Does this mean that all of your previous claims that every user will get all of their BTC back are now incorrect, and every user will not get all of their BTC back?

Does this affect BTC that were 'stored' on bitfunder, but not yet 'transferred' to weex?

To get our appropriate portion, do we need to initiate a transfer from Bitfunder to Weex and initiate the full transfer out, or should we leave the untouched coins in bitfunder??

Thanks

Don't tell me, I'm not working on the problem.  Tell Ukyo.  Your solution may very well work, I don't know.  I don't know why Ukyo didn't think of it, and I don't know that I personally would have thought of it in Ukyo's shoes.  I didn't know about pywallet, and I expect there are a great many subsets and facets about Bitcoin that Ukyo(or most site operators today) do not know about.

I also don't know that there isn't some hidden flaw or danger in that approach that would prevent it from working(and wouldn't until I tried).

This thread wasn't created to track debts.  It is in the scam accusations board and it is a scam accusation.

I'm sorry, which of the 10,000 containing addresses did you want him to sign from?  Please specify which one and I'm sure I could get him to sign that one.  But you only requested one signature, so you only get one.

The solution has been found!

Quick, enlighten Ukyo so he can fix this whole mess within a few minutes, tops.

Because there's 1000-10,000 private keys.

Ok, so this thread is seriously unjustified at this point.  Ukyo is clearly having difficulties delivering.  But it does not justify a scam accusation so long as he appears to be working on the issue.

1. Speaking as a software engineer with a lot of experience dealing with software(and software failures) at scale, it is *very reasonable* that everything Ukyo is describing about the wallet difficulties could be true*.  It is also very reasonable that there are few if any good solutions to this problem.  This is compounded because A. Bitcoin is a new technology and has not yet hit/fixed these scaling limits, B. Bitcoin is a distributed computing problem, which introduces a lot more complexity, C. Bitcoin is an open source project, meaning few if any single team/individuals are accountable for these types of issues, and D. many of the teams working with Bitcoin, like Ukyo, both don't have the background/experience necessary to pre-emptively prevent these types of failures, they ALSO don't have the resources to call on to fix the issues quickly.  This isn't some team at Microsoft that can just call up the developers on the phone who made the software for a bugfix.

Unless some other experienced software engineer(please state your background) wants to come in here and put his balls on the line claiming that Ukyo is full of shit and there's no way Bitcoind could fail like he has described, all claims that Ukyo is lying about the problem need to stop *RIGHT FUCKING NOW.*  That would include Bitcoin developers like Luke-jr or Gavin, or anyone else who can prove what they are claiming.

My background is software engineering for Amazon before I jumped to be the technical director for Dave @ Mega Big Power(100TH mine), and a gaming industry programmer before that.  Right this moment we are seeing difficulties of Bitcoind scaling internally- Getworks overwhelming out bitcoind clients, getinfo and gettransactions requests taking an excessive amount of time, and a huge drop in getwork throughput every time we receive a new block notification.  Speaking from my experience, there is no doubt in my mind that Ukyo is telling the truth about the difficulties he is encountering.  And unless someone else with the relevant experience wants to step up and put his balls on the line claiming Ukyo is lying(and explain why), that claim needs to stop right now.

To give even more backing to the idea of how the Bitcoin community handles 'scale' so far, when mining you are supposed to have one worker per device for clear tracking.  I have asked two different pool operators if I could create just shy of a thousand workers for mining projects I am involved with.  Both balked and said that would likely break their backend systems.  Note that we aren't talking millions of items(like most websites must handle including this forum) or billions(like Amazon.com / Google / Facebook must handle), we're talking one thousand.  Mostly these are database entries.  The Bitcoin communities' software simply doesn't handle scale well.

* I am not claiming that Ukyo has handled this perfectly or made optimal decisions.  He is human, after all.  Mistakes or decisions made non-optimally does not warrant a scammer accusation.

2. Ukyo has been responding about this issue the whole time.  He has not vanished with anyone's money.  People have been getting payments for days now- Not perfectly consistently or constantly, but people have been getting payments, and Ukyo is under no obligation to do things the way you want.

3. Libbitcoin/Electrum -

First of all, Ukyo is not under any obligation to do things your way.  Not doing so does not warrant a scammer tag, that isn't how scammer tags work.  It sounds like his wallets may have thousands to tens of thousands of addresses/private keys, which might well break Electrum the same way.  Even simply exporting all of these addresses would be a difficult proposition, and exporting/importing is necessary for libbitcoin as well.

Second, libbitcoin is going to be an unfamiliar software to Ukyo.  Switching from something that is working(however badly) to something unknown is not an easy decision to make, and there are definitely costs with switching midstream.  Furthermore, a bug or faillure of the system(which is not backed & tested by the full Bitcoin open source team, nor has it been used by many different people in large-scale applications) could cause irretrievable losses for Ukyo.  And THEN you'd give him a scammer tag unless he could somehow prove to your hearts content that the coins were truly lost(Hint: You'd never be convinced anyway).

