I'm not jealous. I just know that when the world looks at Satoshi and a few others as owning a large percentage of the currency (and thus having a large amount of power with regards to money supply, inflation/deflation, pricing, political movements, etc), the world is going to have a problem with it. It's one big roadblock to Bitcoins replacing any fiat currency.
The fed, which is a single institution, can print as much USD as they want. So they print them self a much larger percentage than Satoshi will ever have. Is it a roadblock to use USD? Apparently no. So Satoshi could end up as a tiny little mini-fed, sort of a small regulative to the bitcoin world, if he even cares But the government is GIVEN the power by the people, and the people, for the most part, trust the government. They trust that even though the government is printing money, they aren't going to be stupid about how they manipulate the market with it. They trust that even though the government may not always make the best decisions, it is at least TRYING to make the best decisions for the people. Having a random individual (or set of a few individuals) have the same power as the government with regards to money supply IS a problem. You can't trust that Satoshi, or any of the others, have the best interests of the people at heart. There's no checks and balances to any activities they can do. The number of people they could pay off to do things in their interests if bitcoin ever did come to be widely used is incalculable. I was not talking about the government. I was talking about the fed. The fed is a private owned bank, that prints USD generated out of thin air. You really think the fed gives anything about the people? They only care to secure and increase the wealth of their very owners. |
|
|
|
I'm not jealous. I just know that when the world looks at Satoshi and a few others as owning a large percentage of the currency (and thus having a large amount of power with regards to money supply, inflation/deflation, pricing, political movements, etc), the world is going to have a problem with it. It's one big roadblock to Bitcoins replacing any fiat currency.
The fed, which is a single institution, can print as much USD as they want. So they print them self a much larger percentage than Satoshi will ever have. Is it a roadblock to use USD? Apparently no. So Satoshi could end up as a tiny little mini-fed, sort of a small regulative to the bitcoin world, if he even cares |
|
|
|
|
Maybe (or not) related, since weeks chrome tells me that mtgox is down on first access. I have to hit F5 and it runs normally. Maybe some strange prolexic "feature"...
BTW, it is up from here
|
|
|
|
I got the same response, after 2 days I got that link as well and filled it out. He has alot on his plate, but being the largest exchange dosent he have a responsibility? I know a trader who is waiting almost 30 days and does on avg 10k in trading a day. I really can't wait much longer, if he dosen't get back to us, BitInstant can't support Mt.Gox which will be a huge blow to his business Mt.Gox already has some 80% of the market, so maybe it would be great if some other exchanges get a little bigger. I mean I like Mt.Gox, but bitcoin as a whole should not depend as much as it does on one single exchange. That being said, have you considered adding Ruxum? I think they have the cleanest interface as of now, and already 9 currencies. And it "feels" professional. Only thing is it seems that it is not that easy (fee-wise) to transfer money in and out - maybe a perfect fit for your business. |
|
|
|
If you have a confirmation box then a simple VBScript which launches an URL and calls sendkeys to confirm the transaction could potentially drain your account. I suggest putting the confirmation box on a secure desktop to prevent this possibility.
Sure, instead of just enabling server mode by changing a single line in the config file and using the rpc api (doable right now, and it seems that everyone is ok with this - even no GUI involved, so undetectable by the average user), a hacker would choose the more difficult way of using some link and sendkeys. I mean why even use the link at all, your VBScript can start the bitcoin exe and use sendkeys to open the send dialog to do the same. IMHO that would be an extreme lame excuse for not implementing clickable links. I am sure I could probably write both versions within an hour. And BTW, a VBScript can as easily simulate the link drag-dropping... So to cut a long story short, either put all those send bitcoin dialogs on a secure desktop, or stop using this as an argument against clickable links. |
|
|
|
|
I have no OSX, so I cannot test (or even compile) it. I fully agree with you that such an import dialog for private keys is one of those long missing features.
Briefly looking at the source, I can see it doesn't take tons of code to implement this import dialog. Now imaging if the developers of the official client would have your attitude, we would have such a handy import dialog for ages!
BTW, have you considered writing a patch for the official client, or even better for bitcoin-qt, which hopefully will be the next official client?
|
|
|
|
Thinking of security, would it be possible to write the platform in a way which prevents the site owners, moderators and any intruders from having access to the funds?
