Disagree all you want, you are still wrong. The fact that you are "leaving it at that" pretty much proves the point that your argument is completely invalid, since you have not been able to bring a single shred of evidence to support your suppositions. Everything you have brought I have completely debunked. As far as anyone agreeing with me, the only one "agreeing" with you is Jeremy... hardly an unbiased party. The only other people chiming in are ones that "see both sides."
I see you are the one that started the "100 BTC max bid" lie, as well. After reading back a few posts and looking at your post, I realize that now you are as intellectually dishonest, or even more so than Jeremy. At least he is being dishonest from an honest "mistake." You are just outright lying (once again, to bolster your side of the argument. Unfortunately, as with everything else, your argument falls flat in the fact of facts.)
Debunked? Please... you didn't debunk anything more than I debunked you. We have a difference of opinions in implication of information. I didn't start anything about 100 BTC. Someone else said it before me. If that person retracted what they said through an edit, then I'll retract my statement about a 100 BTC bid. I never saw it myself, nor do I claim to have seen it. I was only relying on the word of the person who saw it. I have no intentions of being dishonest or misleading. |
|
|
|
Still for small face to face transaction a double spend is not a credible threat/risk and this setup is more complex, requires enough "cash" private keys, and still requires "normal" transactions too.
Honestly I don't think it is necessary. At some point this could be automated, happening behind the screens. The user doesn't necessarily need to know how it works. I guess more simplistically. This provides additional protection for small face to face transaction. Those transaction are the ones least likely to be double spent (and almost impossible to accomplish successfully) and thus there doesn't seem to be much value in it. +1, I agree. |
|
|
|
|
I think DeathAndTaxes has brought up some very good arguments as to why 0 confirmations is just fine to just about every transaction type. I've always had a hunch that direction, but never bothered to do the research and figure out why.
But, the fact of the matter is, I've never heard of anyone successfully executing a double-spend attack. Until we do hear of that happening, why are we so worried about it?
I agree that merchants should seriously look in to using 0-confirmation transactions. It would help Bitcoin become more viable, and encourage people to use Bitcoins for purchases.
|
|
|
|
You're taking my words out of context. I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post. You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC. And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person. I am not taking your words out of context. I am showing you that your whole argument is based on fallacy and misconstrued logic. The auction did not prohibit a bid such as mine. Online auctions are typically handled in the fashion I bid. Ergo the bid is valid. Being the generous and understanding soul that I am, if Jeremy had come to me and said "Hey, I did not intend this to be a normal auction, but a flat auction, do you want this for 66 BTC, the maximum you were willing to pay?" I would have paid him 66 BTC, even though it was within my rights to demand the auction be concluded as per the rules.. However, that's not what happened. Instead, he saw the price was too low and decided to "reopen" the auction for "silent bids." Even though my maximum bid was ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. It's not a silent auction if the bids are known in advance. In the public auction, my bid was KNOWN to anyone who cared to look - it was 66 BTC, no more. It was not an open ended bid like you keep trying to make it out to be... this is functionally what your argument hinges on, and since it's fallacious to claim as such, when my bid clearly was NOT open ended, your argument falls apart. His auction clearly stated "NO RESERVE." He didn't get the price he wanted, so he changed the terms and actually instituted a reserve after the fact (nominally 40 BTC). He got his 105 BTC (presumably Antares is good for it), instead of half or 1/3 of that. Very convenient. Very sneaky. Very shady. Very dishonest. I'll just have to say that I disagree with you. And so far, I haven't seen anyone agree with you. I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
I trusted him to, until he showed that he does not honor his agreements. Glad I found out before I sent him BTC!
What would you call it, if not a scam. Advertise an auction, but you don't like the outcome, so you change the rules after the fact and "reopen" the auction. Sounds like the definition of a scam to me.
He extended the auction because there was no unambiguous winner. |
|
|
|
You're right, I'm glad you admit that it was not prohibited by the rules. You've just successfully sunk your entire argument and made mine, thanks.
There was no miscommunication on what I meant by my bid. My bid was just like any bid on any auction site in in the world. Everyone that has ever bid on eBay or another auction site knows exactly how online auctions work.
You're taking my words out of context. I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post. You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC. And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person. I already explained why bidding on a forum cannot work in the same manner as it does on eBay or other auction sites. Anyone but a cheat would accept that. |
|
|
|
|
SCAM ALERT? Oh please. I'd trust Jeremy more than 99.9% of the people here. He's done more in the way of customer service than most other Bitcoin "companies" can even hope for.
You're just mad that you couldn't win the auction cheaply with your cheapskate bidding method that no one else agreed upon or was using.
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. If the "up to" bid is not a valid bid, then the max of the up to bid is the final bid.
Except that wasn't specified in the rules (or your post) either. Hence the reason for a silent bid "bid off". A lack of clarification of the rules, along with a mis-communication of what you actually meant by your bid, is exactly why I see an extension of the original deadline to be appropriate. |
|
|
|
Bullshit twice over. Bullshit 1: I gave a high bid of 66 BTC, not some open ended +1 bid like you are trying to make it out to be. If someone wanted to outbid me, all they had to do was bid 66 BTC.
Bullshit again on "you could effectively win auctions for very little this way" because someone could bid a ridiculous amount and I'd be stuck with a ridiculous amount +1. So both your arguments are complete bullshit.
You did not give a high bid of 66 BTC. You gave a bid of the previous high bid + 1, up to 66 BTC. Those are completely different. Sure, someone could bid a ridiculous amount. But most people aren't in the business of making people suffer just to make people suffer. If you have a reasonably high bid, it's very likely that no one will bid against you. Well, unless you have enemies who WANT to see you pay your max bid for the item. |
|
|
|
|
You WILL see more invalid/orphaned blocks by doing this. More pools will find more blocks at the same time, and one or the other of them will have to be invalidated.
