Bitpit. They died and took some of my coins with them.
What do you mean they died? They made a run for it, when it was at the highest. The pool died, not its operators... |
|
|
|
Colored coins do exactly what you want - they don't need a new blockchain or a change to the Bitcoin protocol, they allow representing arbitrary assets and contracts with atomic trades, and already have working (though experimental) implementations for a color-aware wallet and p2p trade. bitcoinx.org is outdated, soon http://coloredcoins.org/ will be up to provide information. In the meantime here is a promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmFjmvwPGKUI see people have mentioned Mastercoin, it's much more ambitious but is also technically inferior, and more centralized (Mastercoins were issued with a time scale factor of 1 month). |
|
|
|
Here's an example of one such attempt - Getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations - Community pledge. I am still of the opinion that spamming them with millions of mails isn't going to help. If anything would help it's a more in-depth dialogue; engaging in such dialogue with them is on my todo list. However, a "pledge" is not as important as I initially thought, and the willingness of the community to donate to such a pledge is underwhelming. But who is responsible to take such a decision? Jimmy Wales? No, they have a fundraising team making these decisions. Jimmy is not part of this team. |
|
|
|
We could get proactive and create a bitcoin donation address for them. John K. or some other reputable forum member could held the donated bitcoins in escrow until Wikimedia officially accepts bitcoins. If there is a decent amount of bitcoins in the donation address it might convince them in the end.
That already happened. Several times. The results were..... lackluster. Here's an example of one such attempt - Getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations - Community pledge. I am still of the opinion that spamming them with millions of mails isn't going to help. If anything would help it's a more in-depth dialogue; engaging in such dialogue with them is on my todo list. However, a "pledge" is not as important as I initially thought, and the willingness of the community to donate to such a pledge is underwhelming. |
|
|
|
Will your fed friends get our IPs?  I don't have have any Fed friends that I know of. Awesome, this is going to be great!
Thanks! a bit of a quite poetic blog title for such a cold technical subject, ain't it?
Who said anything about cold? A bitcoin coin should be yellow. A blue one looks like a negative image. Is there any hidden meaning in a blue bitcoin coin?
There's no "hidden" meaning, there's an obvious meaning - blue and white are the colors of the Israeli flag, and the blue-and-white Bitcoin is the logo of Bitcoil, the first (though currently inactive) Israeli Bitcoin exchange service. I've used it as my avatar on the Bitcoin forum for over two years, and by now it's also identified as my personal avatar. |
|
|
|
I have started a new blog, Fiery Spinning Sword. It will be mostly about Bitcoin stuff. You are welcome to visit. Still playing around with the design. |
|
|
|
But I don't buy it. I don't believe acting according to CPT is beneficial, or that we should rely on it for Bitcoin's security, or that it is needed to keep mining decentralized.
I'd be very interested if you have any suggestions for other economic models that capture "decentralization" in some way and allow the incentive scheme to be evaluated. Do you have anything else in mind? I don't have a complete game-theoretic model, but I do have some analysis which may suggest how mining can remain decentralized with profit-seeking players. A discussion in Amsterdam sparked some more thinking about this, and I intend to write about it soon. |
|
|
|
Interesting theory. But I don't buy it. I don't believe acting according to CPT is beneficial, or that we should rely on it for Bitcoin's security, or that it is needed to do so in order to keep mining decentralized. We seem to have a different outcome in Bitcoin... with people racing to the lowest variance possible even with rather high fees to get there.
I've understood this to be at least partially as a result of misunderstandings about mining, since people seem to strongly prefer variances lower than just about any business venture would have anywhere. Do you have a different argument?
I think this may be due to the fact that currently miners are placing bets on future difficulty instead of on finding blocks. Its a different kind of bet, but the same arguments of the OP apply. Yes, people who buy mining hardware take a speculative position on the future integral of inverse difficulty, but they don't do it because they like risks, but because they believe the expected gain is sufficient to justify the risk. They don't want variance in the block finding process on top of it. Also by "lost money" I only mean not performing as well as buying Bitcoins directly - buying Bitcoin has mostly been a good investment so far, whether directly or indirectly through mining.