You could generate a new address every time that a sponsor wants to sponsor a project. Then when payment arrives, generate one transaction for every possible outcome (one transaction that sends the bitcoins back to the sponsor, and one that sends it to the developer) but don't broadcast them. After that, you delete the address' private key. When the outcome is determined (bounty should be sent to developer or returned to sponsor), simply broadcast that transaction on the network. This way, the most damage an attacker could do would be to choose whether the bounty went to the developer or the sponsor. The attacker could never send any of the coins to himself (unless he was the dev/sponsor). This has a few downsides: - If the sponsor sends coins to an address after its private key is destroyed, those coins are gone.
- You still keep the private key around until a payment is received.
- All developers must be known before the bounty is moved to escrow. Any developer that appears late in the game cannot collect bounties held in escrow before he started work on a project.
It would be nice if we could create transactions that said to forward all funds sent to one address, present and future, to another address. That would kill problems 1 and 2. (Also useful for ex. importing an untrusted address into one's wallet.) If this isn't possible currently w/ script, it sure would be nice to see implemented. (Bounty anyone?  Gotta love irony.) 1 and 2 is doable using the current system: Upon receiving some funds you can create an temporary address/private key pair, send the funds to this new address, and use the generated private key to generate the two outgoing transactions. Now store both transactions and throw away the temporary private key. That way the original address does not vanish and so no coins will be lost. |
|
|
|
No, that is not accurate, and a critical mind would be totally right considering this dubious.
If you introduce a random time T between two openings, where T is on average 24 hours, you will have ON AVERAGE 1 opening per day, and ON AVERAGE 365 openings per year etc. BUT: You can (and will!) very well have time periods of more than 24 hours, too, i.e. you will have calendar days (and sometimes even two or more successive calendar days) with no opening at all.
So it is simply not correct to claim "that the flower opens "at least" once a day".
Wow, you even included a fancy graph, very cool! Right now the system creates a random open time (between 0 86400 seconds) for every calendar day. So the interval between 2 openings is anywhere between 0 and 48 hours. But the flowers still opens every calendar day, so I think it's safe to say that it opens up at least once a day. If the interval between 2 openings happens to be only 3 hours (one just before midnight, the other right after) it looks like as if the flower openend 2 times a day, at least for someone sitting in the right timezone. Sure, to have it semantical correct you would have to define the exact meaning of the word day – is it 24 hours? a calendar day? in which timezone? etc. But hey, I created this for the fun of it and I wanna keep it real simple without any lengthy explanations. Thanks for your scientific thoughts though! Just make that ever 86399 (86400-1) seconds, so that it on average opens more than once per day, as 1.00001 is more than 1.0. And the best part is you can do that without additional costs - well not really, but 1.00001 isn't that much more than 1.0 in the end  Actually if you also count leap seconds (happens every few years) and you have the service running a few years, every 86400 second (unix time) would still be more than once per day, because UTC time (calendar time) has on average longer days than unix time "days" (no leap seconds). |
|
|
|
Great idea! Two suggestions: 1) You state that the flower will open once a day. So a visitor seeing that it was already open on a certain day wont come back again on the very same day. But if you technically open the flower once every 24 hours (not related to calender days), that could result in 2 openings on a single calendar day, depending on the timezone. As a result you could state that the flower opens "at least" once a day, and so every visitor will come back, even if the flower was already open on the very same day. 2) And you will have to add some time to the winners list, because depending on the timezone, it could be that the stated day hasn't even started yet for the visitor. As I wrote before great idea, and nice graphics. Now if you add some web banners, the site will probably pay for itself  |
|
|
|
It should be desktop environment specific, nothing to do with the browser:
Thanks. But I think I'll keep it at explicit drag&drop. Having the browser being able to send commands to the bitcoin client without user intervention is just a too big a potential security hole. I suggest that you use a confirmation box in the client before executing whatever the link is trying to do. After all it's much more intuitive to click links than to drag them. +1 Modern browsers already support dragable text, so if a "link" is only dragable, one can just put a plain text address there. The whole point of a link is that it is clickable. IMHO, thinks like this prevent bitcoin from being mass adoped  |
|
|
|
I like the 'deterministic wallet' idea that's been floating around (enter a password at startup, and keys are magically derived from that password and never touch the disk at all).
