...or you need access to the hashes of said ISO files to check if your downloaded copy is the same as you would buy from Microsoft. |
|
|
|
Well, I saw this as a perfect opportunity to get some more stock
Blazr rises his ask price*Sukrim just sold at 10 Bitcents profit per share...*  |
|
|
|
|
Well, you bought relatively expensive on the bitbond end... The current price for 1 MH/s seems to still be 0.3 BTC - preIPO from trusted people you might be able to buy even cheaper.
You could also offer to trade 1 share of your company for 3 MH/s of mining bonds for some time.
|
|
|
|
StarFISH, and you look a bit chubby on that photo of your's!  BTT, the price on this is also a kind of double prediction: * How high will the dividends be on PPT.X issues in the future and * When will pirateat40 default Both are interlinked, as the dividends could rise quickly and pirate might default soon, or dividends might decrease over time but he might keep up his operation for some more months. Still I figure from the recent runs on IPOs on GLBSE some bubbles are already forming - it seems to be more important to some ppl. to own shares at any cost instead of thinking about values before. Luckily GLBSE is still in terms of "company" size, fees and money movements rather a playground than a stock exchange - I hope it stays that way in the future too!  |
|
|
|
It might even help the PCs living longer having their fans run nonstop so there is less dust buildup! |
|
|
|
|
What's the buyback price if the asset was not traded in the prior 168 hours?
Do you actually HAVE this hash rate or is this a purely virtual asset (paying out as if it was mined)?
|
|
|
|
Better reserve a ticker symbol! /watching |
|
|
|
|
Well, I guess some people will buy these at very inflated prices... (I dare to call everyone stupid who buys any of these for more than a month worth of expected dividends)
More money to be lost to the big fish on GLBSE in case of a pirate default, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
If you get a Linux machine, it's likely a server. Probably quite often these are then used for FTP dumps and similar instead of being searched for credit card/Paypal/... information.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the one that has these many 0.005 BTC payouts (15Art...) is anyways just the bitcoin faucet, so all relevant transactions should fit on a normal screen anyways, just take a screenshot.
Probably there's some highly sophisticated stuff (or a Firefox addon I'm unaware of) that can also do this, but I guess you'lll have to reasearch this without my aid.
|
|
|
|
Ok, back to topic again.
So, How many spends have their been on the 'stolen' money?
Check it for yourself in realtime: http://blockchain.info/tree/5416502 Edit: I'm not sure if it came up already, but there's a quite obvious message encoded in the transactions going out from there: 01100101 01111000 01110000 01100101
01100011 01110100 00100000 01101101
01100001 01110011 01110011 00100000
01101100 01100101 01100001 01101011
00100000 01110011 01101111 01101111
01101110 Maybe a bit related - is there a way to short Bitcoinica? Edit2: Ok, seems like it was posted already. There are however still 116 BTC waiting on the "writing" account. Either they were just too much (as the rest was split up in nice 2600 BTC chunks) or they will be used for an up to 28 letters message (or several smaller ones) - more than enough for a pastebin link... |
|
|
|
|
So in reality it would look like this?
Original transaction:
Input: 4.99 BTC from Alice's address(es) to 1someaddress
Output: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress (= Bob)
Stuck in limbo, would need 0.01 BTC fee likely.
New transaction:
Input: 4.99 BTC from 1someaddress and 0.01 from either 1someaddress (ideally) or another address under the control of Bob to 1someaddress or another of his addresses
Output: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress (= Bob) or another of his addresses (he could also just output 4.98 BTC and spend the 0.01 on miner fees)
Net fee: 0.01 BTC to miner
The miner then includes both to get the fee on the second, which is only valid if the first one went through. It is either possible to let fewer BTC arrive at 1someaddress and paying the differnece to miners or to have the 4.99 BTC arrive at 1someaddress and pay the miners from existing other funds.
^^^
Is the above correct or did you only implement the case where fewer BTC than planned arrive at the address in the end?
|
|
|
|
Doesn't this eliminate some of the anonymity of the system by advertising who the receiver of a transaction is?