Not a fair comparison. Buying mining hardware is less risky than buying bitcoins (because while the BTC price can make crazy swings, the difficulty will adjust to make mining marginally profitable), and you need to compare "buying $X worth of mining hardware" with "buying $Y worth of bitcoins with similar risk". Some modeling can give us an idea for what the ratio Y/X would be, but it will be less than 1. |
|
|
|
Each planet could have its own crypto currency. They could be sold on interplanetary exchanges using quantum entanglement to communicate instantly.
Actually the idea of a separate chain on other planets seems shaky to me. If miners on some planet are a lot faster or more efficient which seems likely then they can double spend or otherwise hassle the lesser for only a the one time fixed time cost of transporting the work. Maybe the lesser ought just accept a delay and/or use processors who settle on the greater planets chain. That should be workable, but I bet something smarter than that arrangement gets invented. Some form of merged mining will likely be used. Also, before we see separate chains we'll likely see usage of higher-level instant payment protocols, with actual raw Bitcoin settlement being done rarely. |
|
|
|
There is no pool that matches this category [Equalized SMPPS (ESMPPS)] exactly. So the leaves SMPPS as the best category?
Thanks
I don't understand the question. SMPPS and ESMPPS are among the worst methods that exist. There was an ESMPPS pool once. I don't remember its name. I see the table is split into 2 pieces (wrapped). I misread it. My concentration is about 50/50 today. So PPS is best category. Thanks for throwing a red flag. Oh, you're talking about the summary paper. Yeah, PPS is the method with the most potential but it needs to be done right. |
|
|
|
There is no pool that matches this category [Equalized SMPPS (ESMPPS)] exactly. So the leaves SMPPS as the best category?
Thanks
I don't understand the question. SMPPS and ESMPPS are among the worst methods that exist. There was an ESMPPS pool once. I don't remember its name. |
|
|
|
|
Can you clarify your question? Sending your bitcoins with a normal Bitcoin transaction to an address in another wallet you control is not in any way different from sending bitcoins to any other address. If every Bitcoin transaction was unsafe, we'd have a problem.
Of course, whenever you receive significant funds (including from yourself) you'd want to make sure your receiving wallet is functional and backed up.
Migrating wallet files or private keys is a different issue.
|
|
|
|
OT, but I find it fascinating that time after time, this bitcoin experiment shows us the usefulness of so many existing regulations that die hard libertarians love to hate. Things like registering a security, so that potential investors know all the relevant facts about the people and the business they are investing in. Rules against insider trading and stock manipulation as hinted at above, and disclosure requirements that would force labcoin to come clean about the actual status of their business making this more an investment than a lottery. The need for an organisation that verifies and enforces this, since you cant trust the exchanges, let alone the issuers. We already learned what happens when you allow ponzi schemes (pirate) or known felons to play 'bank' (mybitcoin). BFL customers are finding out that FTC rules about shipping delays and refunds perhaps arent so daft. Heck, they are even learning that evil old Paypal has its uses too.
Many libertarians were or are convinced bitcoin would show just how good a totally free market can work. Its showing me the exact opposite: t doesnt work without some sensible regulation, it becomes a scammer's and gamblers paradise, not a functional economy.
I think of it as similar to being pushed into deep water and learning how to swim on the spot. We're used to rely on these regulations as crutches, and our common sense has atrophied due to lack of use. Over time I hope we'll learn how to operate efficiently in a less-regulated world (with some Darwin awards earned in the process). Some rules will of course still be needed, though. I'm not a libertarian myself. |
|
|
|
I don't like your attiude.
Apparently Puppet's goal was to shed light on some facts, I don't think there's a problem with that. And I don't like your attitude quoting SEC texts. This whole gives us the chance to form something new, something better.
Everything has a reason, though not always a good reason. I don't have sympathy for the SEC or other legacy rulesystems either, but we'll have a better chance of building something new and better if we understand the rules and the reasons for them - learn from them if the reasons are good, or learn what to avoid if the reasons are bad. Presumably, the SEC rules were meant to prevent basically exactly what's happening right now, and to that extent we should have some respect for them. |
|
|
|
You are not on trial here, Im not a prosecutor, let alone a judge
Sure sounded like it. Point taken though. which is what I measured myself against. Possibly your worst mistake ? I don't believe that was the worst part. I may be wrong. Even if true they didnt benefit investors
Some did. After some issues started to pop up I organized a buyback of the bonds at their face value, using my own money to facilitate the process (Alberto later reimbursed most of it). I recommended that people take advantage of this offer, and everyone who wanted got to. out of 8950 outstanding bonds (other than those I owned), only 4998 remain. |
|
|
|
I cant verify your claims, they may or may not be true. Even if true
Every claim I make is true, and I have logs to prove it. If my accountant screws up and it ends up costing me a lot of money, I may or may not believe it to be an honest mistake, but I might still want to claim or sue him for damages.