4. Demands and ETA -
Ukyo is not dealing with a simple physical labor problem.  Software problems are complex and unpredictable.  He can't give an ETA for how long it would take to solve the problem because he can't possibly know.  Again, anyone who is an experienced software developer can step in here and tell me I am wrong, but they won't.  The entire software industry is habitually late delivering despite best efforts(and crunch time) to avoid it.  Software problem fixes are generally not predictable for ETA's.  So he could make up some number far in the future and it is going to sound ridiculous to you and everyone else, which would piss you off more.  Or he can make a reasonable guess, but with a significant chance he might miss that date.  It is better for him simply to not give an ETA but rather give updates, and then those who know how these problems go and truly understand the issues can make their own predictions, and people like you who don't understand the problem can continue to rage.

Moreover, every time Ukyo tries something new to solve the problem, you can expect a several day delay.  Working with software and existing other people's systems requires a bit of stumbling and learning every time you switch gears.

5. Fractional reserve claim -

This claim is completely unsubstantiated.  The "word going around" does not represent reality nor is it a fact, and therefore it is not something you can make a demand.  If you're going to make that accusation, you need proof.  The burden of proof is on you buddy, not him.

And the fact that your demand is for a signed message from an address with the coin shows that you clearly have no grasp of this problem, and are in no position to be making a scam accusation.  He can't sign from an address with the coin because no single address has the coin.  If a single address did have the coin, bitcoind wouldn't be choking.  Bitcoin is choking because the coin has been fractioned out over thousands(or tens of thousands) of addresses.  Sure, if you want, I'm sure he could spend a week generating the 10,000 signatures necessary to account for all the coin.  And you could spend a week verifying all of those.  But I think everyone else here would rather he just continue working on the problem at hand.

6. Disabling withdraw from Weexchange
While this isn't a bad idea, it doesn't really solve anything.  They can't withdraw now but they at least have a process to get a slow withdrawal started.  Under your way they still couldn't withdraw, but now have no process to get one started.  Doesn't seem to gain much.

And lastly, Lophie you are in no position personally to be making scam accusations.  Firstly, you clearly don't have a grasp on the technical problems Ukyo has described, else you would not have demanded a signed message and made yourself look stupid.  Secondly, I've caught you lying publically at least twice, so you should have left this scam accusation to someone with a clean record.  Someone not approaching problems the way YOU demand does not make them a scammer.

Disclaimer: I have about ~20 BTC held up in Bitfunder/Weexchange that needs to be withdrawn.

Hm, that is unfortunate.  If Bitcoind used deterministic keys for chaincodes like Armory that wouldn't be a problem.

Hi Ukyo,

Has it occurred to you that you could use Amazon's EC2 to spin up a dozen machines to process payments in parallel?  They'd still have to be done by hand probably, and they'd all need a copy of the wallet, but each transaction could be processed independently without blocking the others.

* If you want some advice or help on how to get this done effectively, PM me and I'll give you tips/commands.

Thank you for the apology, that is very admirable.

The whole bitfunder thing is a mess, mostly because of the SEC action against Bitfunder/BTCT.co(Not Ukyo's fault- no one could have guessed they would have taken such an aggressive approach to people buying and selling virtual stock with non-US dollars).  The current technical difficulties are a pain in the ass, but not really unsurprising- These kinds of things don't break when it is convenient, they break when people panic and you really don't want them to break.

(And for anyone who doubts that a technical problem could cause this, you know little about how software breaks when scaled.  This type of failure isn't the least bit surprising.  I could say that Ukyo should have seen it coming, but at the same time, it isn't his software and it is managed by a large community of developers who should be addressing these types of problems)

Right, and I haven't described what the matter was to anyone.  I'm somewhat inclined to believe that you were telling the truth about what happened, but you obviously didn't need the money to solve that problem if, 26 days later, you want to withdraw bitcoins for "thousands of dollars in investment opportunities."  So either you're lying to Ukyo here or you lied to me in PM, take your pick.

Along with that you lied on my thread about "weak hands investors" two days after "I have the coins ready."  So you've been caught in two public outright lies.

No one disputes that Bitfunder should give you the BTC.  That's no excuse to be an asshole to Ukyo, who is clearly working very hard on the problem.

Aren't you the same guy who bid on my AM shares auction and then backed out afterwards?  And not just backed out, but used some bullshit "family emergency, I need to sell for cash RIGHT NOW" excuse?  You're lucky I didn't pursue a scammer tag.

And you feel justified criticizing Ukyo who is working tirelessly now to send BTC to everyone?

