You can do it upon campaign creation, but there is no way to edit targeting parameters of existing campaigns currently. I've set anonymous traffic to "no" for campaign #564. Thanks for trying it! |
|
|
|
I had one of your banner ads on my site and signed up for Google Adwords and they wouldn't approve me till I removed it. They said your ad was malicious so I was forced to remove it. Any idea why Google thinks your malicious? Quoted from the email Thanks for your patience while our specialists reviewed your website: www.dailybit.netI'm sorry to inform you that the site is still not compliant per our malware policy as the site still contains infected content. But please don't worry, as I would like to provide you more information regarding this, so you can fix the problem with the site. I have gone through your site and found that it has been disabled because we have found a redirect to a compromised site from your HTTP server logs. The malicious domain URLs in question are http://ad.a-ads.com/, http://s.a-ads.com and http://static.a-ads.com Please check your site request logs to find the bad domain and resolve the compromise. StopBadware has a resource page for cleaning up and securing compromised sites available at: http://www.stopbadware.org/home/securityI suggest contacting your hosting provider if you're unsure of how to proceed and ensure that the site no longer contains any malicious content. Since your site was compromised, it's important to not only remove the malicious (and usually hidden) content from your pages, but also to identify and fix the vulnerability that allowed harmful content to appear. Otherwise, the site will remain vulnerable to repeated infection. So I'd suggest that you please take steps to secure the site as well. Your webmaster/ web hosting services provider should be able to assist you with this. If we no longer detect potentially malicious content on your URL, your site will automatically be reactivated and you should receive a notification regarding the same in the next 2-3 business days. Post that, please allow 24 hours for any temporary "site suspended" messaging to go away. Your ads will resume serving normally then. This should resolve your issue. Please do get in touch if you have any further queries or concerns or if you need any further clarification and I'll be happy to help. I regret any inconvenience caused and appreciate your understanding. Have a pleasant day ahead. Take care. Sincerely, Sudipta Thanks for your message, I appreciate this info! I don't know why it considers a-ads to be malicious. The ad doesn't even have javascript in it, just pure static html content with possibly an image in it. How can it be malicious? Google's tool doesn't identify our site as malicious: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://a-ads.com , http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://static.a-ads.com , http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://s.a-ads.com . So I don't even know how to start solving this problem. Anybody has ideas? |
|
|
|
IBB, are you alive?  |
|
|
|
There used to be BTC bucket, to automatically send BTC on a schedule. I was thinking of having a small amount of BTC go into my pyramid account so it looks more active.
Long ago I made http://btcrelay.com (see his thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60603.0) that allows doing something like that. But nobody uses it, I don't know why. |
|
|
|
My ad spot's health has dwindled down to zero, even though I'm getting impressions and the ad is displayed on every page in BitBin : https://a-ads.com/ad_units/185It has been fixed, sorry for late response. Q: can a single advertiser check his personal stats per ad unit ?
Sorry, we don't have this feature yet. But you can track ad units that refer visitors to you. If you enable goal tracking for your campaign, AnonymousAds will send you some ID of the form "<campaign_id>_<ad_unit_id>" with each visitor. You can customize how this ID is appended to your link (default template is "?partner=%") and use Google Analytics for charts. You can also register goals (i. e. schedule rewards) for ad units that generate efficient traffic for you via goal tracking API or manually (money will be deducted from your campaigns' balance and paid to ad units thus increasing your share of impressions from those ad units and optimizing your campaign). Thanks for your message! |
|
|
|
I didn't see default ad views being counted towards impressions. There might be a bug - I am very certain that the ad unit must have generated more than 1000 impressions when I removed it, based on the pageviews information I have from my website's analytics. It was and is stuck at 109 impressions for a long time.
Can I put the same ad unit on a different website or do I have to create a new one for each website? I might give the same ad unit a try on a different blog.