Bitcoins would essentially become a race between people running dictionary attacks. The funny part would be that even the thief would not know whos bitcoins he just got. |
|
|
|
Sure, those 0.99% fees are way higher than the usual cc 1.5% + $0.15 fees.  ? I think someone is in trolling mood... For most mechants that is a 3% fee as they couldn't care less about keeping btc. For that they can just use PayPal and not risk a new venture. Sure. 1) Ever tried paying with bitcoins on paypal? 2) Paypal charges some big fees on currency conversion, and BTC->USD is exactly that, a currency conversion. I am not sure if one can even pay in USD using bitpay, or what the fees would be if possible. Believing bitpay is BTC only, I think the best solution for a merchant would be just having 2 buttons. A paypal and a bitpay button. So the merchant would get those super low paypal fees </sarcasm>, and the 3% bitpay fee for the bitcoin customer that one would probably not have otherwise. I think that is still a good deal. @bitpay: should think about a system like in BTCinch. A merchant can set a percentage there, so that only a part of the bitcoin payment will be converted. Maybe this could also reduce your fees. |
|
|
|
What's the hate on dwolla then? Seems just like paypal2 without all the harassment / rules and support for bitcoin exchanges.
There is no hate on dwolla. 1) Send money to dwolla. 2) Use dwolla to buy bitcoins. 4) Get the bitcoins from the exchange. 3) Reverse your dwolla payment. 5) Congratulation, now you have Bitcoins for free. |
|
|
|
Did you know that the average fee for credit card procesing should be about 1.5% and $0.15?
For Bit-Pay, there is no hidden fee that you alluded to...it is 0.99% for merchants that receive payout in bitcoin
I don't see legitimate grounds for your antagonism, Smalleyster.
Wasn't antagonistic till the hobby comment. Was truly surprised they charged virtually the same as paypal. I had already stuck my neck out with proposals to two different boards of directors to consider their service. My bad for not completing my homework before talking. Hope I keep the cards closer to the chest from now on and keep quiet about the possibility of using bitcoin as a payment alternative to paypal and major players like my *former* one that you seem to think I still work for. BTW in my limited experience most start-up companies offer a pricing scenario that *undercuts* the existing marketplace. The lack of outrageous fees is part of what attracted a few of us to bitcoin in the first place. Sure, those 0.99% fees are way higher than the usual cc 1.5% + $0.15 fees. ? I think someone is in trolling mood... |
|
|
|
So it looks like you have other hidden fees...
Good Luck
Man... what hidden fees? It's dead simple: Bit-pay Bitcoin to Bitcoin is 1%. Paypal USD to USD is 3% (or 5% if it's less than $2). Bit-pay Bitcoin to USD is 3%. Paypal USD to other is 5.5% (or 7.5% if it's less than $2). And since they convert USD prices to bitcoins, they have to deal with market fluctuation. The other day the bitcoin price dropped from $12 to $10 in less than 5 minutes. That's ~20%. They are the only ones providing such service. Prices could be more competitive if there were alternatives, but I don't think they are expensive. As 3-1=2 apparently isn't oblivious to guys with tons of knowledge in "cc merchant charges", maybe it is legitimate to call them hidden fees |
|
|
|
I am just guessing, but that could partial because of their, hm, "unique" design. It looks more like a toy website and not professional - way too much colors and unrelated images. I mean, they have a city falling down on the right side of the page. Not only is there no relation to bitcoins, it also helps me to feel uncomfortable on this site. Personally I really like the clean, professional looking design of Ruxum. |
|
|
|
Someone's desperately trying to become an early adopter here.
Lame.
+1 |
|
|
|
BitcoinStarter.com will entertain any kind of project even smaller ones - I agree elementary usability features would be very helpful to the community to have. Any time frame on when this will be ready? Will it hold the pledged bitcoins in escrow? |
|
|
|
|
Sounds great.
Maybe add sorting per location. Or make the country a category. Or something along this line. So I can see what items are sold near me. And by near I mean same country or at least same continent.
|
|
|
|
They sent me samples of security paper.
I am still thinking of printing paper bitcoin..... But simply...... Public and Private Key Pairs.... on paper..... for offline Bitcoin dry storage.
+1 Just print a private key as a "redeem code" and use the public key as the address where to send the coins. Simple and easy yet elegant. Would be perfect if dialogs (generate/print private key and redeem) were added to the official client. See also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35905.0Once there is a bounty site we can create/join such a proposal. Hopefully we can convince the devs to add this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
