That being said, it should confirm, just give it some time. If the "stuffs" are physical goods, wait for a confirm before mailing since it won't delay it too much. If these are electronic, I'd wait also just to be safe. From a quick glance at the transaction though, it didn't look fishy. In the future, you can always say: for faster shipping, pay the recommended fee, otherwise, shipping waits for confirmations. P.s. This probably belongs in a different sub forum FYI. :-) |
|
|
|
What if Silk Road 2.0 didn't have any customers, but claimed they did, then claimed they were hacked, then claimed all it's customers were to be made whole, with nobody complaining because there were no customers in the first place. Now that the hole is plugged sans a leak, trust is now established to garner real customers to participate in the long con.
Who, here, are customers of Silk Road 2.0?
Who, here, are customers of Silk Road 2.0?I am not, but if I was would it be smart to admit it here? If this forum is ever hacked, then many IP addresses will be leaked. Maybe people are using tor to post here? Silk Road 2.0 might have more products but it also has more scams and dodgy dealers. I haven't been on there in a while but since the hack and takedown of the escrow system even trusted vendors started scamming. These kind of markets needs to be decentralised really if they want to survive. Criminals are scamming people now ? This is outrageous  But who makes them criminals? The law. If drugs were decriminalised then we wouldn't have this problem. And the definition of "criminal" varies by jurisdiction. In some areas saying "tibetian freedom" makes you a criminal (China). In others, donating to a particular political group increases your chance of being audited by an order of magnitude (US). |
|
|
|
This isn't a bug because chains are selected in terms of cumulative difficulty not length of chain. Very quickly a node can distinguish the real chain from the fakes.
Then it is even easier to perform this attack, in theory. All you would have to do is create a whole bunch of low-difficulty blocks with nearly the same timestamp, then after the "difficulty adjustment" in your branch of the blockchain would result in a super large difficulty. Solve that one block and the blockchain is broken. Note cumulative, not last. He's talking about cumulative, but that's irrelevant. The expected work required for that "super large difficulty block*" equals to the cumulative work of all blocks in the past 5 years (*ignoring the 4x adjustment rule) It doesn't seem like he is talking about cumulative difficulty given that he says mine a whole bunch of low-difficulty blocks with nearly the same timestamp and then have a super large difficulty adjustment. The cumulative difficulty (e.g. the sum of the difficulty - each block weighted by difficulty) of his chain would be less than the real chain even with that last super large difficulty adjustment. It appears from his description that he is relying upon the last super large difficulty increase to break the chain. He might have the longest chain, but not the highest cumulative difficulty. Regardless, there are numerous other issues with it, but the lack of cumulative difficulty being accounted for seems to be one. |
|
|
|
This isn't a bug because chains are selected in terms of cumulative difficulty not length of chain. Very quickly a node can distinguish the real chain from the fakes.
Then it is even easier to perform this attack, in theory. All you would have to do is create a whole bunch of low-difficulty blocks with nearly the same timestamp, then after the "difficulty adjustment" in your branch of the blockchain would result in a super large difficulty. Solve that one block and the blockchain is broken. Note cumulative, not last. |
|
|
|
"huge buy and sell wall such that the price would not have huge swings during the day but a gradual move up or down" Don't we already have this?!?! I think we do and today the wall is sitting around $440/BTC  /  If my memory serves me here, I saw the statistic somewhere that ~2000 coins were being mined daily. And the dollars needed daily to soak up these new bitcoins and maintain an unchanged price was ~$2,000,000. So when we talk about price stability and volatility, aren't those secondary terms? They provide a nice synopsis. But if we want to "fix something", shouldn't we address the cause of the fluctuations rather than try to manipulate the money itself so as to appear to maintain a steady supply/demand balance? Finally, I am not concerned today with the number of inked toilet paper notes I can exchange my btc for. The issue is that fiat inked toilet paper is more widely regarded as money than bitcoin is. When this changes, there will be no need for exchanges, buy walls, or the dollar price of bitcoin. just burn barrels for all the inked notes. And until that time when bitcoin is universally accepted as money, volatility of price paradoxically contributes to the stability of the bitcoin price. Love it. It is closer to 3600 btc/day (25 btc/block * 6 blocks/hrs * 24 hrs/day), although it has been higher with the rapidly increasing hash rates. At current prices, that is about $1.5-$1.6 million per day to keep price stable ($440/BTC * 3600 BTC/day). In about 26-27 months the block subsidy will halve again. I do agree - acceptance and usage are the keys to increased prices in fiat. Stability is less important as long as usage is increasing, although eventually it will stabilize. |
|
|
|
The first sentence says they are "investing in companies that are leveraging services based on Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies." I don't see them saying they are purchasing bitcoins.