Note: Some of the new changes I made might cause problems with our rigs with those steps.  They also will need to do this after building:

The first line updates a file I was referencing to determine which miner to use.  The second line turns off my automatic configuration so that it won't run at all regardless.

Subway?!?

http://www.jared.com/

Just to clarify a bit further... Hypothetical example...

You receive your mining rig, and your home computer's IP address is 192.168.2.104  (You can find this by going to start -> run -> type 'cmd' and press enter -> ipconfig )

You set it up.  Once it boots up, it **will take an extra 30-50 seconds to reconfigure the IP.**  Let me repeat that because it is going to trip someone up.  It should reconfigure its IP automatically for you, but it **will take an extra 30-50 seconds!!**  Someone over-eager might log in and start messing with it during this configuration process, but that might cause them problems that they would need to correct later.

When it boots up, for the first few seconds it will not be able to access the network.  Then it will work its DHCP magic, and voila!  It will move the rig to 192.168.2.249, matching your computer's scheme of 192.168.2.xxx.  For the vast majority of customers this means you won't even need to hook up a TV/monitor, although this script can't handle every possible network setup out there.  If you bought multiple rigs or you already have a device on *.249, it will search downwards until it finds an open(not pingable) IP and move it there.

After that point you should be able to modify the IP as you desire on the web interface.  If it hasn't reconfigured itself to a proper IP(*.249, *.248, ... etc) within 2 minutes, something went wrong with the script.  You'll need to connect a monitor/TV and check it that way.  If you send me the /home/pi/.ip_results.log file I can improve this system.

One final note, this **should** not affect any customers at all, but there are two compiled miner's in /opt/bitfury/chainminer/.  The one that is setup there and should be the only one that customers need to interact with is miner_customer(which should be equal to miner, you can check by doing 'cmp miner miner_customer' and it should not produce any output).  miner_warehouse is only used if the system detects that the miner appears to be in the 100TH mine warehouse(compiled identically, just looks elsewhere to get work from rather than the built-in stratums), which should not happen to any customers.

Let me know if you encounter any problems or bugs with the system.  We tested it on several different network setups before shipping it out, but there are so many different types of network setups that I can't possibly hope that it will work properly for all of them.

Jared

Note: Lophie PM'd me about this.

For the record he lied about "weak hands investors."  I am unsure of whether or not to believe his story, and am currently looking into it.  I tentatively am letting the issue alone for now.  It is more personal than I would want to post unless I had strong reasons to believe he was lying.

Tally for now assuming the Lophie situation doesn't change:

hakock: 80 @ 1.11
neilol: 10 @ 1.12
flowdab: 20 @ 1.1

Payment destination addresses for public tracking:
hakock:  19zmKv3yHkkAJedysXJ7mDR7nGiVeKDAQF
neilol:    1549kUbSS3RNkmaZJKuvW2wThR75TdLrRw
flowdab:   14fSYDD95bU153yZnKNW3GHxeM9xgXCMt6

PM's sent to individuals to get destination information.

Final results:

hakock: 80 @ 1.11
neilol: 10 @ 1.12
lophie: 126 @ 1.13

I'll honor all 3 full bids, or I'll honor hakock @ 64 shares if preferred

If lophie truly backs out, next is flowdab: 20 shares at 1.1

Payment destination addresses for public tracking:
hakock:  19zmKv3yHkkAJedysXJ7mDR7nGiVeKDAQF
neilol:    1549kUbSS3RNkmaZJKuvW2wThR75TdLrRw
lophie:   14fSYDD95bU153yZnKNW3GHxeM9xgXCMt6

I'll send PM's to get destination information.

Sorry, I don't buy it.   From earlier:


You're backing out because the price temporarily dropped.  You should do the right thing and follow through with your bid, or risk getting a scammer tag.  There are reasons why bids are binding and posts can't be edited.  I have followed through in the past with a low price even though the price shot up before I was done, just ask dmcdad:


Your call whether you want to honor your bid.

7 hours remain.

I have confirmed with TaT that he will handle the escrow for us, no charge to the buyer, for any purchases > 40 shares.  He may be slightly delayed as he has a lot going on currently with escrows and managing PT's.

Smaller purchases would need to either use an escrow of someone else, just trust me to deliver.  I have a name to protect as I am doing Bitcoin related stuff fulltime now and this is my priimary username, so there should hopefully be some trust.

Jared

I can, but I can't right this moment actually because my cold wallet is in a different place(and worse, I may have to take a trip to get its laptop charger).

The share address is:
http://blockchain.info/address/14Qji52m8JCQEaKWWQFYmSz9GWqqERtd5M

You can see a previous sale I did here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196273.0

Any of those people can confirm the trade was done, and dmcdad as well who I did a transaction with outside the context of that thread.

Jared