This is a bit tongue in cheek, but since we have "I'm back" I for one would like to know who has the biggest *Rep*.. (interpret this as you will).... rightly or wrongly. Persons and entities may be considered. Some worthy contenders for the Crown. Zhou Nefario TRC Dev (i'm shutting it all down....no I'm not) The FED (Ben&Co) The Bitcoin Foundation This forum Gox BFL The Bitcoin Foundation (they make the rules don't they) none of the above  ? .... Profit Person of your choice any more you think should be added |
|
|
|
This Chen Jianhai story is the biggest load of poppycock I've ever heard. All one needs to do is to read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95795.msg1055627#msg1055627And this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95738.msg1054890#msg1054890Lets review the facts: - Chen Jianhai is a multi-millionaire relic collector with a family living in the cold and remote Heilongjiang Province in China who owns an online 'Taobao' store.
- Chen Jianhai is not technical and his English is poor
- Chen Jianhai is Zhou's former business associate, but not his friend
- Chen Jianhai is likely a long-time criminal quite active in financial black markets with an active presence in stolen credit cards and possibly other hacks. (according to Zhou's observations)
- Chen Jianhai has a technical co-worker that is "in-to-bitcoin" and discovers that the source-code has been leaked.
- Chen Jianhai inspects the code and discovers that the MtGox API key is also the master password for Tihan's lastpass account containing the passwords to both Bitcoinica's and Christopher Heaslip's MtGox account. The lastpass account (originally set up by Zhou) was not protected by 2factor. And both MtGox accounts were also not protected with a yubikey.
- Chen Jianhai logs in to the MtGox account and withdraws the maximum number of Coins (40.000 BTC & 40.000 USD). For the USD he creates a MtGox code that he claims on Heaslip's account and uses the USD to buy more BTC.
- Chen Jianhai then withdraws all the coins to Zhou's blockchain.info account. From where he sends them to his servers in America.
- Chen Jianhai decides to frame Zhou stating "it would be impossible to discover the hacker" and "it would be much easier to deny if the suspect account is an insider because you (Zhou Tong) can always distract people from investigating"
- Chen Jianhai knows Zhou's secret sockpuppet identity (stevejobs807@gmail.com) and also his password since Zhou has used Chen's webshop once and re-used that password.
- Chen Jianhai exchanges MtGox coupons worth 40.000 USD to Liberty Reserve through the instant exchange facility at AurumXchange using Zhou's secret identity.
- Coincidentally Zhou also has an order with AurumXchange to sell Liberty Reserve to us for the amount of USD 40,000, requesting a wire to his bank account in Singapore. (for a friend)
- Chen Jianhai then feels the need to create an email account <bitcoinicasucks@hotmail.com> and email verify@bitcoinica.com with the text "THANK YOU FOR YOU SOURCE CODE. BITCONICA IS NOW OFFICALY DONE! LASTPAS PASWORD: c02e1a27-5524-449f-ba65-aff9581ddedc" Despite being able to write perfect english in the subject line, somehow in the body text his CAPS key got stuck and he lost the ability to spell.
- Chen Jianhai is confronted by Zhou who figured it all out after being accused himself only a few hours earlier.
- Chen Jianhai admits everything to Zhou
- Chen Jianhai (despite being a multi-millionaire) was only able to return 20.000 BTC and 140,000 USD due to the cost of his laundering activities and also the significantly lower Bitcoin price when he cashed out.
- Chen Jianhai (before he was outed) discovers that Zhou is giving 5000 BTC out of his own pocket to Bitcoinica customers and decides to donate 100 BTC of the hacked funds to Zhou's community donation pool
- Chen Jianhai's identity is only known by Zhou, but unfortunately Chen Jianhai is now gone (phone: powered off, QQ: offline, email: no response) and the Alipay account got its password changed
Of course before Chen mysteriously disappeared Zhou stated that "Currently I'm very willing to co-operate with any investigation because this is the only way I can completely prove my innocence." and "I have repeatedly said that I have zero tolerance in this matter and I will report all his information, including his real bank account number and address to the police once the official investigation has started." However when I wanted to file a police report with my local authorities and asked Zhou to provide me the address details for Chen, I received the following reply: If you insist on filing a police report on this matter, any lack of co-operation from my side can of course be used against me in the uncertain future.
