Spesmilo has supported URIs for months. The Satoshi client devs don't want to.
Huh what? Version 0.5 supports drag-and-drop of bitcoin: URIs. Not compliant with the spec. |
|
|
|
Its just the name you object to I think. There already is such a "tax"in the form of transaction fees. Now they benefit miners, I dont see why we could not redirect part of it to a bitcoin foundation.
The difference between "bitcoin foundation" and "miners" is (lack of) decentralization, one of bitcoins main selling points. I was going to say that, but you also don't have to use this client, so the fee is still decentralized in that respect. Having a fee to the client developer also make the centralized-client issue more visible to the end users, which may be a good thing to get it solved sooner. It also gives clients an incentive to be competitive. |
|
|
|
If anyone has unexpectedly leaked their wallet as a result of this, I am willing to offer 0-fee acceptance of a single transaction of any legit size via Eligius, under the following conditions: - This offer expires 3 months after a fixed GUI (or bitcoind, whichever is later) client is released
- All inputs must be from transactions confirmed earlier than this post (exceptions might be made on a case-by-case basis)
- I must either already trust that you can be found reliably before making this post (ie, you're a regular who's been part of the community for a long time) or I will need some way to verify your full name and address.
I'm not happy entirely with the last requirement, but it's the only way I can think of to ensure thiefs can't abuse this offer. If you prove your identity to me, I promise not to share it except if subpoena'd (eg, by someone else who claims to own the coins and has already filed a lawsuit against you). Please contact me directly if you have leaked your wallet and want to take advantage of this. Also note that I am not offering to help create the transaction for you (that's your responsibility), just accept it. |
|
|
|
IMO, You guys need to figure out an organized way to fund Gavin's work. IIRC, Gavin is paid full time for Bitcoin development as well as some other guy for Bitcoin QA. |
|
|
|
As some point I thought I saw there was a 0.4.1 version of the Bitcoin client in the works. Is that correct or is 0.5.0 going to be the next officially released version?
0.5.0 is the next feature version. 0.4.1 will just be bugfixes on top of 0.4.0 |
|
|
|
|
Use a parallel block chain like Namecoin's merged mining...
|
|
|
|
|
Spesmilo has supported URIs for months. The Satoshi client devs don't want to.
|
|
|
|
The only inconvinience is that the wallet password must be supplied every time when starting bitcoin client, not only when sending coins. Which totally defeats the purpose of wallet encryption. If you're going to do it that way, you might as well just encrypt on backup only (which would be a very nice feature anyway...) |
|
|
|
This issue can be "worked around" by generating a new address and sending all bitcoin there.
That's not quite right-- you need to exhaust all of the keys in your 'key pool' to be safe, so you'd have to ask for 101 new keys. Part of the fix is marking all of the keys in the keypool as used. This fix should be back-ported to version 0.4.0 It will be, for bitcoind at least. If someone wants to step up to maintain wxBitcoin, contact me (or join #bitcoin-stable on FreeNode). |
|
|
|
Or are other auxiliary chains expected to use a different formula? This |
|
|
|
What would you do if practically everyone left the pool and the buffer was large and negative? It's impossible for the buffer to go negative. |
|
|
|
How do some pools plan on staying in business? I prefer to use pools that have a clear and disclosed plan for maintaining sustainability. That's the difference between PPS and SMPPS: the latter has a clear plan for not going under in extreme bad luck. Ok, I'll bite. What is the plan? ... it's well documented, too. |
|
|
|
As I said, Ideology is the primary motivation in my selecting a pool and/or reward system. Both 0% PPS and SMPPS pools are doomed to collapse and, therefore, unattractive to me. No. You need to review the law of large numbers again. Also, there is a significant difference between 0% PPS and SMPPS.
With 0% PPS the risk lies with the pool. With SMPPS the risk lies with the miners. No, with both systems, the risk lies with the miners. Mere PPS will simply go bankrupt, while SMPPS has a defined rule on survival in such a circumstance. (As a reminder, the only risk is someone cheating by withholding valid blocks.) However, with a negative buffer, the miner must accept the risk that the pool will never again achieve a positive buffer and that they will never be paid for their work. No. The law of large numbers means there is no chance the pool will never again break even, so long as it continues to function. |
|
|
|
What is your reasoning for operating a pool? For profit? or for some other reason(s)? Everything I do with Bitcoin is for the sole purpose of promoting the Tonal number system. Edit: and the glory of God first, of course. |
|
|
|
Looks great except the chips. Something. strange. Possibly blurred to mask their idents or custom built and requested to be blanks? I've personally taken pictures of the internals of a good many embedded boards. I don't notice anything abnormal about this one. So are you saying you actually took this picture yourself? No. Just other devices (EFIKA MX, many various cable modems, ...) |
|
|
|
How do some pools plan on staying in business? I prefer to use pools that have a clear and disclosed plan for maintaining sustainability. That's the difference between PPS and SMPPS: the latter has a clear plan for not going under in extreme bad luck. |
|
|
|
But horribly wrong/outdated... |
|
|
|
Is it common for there not not be, at the least, a lot #, run # or ver # on the chips? Pretty common, yes. But I don't think those silver things are chips-- they look more like the metal "casing" which contain chips. (I don't know the purpose of the casing, but I've seen it in a lot of devices) |
|
|
|
If the only options were Proportional, SMPPS, and PPS+10%, I'd mine solo. I'd happily pay 5% for PPS or 4% for a good PPLNS/DGM pool. You say that as if there were a significant difference between PPS and SMPPS. (there isn't) |
|
|
|
Looks great except the chips. Something. strange. Possibly blurred to mask their idents or custom built and requested to be blanks? I've personally taken pictures of the internals of a good many embedded boards. I don't notice anything abnormal about this one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