Thanks for your message, I will check it. Please note that we count only globally unique visitors, e. g. if your visitor had seen any of our ads before s/he visited your site (within 24 hours), then we don't count that impression as a unique one. You can do whatever you want with your ad unit. If you remove it from your site, it's health will go down to 0 and it won't show ads from advertisers that don't allow anonymous traffic. But while you send buyers to our advertisers or generate globally unique impressions with that ad unit, you are likely to earn something no matter how you do it. Though I don't really get sometimes on how
it's payment system works...
Is it based on impressions? or clicks? or unique impressions/clicks?
1. We redistribute advertiser's money between ad units with respect to their globally unique traffic (and redistribute ad unit's impressions between advertisers with respect to their payments). We use some internal formula to calculate weight of each ad unit (it depends on unique impressions & unique clicks). Thus ad units that generate globally unique traffic with reasonable CTR should earn more. 2. We allow advertisers to buy part of impressions from particular ad units (you can hover our logo on ad unit and see "Your ad here" link). Thus publishers that embed ad units on nicer places should earn more. 3. We allow advertisers to reward ad units for efficient traffic via goal tracking. Thus ad units that send customers to advertisers should earn more. |
|
|
|
I've had mixed results using Anonymous Ads, honestly. I use it on two of my blogs now. The first has done quite well, and I reached the payout of BTC0.01 in about a week on traffic of about 70-80/day. However, on the second site, the payment seems to be extremely low. My stats show that for 109 impressions, I have earned 412 satoshi. At this rate, it will take me forever to reach payout. I don't even know why there is such a huge difference in any case.
AnonymousAds doesn't pay per click or per impression. It redistributes advertisers' money with respect to ad unit's globally unique traffic. It may take some time before your site starts earning, and it will take some time to stop earning after you remove ad unit code from your site. Also, I assume that when an ad is unavailable, it doesn't count towards the impressions? Because the second site I mentioned has fewer ad impressions than page impressions. Default ad views count towards impressions. But only impressions from globally unique IPs/day are rewarded (unless advertisers reward you for some reason). You can see stats for unique & non-unique impressions and earnings of your ad unit here: https://a-ads.com/ad_units/3564/stats (they fluctuate greately). I suppose that if you keep your ad unit on your site for couple of months, you will have a much higher average CPM/CPI. Please let me know if it is not the case. Thanks for trying AnonymousAds and sorry if it didn't work for you. |
|
|
|
Heya... I sent some cash in and it wasn't processed... User 2468. I sent 0.017 BTC in... Far more that 6 confirmations...
Can you check the bitcoind thing?
Thanks for your message & patience. I think the problem is solved. |
|
|
|
|
We have some technical issues with our main site. Shouldn't affect ad rotation though. Sorry for inconvenience.
|
|
|
|
The error is assuming that market cares about the unreleased XRP, the market price is based entirely on the released and circulating quantity XRP which is much much less then 100 billion, I've heard some estimates of ~2 billion.
That's what I call the artificially created deficit. Market should care about XRPs that are not yet in circulation since eventually they will be there. And nobody knows when and how it happens. That are the risks, that should be accounted for. |
|
|
|
|
I like Ripple and ideas behind it and I'd like more businesses (and especially exchanges) to adopt it.
But I think XRP is overvalued currently.
There will be no more than 21 million bitcoins and 100 billion XRPs. If we assume that XRP takes the same share of market as Bitcoin, then 1 bitcoin should be ~ 4761 XRP. In the long run XRP can be even more expensive since XRPs are being destructed with each transaction (though bitcoins can be lost too).
However Bitcoin is simple, predictible and reliable. It is open source and community driven, and it has been functioning in wild for several years!
There is some risk that few earliest Bitcoin adopters start spending their bitcoins thus debasing the currency, but they don't hold nearly as large share of potential currency supply as OpenCoin does. Moreover not all bitcoins are mined yet, so even if Ripple was as successful as Bitcoin is today, 1 btc should be ~ 9K XRPs.