An accountant is responsible for doing your accounting right. I am not responsible for Alberto's actions, and I clarified as much from the start. If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is. First of all, just googling Alberto's name brings up more than just "unsuccessful ventures". They were clearly scams (and even a drug bust). Did you feel a need to mention that? No; instead you trivialized it They were not "clearly scams" to me. I thought he was a good guy who made some mistakes and deserves another chance. I was foolish to think so as there was little evidence to support it and sufficient evidence against it. You are correct, I did trivialize Alberto's past and it was a big mistake on my part. (BTW the drug thing was unknown to me until much later.) Moreover, you called your self the "IPO manager", but did you ever tell Alberto, let alone anyone else, its illegal in most countries to sell such unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors? Did you even bother to look in to it? If you had taken your responsibility seriously, you would have understood your (and your customer's !) liability when soliciting investments
My due diligence was below the standards of traditional security issuance. It was far, far above the standards of the Bitcoin market at the time, which is what I measured myself against. and if you had any sense, you would never have accepted the "job".
I agree completely. |
|
|
|
I will look into this matter. Where can we purchase this bond?
You can't. Nothing will happen. Unfortunately this is the truth.
Since its clear this is going nowhere and Alberto isnt going to pay, allow me to suggest duped US investors another way. Under the securities act of 1933, you are very likely able to bring civil action against Meni Rosentahl The SEC may not bring actions on behalf of individual investors, but the Securities Act allows individual investors to bring civil actions under several provisions: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933Take note especially of sections 11, 12 and 15: One quote from section 15 (b) Prosecution of persons who aid and abet violations
For purposes of any action brought by the Commission under subparagraph (b) or (d) of section 77t of this title, any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this subchapter, or of any rule or regulation issued under this subchapter, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77oNow you may or may not believe Meni knew or should have known this was a scam, but that may not even be material; Meni knew or should have known he was soliciting or aiding in the solicitation of funds for an unregistered security from (among others) US investors. That is a clear violation of the security act by itself, even if bitdaytrade were a legitimate business, or Meni could reasonably have assumed this was the case. That lawsuit wouldn't get anywhere if they spell my name wrong. Seriously though, I doubt anyone would follow your recommendation, which is clearly nothing more than trying to find a scapegoat. IANAL, so obviously anyone wanting to go down this road should talk to his lawyer first. I also dont have an opinion on whether it would be "fair" or "moral" to meni to take this approach, thats entirely up to duped investors and possibly courts to decide. Im merely pointing out an option that I suspect is more likely to yield results than waiting for Alberto, and that if nothing else, may motivate Meni and future "IPO managers" to take their responsibility in vouching for potential scams a bit more seriously. What you do with it, is up to you.
I expressed my personal trust in Alberto and clarified beyond any reasonable doubt that everyone should come up with their own trust. I did not imply anyone should trust him based on my word (which is what "vouching" means). When things started I personally lent 2000 BTC to Alberto, both because I believed he was legitimate and because noblesse oblige. When things exploded, I lent him 2000 BTC more without any expectation of ROI, merely because I thought it would aid in resolving the process (and still believing I would eventually get them back). I am still spending my money and time for the chance (however slim) for a positive resolution. If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is. (EDIT: Actually, in the beginning I lent 1000 BTC and accepted debt of another 1000 BTC as payment) As I explained in depth previously, agreeing to help Alberto was the worst mistake I've ever made, which has caused me enormous financial and mental damage. But I would rather be productive than repent and defend myself for the rest of my life. And as my track record clearly indicates, me being productive is for the benefit of the entire Bitcoin economy and community. |
|
|
|
Bumping this - soooo many new users would benefit from understanding payout methods (and more than a few wannabe poolops) Thanks for sticvkying mods  I'll take this opportunity to reference the latest development in this area, Multi-PPS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