Oh... so they might be investing in Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitinstant and Bitstamp or in other Bitcoin-based firms such as Armory. First I thought that they might be buying 30 million worth of BTC.... sadly that is not the case.  While buying would be okay, I think the multiplier effect of investing the money will be much more important. :-) |
|
|
|
Such kind of scheme has been repeatedly proposed. This does not improve security at all.
If you could keep the private key of 1UnlockingAddr safe (and you are not confident in the security of 1AddrToLock), why don't you just simply send your bitcoin to 1UnlockingAddr directly?
If you want to require the private keys of both 1AddrToLock and 1UnlockingAddr to spend the bitcoin, why don't you simply use 2-of-2 multisignature?
Qft. And if you are concerned about 300 bitcoins being a target, move them to 300 different addresses making it 300 times as hard to steal the bunch. Or 3000 at 0.1 each etc. |
|
|
|
About the $30 million Fund , do your sources tell you whether this $30 million fund has already purchased their initial Bitcoins?
The first sentence says they are "investing in companies that are leveraging services based on Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies." I don't see them saying they are purchasing bitcoins. |
|
|
|
I don't get it...why do they fight it?
Totalitarian regimes don't like anything that interferes with their control and power. From fascists, Stalinists, crony-capitalists, socialists, communists, chavesists, to outright unapologetic dictators anything they can't control is anethma to them. The nice thing is that when they oppose something it is a pretty good indicator that it is good for freedom and consequently for people. Any place, like Argentina, Venezuela, China, Cuba, North Korea, with capital controls benefits from bitcoin and probably opposes it. Eventually, the US and EU may follow Cyprus with capital controls and crypto can help. Capital Controls may work short term, but eventually they fail. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Great! 550 makes much more sense. Double check the miner and pw
|
|
|
|
When I first created an account in slushs pool I was given a bitcoin wallet, but I had nothing to do with that bitcoin wallet. I then deleted that wallet and added my own wallet, but now all the bitcoin I had already mined is stuck in the first wallet and I have no access to those bitcoin or any way to transfer them to my own wallet. Please help me.
Who gave you this bitcoin wallet? Are you talking about the one created by bitcoin core or something else? If you deleted the wallet, do you have a backup of the private key(s)? If not, suppose you had euros and put them in a wallet and threw it away, you'd be out of luck. That may be the case here. You might try asking in the slush support thread, btw. It was the bitcoin address that was already in my account when I first created my account If you are talking about your account at mining.bitcoin.cz, it doesn't give you a public address, you have to fill it in yourself. I just created a test account to verify that my memory from a number of years ago is correct. You must have entered the public key yourself unless you had some type of malware on your machine that entered someone else's public key there automatically. From your message it appears that you withdrew the bitcoin mining proceeds to the other address, and so if you have no backup of your wallet or the private keys, you are pretty much out of luck. If you have not withdrawn the coins to that address, then you could update the address at the pool and withdraw then. The default automatic withdrawal threshold is 1.0 BTC so unless that was updated or you did a manual withdrawal, they wouldn't have been automatically sent. Thanks man. I appreciate it. I guess I have to count my losses and move on. You should also try the support thread, but in all likelihood, they're gone. |
|
|
|
When I first created an account in slushs pool I was given a bitcoin wallet, but I had nothing to do with that bitcoin wallet. I then deleted that wallet and added my own wallet, but now all the bitcoin I had already mined is stuck in the first wallet and I have no access to those bitcoin or any way to transfer them to my own wallet. Please help me.
Who gave you this bitcoin wallet? Are you talking about the one created by bitcoin core or something else? If you deleted the wallet, do you have a backup of the private key(s)? If not, suppose you had euros and put them in a wallet and threw it away, you'd be out of luck. That may be the case here. You might try asking in the slush support thread, btw. It was the bitcoin address that was already in my account when I first created my account If you are talking about your account at mining.bitcoin.cz, it doesn't give you a public address, you have to fill it in yourself. I just created a test account to verify that my memory from a number of years ago is correct. You must have entered the public key yourself unless you had some type of malware on your machine that entered someone else's public key there automatically. From your message it appears that you withdrew the bitcoin mining proceeds to the other address, and so if you have no backup of your wallet or the private keys, you are pretty much out of luck. If you have not withdrawn the coins to that address, then you could update the address at the pool and withdraw then. The default automatic withdrawal threshold is 1.0 BTC so unless that was updated or you did a manual withdrawal, they wouldn't have been automatically sent. |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I tried to transfer bitcoins from my btce account to my newly downloaded multibit wallet and cant find them.
