They claim to be working on the problem. Just wanted to drop a quick note about the pending transactions and down time over the past couple of days. We have been working hard to re-architect our backend to keep up with growth. The demand for bitcoin recently has been amazing and the site has received a large increase in traffic. If you’d had issues, they should be resolved within the next 2 hours. We realize it is very frustrating to have transactions stuck in a pending state. Rest assured that they will go out. This definitely wasn’t our intention; the growth caught us off guard and it’s been pretty embarrassing to let down our customers. Thank you for bearing with us as we try to keep up with the growth of bitcoin! This is probably as good a time as any to mention that if you are in SF and are an awesome software engineer, we’re hiring: https://coinbase.com/jobsAs you can tell, we have no shortage of things we need to build! |
|
|
|
|
Honestly it might be worth moving the site to the darknet, or at least adding alternate access methods via a Tor hidden service and/or I2P.
|
|
|
|
I don't know guys. I think anarchy is like communism. It sounds great on paper, but doesn't scale well beyond a commune. Anarchy is everything you enjoy in life, and violence is the opposite. |
|
|
|
Euro prices higher than dollar? Maybe buying pressure from Europe is increasing! Maybe Dollars are having a hard time reaching the exchanges. |
|
|
|
The next major version of the site will separate the actions of exchanging and cashing out. In your example above you could make multiple deposits. Each deposit will be exchanged at the market rate at the time of the deposit. When ready you can make a cash out request in the amount you wish. By breaking the exchange and cash out functions into separate actions it will give clients a lot more flexibility. I'd like to see a site create a deterministic wallet for each customer account/sweep method, and give the customer a watching-only copy. The customer then could import the watching-only copy into Armory and generate the next deposit address themselves, without requiring access to the website. |
|
|
|
If that is true, then price will skyrocket to about 100 x of what is it now, and even more. Realistically that scenario implies 2-4 more zeros than just 100 times. |
|
|
|
This makes me a little upset. If it wasn't intended and within the year this block size will hold the whole of the network back. It seems like the limit will be increased eventually. Whether or not this happens before the transaction volume overtakes the current 1 MB maximum is an open question. https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=135There is a non-voluntary, hard-to-change, 1,000,000-bytes-of-transactions-per-block limit that needs to be raised.
And there is… uhh, “vigorous”… debate over when and how to change it. There are always debates over changing things; after the huge kerfuffle last year over multisignature transactions I had to step back and take a break when it was all over, I was so burned out from trying to respond to all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
I think a consensus on what to do is starting to emerge; I expect by my next development update we’ll have a plan.
The good news is we all learned a lot from that experience, so I’m confident that raising the 1MB limit will be only slightly painful for most people– you’ll just have to upgrade old Bitcoin software (which you should be doing regularly anyway). |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not, I was under the impression the cap was always 1MB and set by Satoshi himself. Your impression is incorrect, possibly because the idea that the 1 MB cap has always been present has been deliberately fostered by some people with agendas upon which I can only speculate. Prior to September 2010 there was no protocol limit on block size, and Satoshi's email messages clearly indicated that he intended the network to scale to very large blocks in the future. MAX_BLOCK_SIZE was added as a temporary anti-spam rule and was always intended to be raised in the future when the network was capable of handing it and needed the extra capacity. Those who say the limit was always present as a deliberate economic rule are dissembling. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153330.msg1636427#msg1636427http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html |
|
|
|
Speaking of hundreds of millions of people using Bitcoin, has that pesky 7 transactions per second cap been figured out yet? That might stop mass adoption.
Sure. Just put the block size limit back to where it was before it was temporarily reduced to 1MB. |
|
|
|
I guess I can just add /var/bitcoin to the search paths Actually I misspoke earlier. It's installed at /var/ lib/bitcoin. That's a FHS-compliant location so if any other distributions ever package bitcoind like a native daemon that's probably where they'd put it as well. It is a bit ugly in that everything gets put under /var/lib/bitcoin/.bitcoin because of embedded assumptions in bitcoind that it's running as a regular user. |
|
|
|
I need help testing, especially from the Linux folks, because they're the ones most likely to have non-standard configurations that will break this. The packaging for Gentoo puts bitcoind in /var/bitcoin and runs it at boot under the bitcoin user. If I fix the permissions such that regular users have read-only access to the block database will Armory be able to work? |
|
|
|
if I were a resident of a country in financial dire straights I would be formulating an exit strategy right NOW. So... which countries are NOT in dire straits? |
|
|
|
All I'm going to say is 'too big to fail' is failed capitalism in practice.
You misspelled corporatism. You misspelled fascism. |
|
|
|
Oh, there will always be sellers, provided the price is right. Even if none of the speculators are selling, BitPay and other payment processors need to get local currency to pay their merchants. |
|
|
|
Right now, I'm seriously considering the possibility we will be there before the year ends.
The 13.6% per week we've been seeing since January would indeed put us at $10k by the end of the year. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure cryptocurrencies don't mean the end of government....
Untenable moral contradictions mean the end of government. Cryptocurrencies just help the process along. |
|
|
|
Yeah, one used to be able to do that... now not so much. Heard of FATCA? FATCA would be rendered irrelevant by widespread bitcoin adoption. If the US government tries to crack down on bitcoin with capital controls they won't be able to stop people with significant bitcoin holdings from spending them in other countries. |
|
|
|
With that said Monsanto is not a great example they only exist in their current form because of the lack of regulation, they have had people (ex employees / lobbyists etc) in the whitehouse for years, So if you removed govenment you would remove there regulation but they could still get sued by indivuals and other companies for the damage they do. Also without patent rights Monsanto wouldn't be able to patent their gnome and sell these seeds that will grow in soil filled with poisonous round-up. Now that you've noted that all the evils of Monsanto are only possible because of governments and would not exist without a government, what's stopping you from recognizing this is true of all the other corporations as well? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