I'm not protecting his identity. I just deem it to be unnecessary at this point. He is not running away (AFAIK he doesn't even have a passport), and the fund return is pending Bitcoinica's liquidation.
I want to go back to my own business and focus on something productive. Any information I provide now will necessarily be a burden in the near future.
I strongly advise you not to involve the police before the liquidation process has any significant development. You are not obliged to report this. (But when you do, I'm obliged to provide information to either you, or the police, and obviously I would prefer the former.)
My point is, there is very little benefit to this, yet the risk and potential expense are too high. I don't want to hire a lawyer or waste my time on gathering evidence or whatever. I contributed 5,000 BTC and talked to the creditors regularly exactly because I wanted to avoid any lawsuits against me. I'm all for justice, but I have already given up on Bitcoin and justice in this matter seems worthless to me.
Considering the suspicion raised by community members, the questions from trusted business partners and threats of violence, I don't have any energy to fight back any more. I just want the fiasco to be over. Yet people are giving me more and more troubles. It's okay if you can't feel the pain, please just try to sympathize.
I have plans to immigrate to Australia and I need an absolutely clean record. Even a criminal accusation (without conviction) is intolerable in the character check. I really deeply regret the creation of Bitcoinica. If you can forget about me, please do.
I'm returning to Melbourne on October 6, 2012. Hopefully something will happen at Bitcoinica side, and you have plenty time to re-consider your decision before then. I agreed and waited for Zhou to return to Melbourne. However upon his return Zhou ignored all my follow up emails. I have never been able to obtains any details about Chen from Zhou nor have I been able to file an actionable report. In the mean time Bitcoinica creditors are still smack in the middle of what must be the largest clusterf*ck in bitcoin history with the MtGox account orphaned and frozen. The AurumXchange funds still missing and an ongoing lawsuit against the Bitcoin Consultancy by the largest creditors. Considering that Bitcoinica had around 1M USD in deposits when it got hacked, and conservatively estimating 50% of that to be in BTC, at current valuations we are talking in excess of 15,000,000 USD still pending liquidation. Or what is left of it. Now, Zhou returns 1 year later, hoping the dust has settled with his "Hero member" tag still in tact. Well played sir! I suggest that at the very least Zhou receives an "Untrustworthy" tag. Although I do realize that might be an insult to MNW whom I regard much more highly. This looks very comprehensive, and well set out. |
|
|
|
The funds will subside when the hype runs out.
oh its just gettin started my friend. just cuz we have heard about "the bitcoin" doesnt mean 90% of people have, more like 1%. I agree...further even if people have heard of it only a fraction will buy in at this stage |
|
|
|
I am not saying a pre mine is in anyway bad, in fact quite the opposite. You *seem* to injecting this connotation.
the thrust of the argument is why is a premine bad in any way? Does not an open premine allow you to price in more accurately.
You don't need to say that premining is bad in any way. The instant conflation with those crap currencies which have been premined does that for you. And quite neatly as I imagine you're aware. And I am not 'injecting' anything. I state baldly - premining is not a good thing for trust. Bitcoin was not premined - not even in a remotely defacto sense - and I trust it. As for a term that is appropriate: early adoption has been used for years, and is accurate not only in re a strength of bitcoin (the strength of those concerned creating the infrastructure for their own wealth), but the weakness of the alt-currencies as well. let me re iterate, I am saying a clear and stated pre mine may be a benefit as it allows risk to be priced in more accurately. |
|
|
|
It appears that almost all coin chains are to some degree a pre mined, either by ignorance of the project, or lack of understanding at the time, access to hardware, or obscure tactics.
BTC for example had a defacto premine. Not many people new about it at the start, and even then, many who did did not understand it. Further it was (and still is) a huge risk. Eg Satoshi and early adopters could have wasted there collective time. Yet they mined away...probably at a large loss.....at the time. I am not casting this as wrong or bad, rather probally well deserved due to the risk of what they were spending their time on. The issue is now however its hard to price in the risk to the chain, as we do not know clearly how many BTC's are tied to one entity.
