Use mtgox.com and a yubikey.
Do you still trust mt. gox after they acted like paypal and reversed all transactions done for a certain amount of time for nothing. Yes. Do you still torture kittens for fun (like Satan)?
|
|
|
If you actually know this is going on it is free money for you, how is that annoying?
|
|
|
The rake is ridiculously high and that is at 50% off??!! I played heads up with a guy who bought in for 100 chips or .10 btc and we played 50 hands when I finally beat him. Guess how much I won? I didn't. I lost about 30 chips of my own stack. So in just 50 hands which isn't much heads up we paid 130 chips in rake. And this is the half price special?
That doesn't seem right. Were almost all of your pots all in? I'll investigate and see if it's taking rake correctly. It should be 0 up to 40 in the pot, 1 up to 80, 2 up to 120, etc.
|
|
|
I cringe every time i hear people say "gay" as a synonym for "bad". It is insensitive at best, reinforcing hate at worst. Not long ago, people would say things like: It was a gay party.... Boy we ate a lot of wieners that day! It appalls me that (yet another) word has evolved to have two opposite meanings.. like inflammable. Inflammable doesn't mean non-combustable.
|
|
|
The title of this thread is a VERY poor example. A good title gives the reader some idea of what the thread is about without having to click into it. Forum etiquette 101.
Yeah, it's getting ridiculous. Should I start a thread in Bitcoin Discussion about how people should only get to start one thread and then get approved to start more based on it's quality? NO, I should put it in Meta ffs.
|
|
|
Private people borrow so much because it's so damn cheap, just like if blueberries were 90% subsidized we'd have a hell of a lot more blueberry juice. People calling themselves governments borrow so much because they aren't going to pay you back with actual value.
OP mentions people will lend with no interest in Bitcoin because they will be getting more valuable coins back. Wrong. Holding the coins yourself is much less risk then letting someone else use them and maybe pay back, the lending that does happen will be at interest.
|
|
|
That sucks. The cops are not going to help you.
|
|
|
Ruxum is awesome and even in private beta they already have .1% of exchange volume. Just gotta wait and see what deposit and withdraw options they'll add.
|
|
|
I don't get how this is about Bitcoin at all. One company that doesn't even use Bitcoins made a promise, now we wait and see if they keep it. It seems obvious that Dwolla would get scammed from time to time, their promise of not passing on the chargeback is what made them valuable.
I don't see why TH waited two weeks. Not because they have some obligation to tell us that they might be getting ripped off by Dwolla, but because I would stop accepting Dwolla the first time it happened if I didn't get a response from Dwolla. How can you go on bleeding money like that? I don't see how you can reliably stop it from happening, I'm under the impression that normal confirmed transactions are just being pulled back. How can you tell which to believe now?
|
|
|
It would be cool to modify the client to use 1 new change address when the amount sent is roughly half of what was in an address, 2 new addresses when it's roughly a third, etc. The change amounts should be random but roughly equal. This would make it really hard to guess any better than chance. Also putting a way to SendMany in the main client would let people obfuscate even more by making designer transactions.
|
|
|
Did you see this? http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/8067352221/dwolla-allows-chargebacksIf this is true and MtGox stops accepting or suspends dwolla deposits we'll have the perfect storm of no cash coming in, nervous people and miners continuing to sell at a steady clip. Still seeing $40 short term in that situation? Just that rumor was enough for me to sell half my mined BTC immediately (all of 3.38 of them ) Is this really going to be a problem? It seems obvious that Dwolla will end up eating this and not let it happen in the future. Otherwise Dwolla is pretty much done altogether. If Dwolla is done that will suck for a while.
|
|
|
this transaction will never be confirmed. I see no problem there ..
The transaction might include some coins that were spent and some that were not making it difficult to get to the unspent ones. Plus accidentally sending bad coins is pretty annoying to sender and receiver. Maybe I put this in the wrong place. Move to dev and tech discusion?
|
|
|
I almost spent some coins during a rescan without thinking. This obviously can cause problems, right? I had a spend that wasn't refound yet and it probably would have used some of the coins that were already spent. Should there be a warning now that rescan is automatic?
|
|
|
Bug report: for some reason, copying and pasting an address gave weird results in this machine, so I partially copied it, then pasted it and manually typed the remaining characters. I unavoidably mistyped the last one, and entered "y" instead of "Y". I didn't get the message "This address isn't in the chain", but I got "Your firstbits address is:" instead, without any firstbits address after that message. Thanks, will look into it.
|
|
|
Anyone want to meet on the Las Vegas strip?
|
|
|
The OP's concern is legit. If btc will not replace USD, they will both exist in parallel. If btc is appreciating and USD is depreciating, a consumer will spend their dollars and hoard their bitcoins.
What happens when everyone wants to get rid of dollars and get and keep bitcoins? You mean when supply falls and demand goes through the roof? What will happen then? Just a guess, but the price of bitcoins would go up. And up. And up. Eventually hitting a price were someone will sell and a new equilibrium will be set. It doesn't have to be dollars of course; the same argument applies to buying anything. The seller of cars has to offer at a price the buyer is willing to pay. Even if that price is 0.00001 BTC. If that car will also sell for $50,000 then by implication 0.00001 BTC is worth $50,000. If it will sell for (in vastly depreciated USD) $500,000 dollars, that is the rate set, even if you can't find anyone willing to trade BTC for dollars. Yeah, my point was that what people want to save is what has value, what they want to get rid of does not. The ultimate equilibrium will depend on the value of productive uses of dirty paper that has already been printed on.
|
|
|
The OP's concern is legit. If btc will not replace USD, they will both exist in parallel. If btc is appreciating and USD is depreciating, a consumer will spend their dollars and hoard their bitcoins.
What happens when everyone wants to get rid of dollars and get and keep bitcoins?
|
|
|
Say to him "Geez, I guess if it were 100% guaranteed to rise in value it couldn't work." Maybe he'll get it. In case you don't, it's a completely self exploding argument.
If the increase in value is what makes it fail then it won't increase in value therefore that can't be the reason for the failure.
Anyway it should be obvious that people will still want stuff instead of saving it all until they are past dead no matter how good of a deal they are getting for saving. If I multiply your savings by 100 every day how much would you spend this week, month, year? Probably 0 right? I don't think so, you are going to buy more than ever in your life. If you keep spending even when you get near infinite annual return I don't think whatever amount Bitcoin appreciates is going to bring people's spending to a halt.
|
|
|
Does this take into account the change that is sent with each transaction? For example, I have 50 bitcoin in an account, I send .001 to you, the transaction shows up as .001 going to your address and 49.999 going to another one of my addresses. Would that add 50 to the total transactions, or just .001?
It can't differentiate change. Really there is no such thing as "change" you are just making a payment from 1 address to 2 addresses 1 of which you happen to control, maybe. Or maybe you used SendMany and paid two employees at once.
|
|
|
|