No. Input: 5 BTC to 1someaddress Output: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress Net fee: 0.01 BTC to miner Maybe: Original transaction: Input: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress from Alice Output: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress Appended transaction Input: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress from Alice appended Input: 0.01 BTC from someone who really wants to get these 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress, presumably the address owner total new Input: 5.00 BTC to 1someaddress Output: 4.99 BTC to 1someaddress Net fee: 0.01 BTC to miner |
|
|
|
I didn't mean to give the impression of disagreeing with the math but the ones controlling the choice to add another digit can control the supply and demand to some extent. Is this not what is being done with the FED?
Another aspect, is suppose someone is hoarding a lot of Bitcoins say like 10 Million (extreme example), we add another decimal and the hoarder starts spending. It messes with the economics of it. What we might have attributed to attrition is actually just a large saver.
If I buy gas at the station, it's priced down to sub-cents (0.1 cent). I'm not sure if this does anything to supply and demand other than offering gas stations another way to display more nines in the end of a price sign. Hoarding + loosing Bitcoins is not distinguishable. There is also NO way for you to proove with certainty that it's not an elaborate scam of an advanced AI that generates fake transactions + websites + forum posts etc. and is trying to slowly screw you out of money. All Bitcoins that you currently don't possess are potentially controlled by this entity... To get less paranoid again: Even saying "in 10 years, all your Bitcoins are useless and until then you can exchange them for 1000 Bitcoin2.0 a piece" won't change the fact that someone holding 10 million of BTC that were believed to be lost could crash the economy simply by moving them, prooving that they are in fact NOT lost. Unless something like this happens at regular intervals (depending on where you live, this actually happens in real life too! My grandparents are now probably using their 4th or 5th currency already...) there simply is no way to tell if coins are lost for sure, which (since this is a risk) surely is a factor pushing down on the exchange rate. The longer old coins haven't been moved, the more people will probably believe that they are "dead", there's no way to know for sure though. |
|
|
|
|
You could try to spam the GLBSE servers with API calls at sale time instead of relying on the interface...
Also writing snipe bots might become increasingly interesting, if I look at the aftermarket there's a lot of profit to be had nearly immediately every week so far.
|
|
|
|
|
It could expose another address of the receiver, yes.
It could be also be done by a (paid?) 3rd party service or out of charity though, so I believe it's not conclusive proof, unlike linking inputs together where you need to control both of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't work though, he could only have gotten all remaining coinbases. It's not possible to solve all blocks, as there is an infinite amount of them without the possibility to build cycles (a timestamp is part of the hashed header).
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there is an entire piece of science designed to bring evidence, it's called mathematics.
As there is no way to send e.g. 1/3rd Bitcoin, only atomic units (and to make it more convenient, we call 100 000 000 of these units "1 Bitcoin"), even dividing these further will in the beginning only add zeroes after the decimal seperator (so you will always have only 1.0 or 4.0000 or 1337.00000000000 Satoshis). Afterwards the atomic unit is simply a millionth (or whatever) of a Satoshi. If this after some time is still not enough, then you cann expand the size again.
You can multiply all USDs you own by 100, then you have everything in US-Cents, for cash money that would be these atomic units. Unlike fiat money coming from a central bank though, Bitcoins do NOT need to be issued in a new way or shape, they just need to be multiplied by a factor of 10 or 1000 or whatever. Imagine an US-Cent being worth close to nothing (like a Satoshi) - instead of paying with tons (literally) of USD notes, you'd pay with 1 million USD notes. Bitcoin has the opposite direction. Money available to users won't get more and more, but less and less.
By the way, I really believe, there are also a lot of psychological effects playing part in this. I'm for example still strongly for adopting milliBitcoins as standard denomination, meaning 1 current Bitcoin = 1000 milliBitcoins, both amounts valued at ~5 USD currently.
Yes, you won't be able to brag that 1 unit of standard denomination buys you a happy meal at McD, but We would be more or less on par with Linden Dollars instead and people might feel better about themselves, if they hold a 4-5 digit amount of milliBitcoins than right now where even buying 1 BTC is already looking like a little investment.
|
|
|
|
Google docs have a quite nice API and you could use a spreadsheet there as input data for a graph/chart that would then get auto-updated every 15 minutes or so... ...but you should really rather work on Armory! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