It may be that all coins even if a coin is announced weeks in advance and *not premined* are still subject to a relatively select few to mine, or defacto premine.
Look at the BTE, FC, TRC,LTC who but the first on the chains really had it easy as a function was this chance/risk access to hardware.
In fact it maybe that a known premine, eg IXCoin or NovaCoin may provide a form of stability, with the certainty that there was an amount secured by one entity and being able to price in that risk, rather than believe that it was not premined when in reality it was just in stealth mode by the first few. It becomes hard to price that in as you do not know exactly how much is controlled by one or a few entities, and you may well get this wrong.
I think that premine suffers from the similar stigma as "insider trading". It was pointed out to me by a Law Prof, that there was no such thing as insider trading, as no one knew the future with 100% and rather what gets called "insider trading" is rather quicker allocation of capital with attendant risk.
I feel that the degree of premine is simply another parameter in the variables for what constitutes a good coin, eg pay out rate, difficulty algo, upper limit of coins, speed etc.
tl;dr, confirmed premine lets you price that in. Defacto premines usually present anyway, and you can't price that in well.
jubalix - Words matter - and despite your waffling ("defacto premine", "to some degree") your continued use of the word 'premine', applied to bitcoin, is disingenuous at best. Ripple is totally premined. The alt-currencies you mention were premined. Bitcoin was never premined: it was not anything even close. Not even close. Plenty of people were aware of it, and plenty mined. It was the only cryptocurrency of which I'm aware that began its life in complete transparency, fully open to any and all; for those with eyes to see. Your continued insistence in using the term 'premined' does both bitcoin and you a great disservice. hmm lets dissect this response. 75% ad hominem 25% semitoics.... 0% on the pricing I am not saying a pre mine is in anyway bad, in fact quite the opposite. You *seem* to injecting this connotation. the thrust of the argument is why is a premine bad in any way? Does not an open premine allow you to price in more accurately. The fact that a *Large* proportion of BTC is just siting there suggest a defacto pre-mine, If you don't like the semiotcs I use....well that's ok, in-vent a new term that conveys the content better and see if it catches on. I am also not sure that a real lot of people knew about the BTC project in any meaningful way when it was one or two laptops mining. |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't sell at 1000$
I am not here to day trade and all that stress, to get 1x more or 4x more here and there even if I could pick the tops an bottoms.
What I am into is the orders of magnitude increase of BTC, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 etc.
This really out weighs most benefit i could get by trading.....yeah sure I could buy and sell, but I going to miss the boat at some point is a sell, and then its going and order of magnitude on me, not comming back, and thats that.
|
|
|
|
It's simple, don't use gox.
hhmmmm good in theory and practice, I agree....but right now, not what is happening |
|
|
|
|
did i hear right he think 1000, to 20/30K....in a year???
|
|
|
|
|
There must be a lot of Fiat money then just sat in Gox accounts not being traded into bitcoins
|
|
|
|
If I understand you correctly, I agree with you. The fact of premining itself, or even how large it is, is not really an issue for the usefulness of a currency. What's crucial is that everyone using the currency has as much information as possible. This is why I got so excited by Sergio Damian Lerner's thread in which he analysed the blockchain to come up with a pretty good guess of which blocks were mined by SN. What we still don't know is whether those coins are capable of circulating, or lost forever, and this would be a real help in stabilising Bitcoin's value. I'm sure it wouldn't kill Satoshi to pop up, say "yeah those are mine, they're still spendable, here's me spending 0.1BTC from each of the blocks with prime number depths as proof". In the mean time those BTC (order of about a million?) are a bit of an elephant in the room.
Exactly...you understand my point. The premine may also garner a bad rep because the usual suspects who get on chain early (chain junkies) can not do this to the same degree and are really complaining they could not "premine" themselves. |
|
|
|
|
It appears that almost all coin chains are to some degree pre mined explicity or de facto, either by ignorance of the project, or lack of understanding at the time, access to hardware, or obscure tactics.