But Ripple is far from being as successful yet, it is not even fully launched. It is run by OpenCoin in controlled conditions. Not so many businesses accept it. IMHO XRP is overpriced currently due to speculative interest & artificially created deficit (that can be fixed anytime). I might be wrong, but I think it is significantly overpriced, the risks in case of using them as store of value are way to high (even OpenCoin doesn't recommend it).
XRP's value depends solely on OpenCoin's political decisions. They hold significant share of the currency and can increase/decrease the amount of XRPs in circulation, reserve requirements and maybe fees. They are the regulator and they may decide to start massive giveaway anytime. That's why in short term XRP is similar to fiat money and in my opinion it should be several times cheaper than it is now.
|
|
|
|
Problem: simple way to track ownership for small bitcoin businesses without relying on any third party. Possible solution: use bitcoin cryptography to identify assets and shareholders, store all the data off-the-chain. I developed a JS demo. It doesn't store anything and doesn't require any server-side software. It just allows to create share transfers and to process the list of such transfers ( sources and sample data here). 1. Shareholders create share transfers via requests of the form: {datetime} SEND {amount} OF {asset} TO {recipient} {sender's signature} Sender is identified by signature. If sender is the asset, then it is share creation. If recipient is the asset, then it is share destruction. 2. The issuer appends (either manually or automatically) such requests to the list of transfers, then processes it and creates the updated list of shareholders. This solution is not very scalable since it checks the signature for each transfer and it may take much time. I have some ideas how to improve it, but it might make things a bit more complicated. Do you think this approach/tool is useful? Maybe the original problem is non-existant or already solved. Maybe the easiest thing is just to have a spreadsheet or some file at pastebin. Maybe we should develop an assetcoin, use colored coins or ripple to issue shares. Please share your thoughts before I put any more effort into it. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Your service is great, but please lock the thread. I don't want to read about my failure again and again |
|
|
|
I have a hypothesis. 1) Bitcoin was growing too fast. Everybody expected it to crash. When mtgox failed to handle the load, it crashed. 2) Almost everybody is long-term bullish, that is why many buy when bitcoin is cheap. But at the same time everybody knows that bitcoin is volatile and unpredictible. So people try to use the price swings to increase amount of BTC they own and maybe to make some pocket money too. 3) It is too easy to make profits when price swings widely. You just make an order in any direction at any price, and it is highly likely that you'll be able to take profit if you do not fix losses (since the price can go literally anywhere within few days). So many people followed this strategy thus reducing the amplitude of price swings. And now there are a lot of fixed profits and unfixed losses, and the price can't fluctuate that much until something happens. And probably trade volume reduced because both short time bears and bulls don't want to fix losses and are waiting for price to come back to make even more profits to them. That's why it looks like that:  But that is just a hypothesis. The other hypothesis might include some kind of conspiracy and manipulators. |
|
|
|
MNW's promise was that he will give 100% ROI if pirate defaults. When pirate officially defaulted, he has broken his promise.
But he didn't promise to pay 100% ROI immediately, did he? So he could just say "I will pay... later" and not receive a scammer tag? |
|
|
|
This entire debate is the same as my Pirate bet where I didn't ask for escrow (because I was trying to prove a point about making bets without escrow and trusting strangers on the internet). I never accepted a penny from anyone and I still got instant scammer tagged and was held to actually paying people the balances of my prank.
The general consensus was that I "scammed expected value" or some whatnot. Despite feeling awful for others having made ignorant financial decisions based on that bet and having learned my lessons, you'd think this community would have learned it's lesson too. Instead, here we are again, except this time it seems Theymos is waiting on something (I'm honestly not sure what that is).
