Any chance you could add ZAR to the list of currencies?

BitFountain has a majority shareholding, ie. not us.

ASICMINER-PT div hasn't been distributed yet. It's (almost?) always within 24 hours of ASICMINER divs going out, often within just a few hours; depends on exactly when burnside is able to attend to it (and how long it takes to move the funds around).

U+3002 IDEOGRAPHIC FULL STOP

However, the fees that can be generated by the network have nothing to do with the amount of available hash power; and in general, bitcoin miners are not involved in getting more people to use bitcoin (and thus generating more transaction fees through transacting).

You mean burnside

Anyhow, ASICMINER-PT dividends have now been issued

The more arbitrage is going on, the less the prices will differ, so if they're drifting a lot that would mean the problem is a /lack/ of arbitrage ;P

The location shown on blockchain.info is based on a GeoIP lookup of the "Relayed by IP", which just says which node relayed the transaction to blockchain.info's servers. This doesn't mean that IP was the original source of the block though, just that it was the first one to relay the transaction to blockchain.info. In other words, ignore the blockchain.info location, it is basically meaningless

As I understand it, the issue was high CPU usage on bitcoind leading to invalid *shares*, not actually invalid *blocks*. Or was there another issue I missed? Here's slush's post from the slush pool thread:

And there's the divs!

I think once https://blockchain.info/tx/ebcc6b474b80b175cbfe2ac37f7ac5a5e70d2ac673290856b996d06321855013 is included in a block, the rest of the transactions should resolve; this transaction has been unconfirmed for quite a while though, so I wonder if the fee is too low or something like that (36 kB is a pretty large transaction).

Added an address to my signature

The next transaction in the chain is this one: https://blockchain.info/tx-index/74252194

One of the inputs to that transaction is https://blockchain.info/tx-index/74245888/0 which is still unconfirmed.


I don't see anything to suggest that this is a problem with invalid blocks, it's just a matter of unconfirmed transactions being used as inputs for other transactions.

The transactions are fine, there's just a huge chain of unconfirmed transactions (input for one transaction is the change output from the previous transaction) so it'll take some time for everything to be included in a block.

Both passthroughs allow transfers in and out. However, the delay in this process means anyone trying to do arbitrage has a hard time, meaning the prices can drift quite far apart in the short-term before any kind of correction happens. If you keep a big enough bank of shares / funds in each exchange large enough to buffer you against the delay in transfers, you can still do it, but at these trade volumes it's a tricky proposition.

Something else to bear in mind is the volumes being traded and the size of the order book; the fact that 2 shares were traded at 3 BTC (say) does not necessarily mean that you'll be able to sell all 1000 of your shares at anywhere near 3 BTC, or that you could buy 1000 shares at 3 BTC.

See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/emoney/ for more details.

If you look at the volumes, there's basically not enough liquidity in the market; any attempt to sell or buy non-trivial amounts of shares will have quite a big effect on the PTs. A forum auction less so, I think, since you're not sharing an order book with other buyers / sellers.

Wait, the hash rate goes up when friedcat is awake? Maybe the ASICs are all a lie, and friedcat is actually a Mentat doing all of the bitcoin mining in his head!

I guess friedcat fell asleep again before he sent out the divs

Just woke up Payment sent, and you should have a PM with my details.