BTC for example had a defacto premine. Not many people new about it at the start, and even then, many who did did not understand it. Further it was (and still is) a huge risk. Eg Satoshi and early adopters could have wasted there collective time. Yet they mined away...probably at a large loss.....at the time. I am not casting this as wrong or bad, rather probally well deserved due to the risk of what they were spending their time on. The issue is now however its hard to price in the risk to the chain, as we do not know clearly how many BTC's are tied to one entity.
It may be that all coins even if a coin is announced weeks in advance and *not premined* are still subject to a relatively select few to mine, or defacto premine.
Look at the BTE, FC, TRC,LTC who but the first on the chains really had it easy as a function was this chance/risk access to hardware.
In fact it maybe that a known premine, eg IXCoin or NovaCoin may provide a form of stability, with the certainty that there was an amount secured by one entity and being able to price in that risk, rather than believe that it was not premined when in reality it was just in stealth mode by the first few. It becomes hard to price that in as you do not know exactly how much is controlled by one or a few entities, and you may well get this wrong.
I think that premine suffers from the similar stigma as "insider trading". It was pointed out to me by a Law Prof, that there was no such thing as insider trading, as no one knew the future with 100% and rather what gets called "insider trading" is rather quicker allocation of capital with attendant risk.
I feel that the degree of premine is simply another parameter in the variables for what constitutes a good coin, eg pay out rate, difficulty algo, upper limit of coins, speed etc.
tl;dr, confirmed premine lets you price that in. Defacto premines usually present anyway, and you can't price that in well.
|
|
|
|
|
price shifts up a bit...gox lags...again/still
will this kill the rally
or are people going to become desensitized to lag / outages and see less and drops after severe lag/outage
|
|
|
|
Specifically I was not commenting about the merits of the case. Rather making a procedural point.
Nefario is the one who stopped communicating. We asked for a reply many many MANY times and he didn't. That's how this thing escalated in the first place. While at it, he is more than welcome to post here about why he is keeping people's money too. That then should be an edit at the beginning if this form. EDIT: Nerario has been repeatedly offered a right of reply (including in this forum and thread) but declined and has not take up that offer. It makes it so much more legit you may wish to add (though not obligatory) It is noted Neferio has purportedly give his views here and post the link to that interview....though this is not a requirement of procedural fairness |
|
|
|
Man, the fact that that money's not going out means people are thinking about putting it back in.
I think we're on the verge of another bubble... already!
This time I'm betting we'll be going up, up, up, without the nasty crash of last time.
The fact that there is so little delay between those bubbles makes me think that this time we will have higher highs and probably higher lows then during the last bubble but not that much difference in between. Maybe we'll top out at 350$/BTC or so but we wont go to 1000$ straight away because not much has changed during the last bubble. Infrastructure still has to be built, money has to flow in, people have to wrap their heads around it before they invest. After the coming bubble's burst we shoud be able to see the big underlying trend and trend channel that all the coming bubbles will follow for some time. I envision something like that:  This +9000 |
|
|
|
Could not read whole thread, but to look credible and in the interests of open justice Nefario Should be afforded a right of reply (not that he has to take it) in this thread at the top, regardless if he is right or wrong, bad or good, I make no judgment on that nor can I as I have had no time to digest this. This is a pure procedural point, and I believe will enhance the standing of the community this link appears to be that a reply http://bitcoinmagazine.com/interview-with-glbses-nefario/I for one wanted so see a right of reply formally offered and then if taken clearly put at the top. You better get some time & READ all the pages before commenting again about GLBSE & neforia. Specifically I was not commenting about the merits of the case. Rather making a procedural point. |
|
|
|
Could not read whole thread, but to look credible and in the interests of open justice Nefario Should be afforded a right of reply (not that he has to take it) in this thread at the top, regardless if he is right or wrong, bad or good, I make no judgment on that nor can I as I have had no time to digest this. This is a pure procedural point, and I believe will enhance the standing of the community this link appears to be that a reply http://bitcoinmagazine.com/interview-with-glbses-nefario/I for one wanted so see a right of reply formally offered and then if taken clearly put at the top. You better get some time & READ all the pages before commenting again about GLBSE & neforia. Oh please... And while we're at it, why not ask pirate and all the other scum for a formal reply... The difference between substantive justice (merits of the case) and procedural fairness... is at issue....*cough*....star chamber I do not trammel the merits of any action of any person, but advocate a right/opportunity to reply |
|
|
|
yes but firmware crash on all ASICs them what!!!! or hardware flaw, they let the smoke out...dead. then what.
