Just a note here for linux builds, if you are not using Cygwin you will have to comment out the following like so in the file namecoin-qt.pro # Regenerate src/build.h
#!win32|contains(USE_BUILD_INFO, 1) {
# genbuild.depends = FORCE
# genbuild.commands = cd $$PWD; /bin/sh share/genbuild.sh $$OUT_PWD/build/build.h
# genbuild.target = $$OUT_PWD/build/build.h
# PRE_TARGETDEPS += $$OUT_PWD/build/build.h
# QMAKE_EXTRA_TARGETS += genbuild
# DEFINES += HAVE_BUILD_INFO
#}
then you can just do and and binary is namecoin-qt ... remember to install all the dependencies first. Good luck ... it appears to be genuine. |
|
|
|
|
... his "weak form" definition of 'efficiency' seems suspect.
There are also robustness, dynamic response, incorruptibility and other properties for why free markets are desirable.
Casting an old chestnut from economics into a rigorous classic math problem framework like P=NP seems pretty contrived. Brain candy, but useful?, nup.
|
|
|
|
I don't think a lot of people realise this but localbitcoins.com is actually a centralised server model ... and does anyone know how much data they retain about all the recorded transactions/messaging that passes through their server? ... wonder which jurisdiction/locale the localbitcoins.com server is located in and what their privacy policy is by the way?
Correct, the next step is to make it a distributed P2P application. And there will be some dynamic changing local agencies provide trading with enough volume The benefit for this approach is: Like in a private auktion, if Alice do a bank transfer to Bob and buy some bitcoin from him, banks don't know the reason behind that transaction, the privacy is kept very well. If you do the transaction through an escrow, then banks will know clearly this money is going into a bitcoin exchange, at least that escrow holds all the information about all the transactions related to exchange The escrow is performed by the smart contracts function on the OT server ... https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/tree/master/scripts/smartcontracts/escrow how would the bank have any idea it was not just regular user making a transfer? That OT server must be authorised by banks to access their SEPA transaction data, without that authorization it can only prove a bitcoin transaction, not a fiat money transaction You changed from "banks will know clearly this money is going into a bitcoin exchange" to "OT server must be authorised by banks to access their SEPA transaction data" ... which are obviously two different issues. Interfaces with legacy banking system are problematic but they can't stop individuals making transfers or their money would become more useless than it already is ... the more barriers they put up to personal transfers the less valuable their money becomes ... |
|
|
|
I don't think a lot of people realise this but localbitcoins.com is actually a centralised server model ... and does anyone know how much data they retain about all the recorded transactions/messaging that passes through their server? ... wonder which jurisdiction/locale the localbitcoins.com server is located in and what their privacy policy is by the way?
Correct, the next step is to make it a distributed P2P application. And there will be some dynamic changing local agencies provide trading with enough volume The benefit for this approach is: Like in a private auktion, if Alice do a bank transfer to Bob and buy some bitcoin from him, banks don't know the reason behind that transaction, the privacy is kept very well. If you do the transaction through an escrow, then banks will know clearly this money is going into a bitcoin exchange, at least that escrow holds all the information about all the transactions related to exchange The escrow is performed by the smart contracts function on the OT server ... https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/tree/master/scripts/smartcontracts/escrow how would the bank have any idea it was not just regular user making a transfer? |
|
|
|
|
Well killed is a strong word, but sending people to lobby govt. seems counter-productive for advocates of a disruptive network technology that was invented to specifically to route around damage caused by previous regulations interfering with the natural efficient value exchange networks....
... unless they are lobbying to remove previous regulations to make the system environment freer then all they can hope to achieve is to create more obstacles that the next iteration will need to route around. We can play this game forever, why prolong it?
It seems like some people are determined not to learn ... more regulations are going to ultimately achieve nothing, if nothing else bitcoin must bear witness to that?
|
|
|
|
Guys, you do realize that we are building here the first true AI, an agent based one, don't you? If Bitcoin is not a Singularity it is a prerequisite for one.
This particular rabbit hole could be very deep...