I said it in some other thread and want to say it again here. Matthew N. Wright didn't set the deadline for his payment in his prunk bet (there was a deadline for Pirate's payment, not Matt's). So that bet was not binding exactly the same way as IOUs are not binding. There was no date set for payout. Why did Matthew have to pay, but TradeFortress doesn't have to? Maybe so called victims who received money should return them back to Matthew? |
|
|
|
Deprived has wrote a nice explanation of why the Ripple liquidity providers is flawed: For one thing, before we can distinguish between the two sample responses you give we need a defined point in time at which the IOU issuer is obliged to give a response at all (a settlement date).
IOUs (taken as meaning any acknowledgement of debt) don't necessarily EVER have to be redeemed. For example perpetual bonds are never intended to be redeemed - yet are debt.
Thanks for your valuable arguments. You might be right and I think I understand now why theymos said IOU is not a binding contract. But now I feel totally confused. What is debt then, if it is doesn't ever have to be repaid? Debt is something that you owe - a claim someone else has against you. Not all debts are created with the intention of being repaid (e.g. loans that are made for tax reasons without either party to the loan having an intention of there ever being a repayment). Perpetual bonds are another example of debt that will never be repaid (talking RL ones not the pretend mining ones on here). The bond issuer borrows money that will never be repaid - paying interest (a dividend) on it regularly. The only way to get your cash back is to sell it to someone else. That's why debt/IOUs with no agreed terms is worthless. Maybe an example will help - for the examples below the assumption to be made is that I WILL honour any commitments I made (in practice all debt should be discounted in value based on your confidence that I'd repay): If I said I'd owe you 20 BTCs to be settled in a week in return for 10 BTCs from you now then (IF you had total trust in me) you could reasonably value those 20 ripple BTCs at similar value to 20 actual BTCs. If I said I'd owe you 20 BTCs to be settled in 5 years in return for 10 BTCs from you now then (IF you had total trust in me) you would STILL have to value them at a lot less than 20 actual BTCs (as they'd generate no revenue in the meantime and were illiquid). In ripple BTCs of each of the above scenarios are treated as being interchangeable (whether its 2 sets from same issuer or from 2 different issuers) - despite the fact they have very different actual value. Now consider a third scenario (equivalent to perpetual bonds): I say that if you give me 10 BTC now I'll owe you 10 BTC on ripple. I will never repay those BTC but on the first of each month I'll send 0.01 BTC for each BTC owed to whoever currently holds them. Again - to ripple those are just BTC - and swappable with anyone else's BTC (provided someone trusts both me and the other issuer). These BTC may have more or less value than the other ones - depending on how people value 1% interest/month against liquidity. But I'll never repay them - and am NOT a scammer for issuing them. Now the final case. I say if you give me 10 BTC now I'll owe you 20 BTC on ripple but will only ever repay them if I win the lottery. What are those BTC worth? Nearly nothing (even ignoring the fact that I don't play the lottery). Do you see how the value of a debt/IOU is defined by the TERMS that apply to it - not by its face value? But ripple treats them all based on face value. TF's ones were pretty much explicitly worthless. In the absence of terms the only way to reasonably assess value of something is to look at what consideration was given in return for them - and assume a similar value. Nothing was given - so their value is gong to be around zero. Thanks for reposting. I think I now understand something about ripple. It's going to fail rather quickly. I won't even make a large loan to family without a written promissory note with explicit terms (maturity, simple interest, penalties for default) and expect to ever get money back out of them. There is no moderate to long term debt that will ever exist as fixed value debt because the world doesn't live in stasis and fixed rate debt needs to be carefully calculated against CPI to avoid loss and be contractually binding. Who is ever going to be stupid enough to act as a liquidity provider for a flawed system? If I had $50mil to burn I think I'd just set it on fire before trying to live off of the float created by being a gateway liquidity provider. Thanks for explanation, but I think this is solvable. Ripple can probably either attach contracts to IOUs (the ones that grant trust would accept their terms), or there could be just some default contract for builtin IOUs (e. g. for BTC: redeemable upon request within 5 business days). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