All i did was copy the address from my wallet and send them. Now they aren't to be found and that was weeks ago.
Is it because i didnt request the transfer or something like that? I have no idea.
Apologies for the noob qs, any help is much appreciated.
Thanks
Michael
Do you have a transaction id? |
|
|
|
When I first created an account in slushs pool I was given a bitcoin wallet, but I had nothing to do with that bitcoin wallet. I then deleted that wallet and added my own wallet, but now all the bitcoin I had already mined is stuck in the first wallet and I have no access to those bitcoin or any way to transfer them to my own wallet. Please help me.
Who gave you this bitcoin wallet? Are you talking about the one created by bitcoin core or something else? If you deleted the wallet, do you have a backup of the private key(s)? If not, suppose you had euros and put them in a wallet and threw it away, you'd be out of luck. That may be the case here. You might try asking in the slush support thread, btw. |
|
|
|
I don't get Dark Wallet. Few people care about anonymity, but many people fear it will empower criminality. The blowback to Dark Wallets may be outright banning of PoW coins. Maybe the developers are bullish on PoS?
I am not sure if you say this thread, but it is quite interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0 |
|
|
|
Isn't the developer shooting his own foot by openly admitting he wants his wallet to be used for illegal activities and black market?
Yes, but strong ethics, courage, and convection often lead to this. One extreme example to make the point clear: the tank man of Tiananmen Square fame really shot himself in the foot when he decided to block a chain of advancing tanks rather than go home and watch some TV. Understand; however he could have made his point just by releasing the wallet. He didn't have to BRAG about the illegal usage. Its like bragging about the crimes you committed when the feds are arresting you. "Anything you say can be used against you. You have the right to remain silent"  It is important to note that there are two main people involved and that one is doing more advocacy, one more coding. Amir Taaki doing the coding (Britain), and Cody Wilson (US) doing advocacy, iirc. The difference between the two jurisdictions and the two roles is important since it has lots of non-illegal uses too - and the definition of illegal depends on your jurisdiction of course. It is more difficult for the US to attack the advocacy portion due to the Constitution and 1st Amendment. I don't know what will happen, if anything, to them, but if Amir is concentrating on the privacy aspects and Cody is doing the advocacy it seems to make it more difficult for the authorities. It is an important project. |
|
|
|
What's the advantage of using this pairing function over any other? The amount of data to transmit to the user is the same as if you would send both addresses separately, so there's no gain there. In addition, it would only work with compatible software and there is no userfriendly way of obtaining a regular address from the paired address by a user who doesn't have such software.
If you insist on pairing addresses, you might as well concatenate them with a separator-symbol that's outside the base58 character set. Your addresses would pair up nicely to (using + as separator):
1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T+LaxGrwMeokoMgv5zYpv5btT4yNUB9DaiqE
Advantage of this method is that a user w/o compatible software can still look at this paired address and identify the BTC (or LTC) portion and manually copy/paste that into his wallet-client.
Unless there is some advantage to it, simple concatenation seem easiest as stated above. Simple beats complicated. :-) Encoding multiple addresses in a qr code would be useful. True... just an idea. Maybe the wrong application. It is a cool idea, maybe a better use can be found. :-) From a tech and thinking perspective it is interesting. |
|
|
|
The fact that those two guys aren't arrested plus lack of simple explanation how they intend to anonymise bitcoin indicates their software simply aren't effective and how can it be lol Every transaction is recorded in the block chain. Yet no one knows id of wallets. So in effect u can wire yourself BTC and claim someone sent them to you, and so on It is open source, there is a great explanation in the code and elsewhere. It does a lot of things including helps to prevent white and black listing and makes tracing coins much more difficult. In short it helps to protect privacy. |
|
|
|
What's the advantage of using this pairing function over any other? The amount of data to transmit to the user is the same as if you would send both addresses separately, so there's no gain there. In addition, it would only work with compatible software and there is no userfriendly way of obtaining a regular address from the paired address by a user who doesn't have such software.
If you insist on pairing addresses, you might as well concatenate them with a separator-symbol that's outside the base58 character set. Your addresses would pair up nicely to (using + as separator):
1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T+LaxGrwMeokoMgv5zYpv5btT4yNUB9DaiqE
Advantage of this method is that a user w/o compatible software can still look at this paired address and identify the BTC (or LTC) portion and manually copy/paste that into his wallet-client.
Unless there is some advantage to it, simple concatenation seem easiest as stated above. Simple beats complicated. :-) Encoding multiple addresses in a qr code would be useful. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