And how is that easier than upsetting the difficulty repeatedly on purpose over a span of Months vs. a span of Days/Hours before having to come back and repeat the task again?.... This is effectively what is happening to Terracoin right now, and I bet if you ask most users, would you prefer the namecoin experience (where it was taking many months to have a difficulty drop, and block times that were numbering many hours) or the Terracoin experience (where, ya hashing could hop in and out repeating in a shorter time than before but at least difficulty fixes itself fairly rapidly when the disproportionate hash rate comes and goes)
What I'm trying to say is that upsetting difficulty is easy both ways, the "Terracoin" way though leaves the end user with a workable network, whereas the current bitcoin way leaves the end user with a horrible system to operate on for a long time.... I would think the latter is a lot more damaging to the adoption rate.
Terracoin is weak and desperate and needs to defend against the top dogs somehow, even if it has drawbacks. The best defense of bitcoin is being the ultimate top dog. YET TRC survived and thrives.... worth taking a good look at the retarget code used legit concern here No it's not legit. To make it painfully clear: If the ASIC miners coming from bitcoin pumping the difficulty in Terracoin would have instead 51%'ed it, Terracoin would be dead. They probably didn't because Terracoin has not enough value (yet). On the other hand, all Terra- and other altcoin miners together are not strong enough to do the same to bitcoin, not even close (or a 51% attack would be close), and that's the best defense there is. But almost everything is better than taking experimental code requiring a hard fork. |
|
|
|
Could not read whole thread, but to look credible and in the interests of open justice Nefario Should be afforded a right of reply (not that he has to take it) in this thread at the top, regardless if he is right or wrong, bad or good, I make no judgment on that nor can I as I have had no time to digest this. This is a pure procedural point, and I believe will enhance the standing of the community this link appears to be that a reply http://bitcoinmagazine.com/interview-with-glbses-nefario/I for one wanted so see a right of reply formally offered and then if taken clearly put at the top. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure How keeping dividends into NAV helps with Vircurex.....there should be plenty in the coffers already from the capital raise.
I think you have to demonstrate the worth of the stock by high dividends see a larger trade volume at higher prices then you can sell of a part of your stock at a better rate into a deepper market.
Thats the path for shareholder and Vircurex I feel.
Its too early after 1 dividend to go tweaking the model....get some market confidence.....eg Vircurex went down at a critical trading time for me.....and probally others, also the site does not update well, eg you have to push the exchange paur to update....
Thats how you add value and get better returns...
Totally offtopic seems to me... Was directed to this thread about the Vircurex share vote...so following VirCurEx instructions.... |
|
|
|
Was doing some spring cleaning, tried to send the balance of 0.267 btc from a random wallet to my main wallet.
bitcoind sendtoaddress xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0.26720506
error: {"code":-4,"message":"Error: This transaction requires a transaction fee of at least 0.035 because of its amount, complexity, or use of recently received funds!"}
That's a 13% tx fee.
At $127/btc that would be $4.95 of the $33 that 0.267btc is currently worth.
I know its a messed up wallet (was playing with satoshi dice) but how do we explain this to newbies?
I wouldn't consider $33 to be a micro transaction.
And this balance has been there for many months so no recent tx were made.
In the long run won't all coins have so many inputs that the tx fee will go through the roof?
Is there a way to "defrag" your coins?
Just publicise this as an extra cost to SD winnings, the ratios are wafer thin and gamblers hate getting by a stealth cost....the market forces will come to bear and force SD to change its way, or face new competition Q.E.D |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