Also, seeing 5 confirms on a 2-minute method would equate to the same security as 1 confirm on the 10-minute method, so unless you're looking for completing a transaction with less that one confirmation worth of security (that is, one confirmation within the current 10-minute method), what's the point? Why not just use 1 confirmation as confirmation enough?
|
|
|
|
Oh... so you're saying people could only bid once? Then that invalidates most bidders, since they usually bid more than once. The point of bidding is to bid... not state a price and then you can't increase it. *THAT* is your defense?
You were the ONLY one who intended to bid in the fashion you bid. NONE of the other bidders bid that way. Jeremy did NOT intend to allow bidding of that variety. And yet you still expect to win it at "1 + the previous bidder"? Come on... It's unfair in a forum environment to bid "ebay style" because everyone can see your top bid. People won't bid you up just for the sake of bidding you up, and if your top bid is higher than what anyone else is willing to pay, you will never be bid up. You could effectively win auctions for very little this way. That is why no one in their right mind would expect someone to bid in such a manner on a forum. Jeremy probably didn't think he needed to make such exclusions because respectable people would KNOW not to make bids like that. People like you are why legal paperwork has to be hundreds of pages long. Always looking for the loophole to cheat other people. |
|
|
|
There were no rules to specify otherwise. Sorry you wern't quick enough to figure it out.
It said place "a" bid, not place 30 bids. By bidding 1 above everything between 35 and 66, you're effectively placing 30 bids. |
|
|
|
What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?" Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid." Whatever the hell that is. That's not even a word. *boggle*
If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid. So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.
1) Take a chill pill. 2) Bid fairly, like everyone else. Everyone else submitted bids at a set amount, not "the previous bid + 1 BTC." You should've done the same. |
|
|
|
|
What about a virus/plague? You don't want to be burying those bodies directly in the ground, or they could continue to poison the area. Placing any of the deceased directly into a plastic tub sounds like a lot better idea than leaving them laying around until they can be buried, or burying them in the ground without any protection where it could taint water supplies, etc.
I'm with RodeoX - it's better to be prepared for whatever happens. Just because they are preparing for something like that to happen does not mean they are PLANNING for something like that to happen.
|
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. But why is it ok to just let someone run off with your things? Why do I not have a right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my property isn't stolen? Also related to this subject - why can a trespasser sue me if they trip over a rake that I left in my yard? Just seems so wrong... Then do what you believe is right and assume the responsibility don't try to make others consent. Not sure what you mean by "don't try to make others consent". Consent to what? Consent on what seems right/wrong to you. I wasn't really trying to force people into my viewpoint. Just trying to understand why my viewpoint isn't held by others... Because your point of view is an ultimate penalty. And that should be your decision to make not mine , not your neighbors , not ours ,your and your Only. Because only you know how the theft affected you. I'm not saying your viewpoint is bad or good , all I'm saying that i don't want a law like that  this is just my view point. Ah, ok, that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Umm, no. I won the auction. The auction closed at 20:00 UTC. My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder. In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.
You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus. I edited my message because it was more clear that way. In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.
If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.
Lol, I don't think anyone will agree with you there. Bidding "one higher than the highest bid" is kind of sketchy to start with, and not the same rules that anyone else was bidding under. You were supposed to bid a single BTC amount, not "everything between 35 BTC and 66 BTC, but as low as possible". Sorry, but I would side with Jeremy on that argument. |
|
|
|
SgtSpike,
My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...
so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.
Yikes! Sorry...  |
|
|
|
|
This would be a very good thing to get summarized in one location.
Paypal passes credit card chargebacks through to the seller. If the buyer disputes a Paypal payment via a credit card chargeback, then Paypal freezes those funds in the seller's account. A person can charge back any time within 60 days of receiving their credit card statement, which is generally around 10 days after the end of the billing cycle. But, also assume that the credit card agency doesn't necessarily notify Paypal of the dispute immediately - they have up to 30 days just to acknowledge they received the chargeback request, and 60 days to comply with it. Assuming the purchased on credit card was made at the start of the billing cycle, then you have a 160-170 day window of time before you can be certain that you won't be charged back via paypal.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't have antares won with his bid of 40 BTC?
Regardless, I'm super-jealous of the cheap vacation. If it wasn't for airline tickets being so spendy to match, I would've definitely bid on it!
|
|
|
|
I think it is best to keep the rigs and let SDM take over. Eg just like SIN took over dishwara guy ? Now SIN taken over by SDM ? I think this is all a giant conspiracy so that one company controls the mining monopoly  Actually the deal with dishwara fell through and we never actually got anything from them. Keep in mind he'll be determining what the rigs are worth after we send them to him, as in, we have no idea and no control over what we would be getting in exchange for them. The shareholders never got the specifics on exactly what equipment we own. We have no way to tell what deal we will be getting when we liquidate, or if shakaru's appraisal is accurate. I want to know exactly what assets SIN holds. If you do not provide this information, I cannot fully trust anyone's appraisal, because I have no idea what is being appraised! Which is exactly the reason I don't trust Tawsix... at ALL. It'd be extremely easy to make a quick list of all of the hardware that is owned, but he refuses. Why? Probably because he's a scammer, and doesn't want to be caught not telling the whole truth. I will be voting against the liquidation and for the absorption. If shakaru does not find that the equipment he receives is not capable (or was, if not working now) of producing the highest hashes/sec we have run, then we know that Tawsix did not send him all the equipment. Agreed. I want a second set of eyes on the whole thing, and if that means shakaru manages the hardware, that's fine with me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