Interesting, hadn't thought of that dimension ... but it indeed may take on a 'mind' of its own depending on the bots that will come to inhabit the various asset pair channels ... like an AI springing forth from the emergent behaviour of the collective of bots you mean? Edit: ... and in this vein I propose the name for the OSS bundle comprised of Bitcoin Bitmessage Open-Transactions be the BITBOT bundle ... and same name "BitBOT" for any AI that might spring forth  |
|
|
|
Just like a gateway in ripple, this is the point of weakness for all the P2P exchange design: That escrow/gateway must be able to communicate with banks through an authorized channel and that channel is controlled by banks
Yes, as long as you have to communicate with legacy bank systems, you will have to follow their rules and regulations KYC etc... Do not expect this to make proper exchanges obsolete all of the sudden. You need to take the commerce completely out of legacy bank system to not depended on whims of the banks. Or we could just buy a few banks... and have them run some OT servers. In a traditional bank system, bank A open an account in bank B and bank B open an account in bank A, and they can do transactions both way. But due to bitcoin is not a single entity, traditional banks can open accounts in bitcoin network while bitcoin network can not open a bank account at traditional bank, only individuals can I still think localbitcoins.com is better than the idea of P2P exchange I don't think a lot of people realise this but localbitcoins.com is actually a centralised server model ... and does anyone know how much data they retain about all the recorded transactions/messaging that passes through their server? ... wonder which jurisdiction/locale the localbitcoins.com server is located in and what their privacy policy is by the way? |
|
|
|
Is there a running OT server now? (I assume there is one owned/operated by monetas.net?) Are there others out in the wild? If there are a couple of OT servers and the BM protocol can be established, all we need is an application that combines the two together to get a running P2P exchange, right? Pretty much. AFAIK monetas is not running an OT server ... there is actually only 2 alpha that are on-line (but know of at least several others in testing off-line phase) ... server contracts and asset contracts used on the operational gaming TX server "Digitalis" (and Demo server where public can issue assets) for the Galactic Milieu can be found here http://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/ |
|
|
|
This is very exciting! Yes author of Bitmessage got another little/big breakthrough and pushed crypto currencies to another cycle of development. Such a simple improvement or variation and with so important implications. When you get it you think like "why the hell did I not think of it myself", it is so simple! Kudos to Bitmessage inventors!
Ummm, it is the Open Transactions 'people' that came up with idea to use Bitmessage as secured P2P price/trade discovery mechanism ... which is actually the only part of a fully integrated P2P decentralised exchange that really needs to be P2P ... the settlement is taken care of by the Federation of OT servers (distributed semi-trusted nodes) perhaps localised also ... and potentially strong anonymity off-chain transactions (by notary mechanism only). But who's counting precedence of ideas eh?  |
|
|
|
I can do makefile stuff ...
Want to make 0.5 BTC? It's gotta be much less complicated than I'm making it. https://github.com/etotheipi/BitcoinArmory/blob/master/cppForSwig/MakefileI mentioned it a few posts up: the issue is python-dev. I need it static-compiled into the project, but I need it to autodetect the location of it, and switch to the .so if the .a does not exist. I know that Makefile is terrible -- I don't do Makefiles or bash scripting... I did whatever I could to make it work, but it's clearly not very portable... Hmmm, security wise you may consider supplying your own python-dev lib? Edit: should have also said the obvious, this would obviate the need for searching for it too. |
|
|
|
Met a guy behind Open Transactons at a party this past weekend. The way he explained it, it looks like OP can do everything Ripple can, and the code is already done and opensource... Think that may help fr this in any way?
imo ... any efforts towards P2P exchanges should now go in make usable clients to do this ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=212490.msg2227866#msg2227866the pieces are all there now, just join the dots fellas. |
|
|
|
|
I can do makefile stuff ...
|
|
|
|
Couple years ago it was "Don't talk to the CIA! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!" Now it is "Don't get involved in DC lobbying! That's Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!" In a few more years, I bet it'll be "Don't go to the United Nations! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!" I'll quote myself from a related thread on google+ Walking along the beach this afternoon, enjoying the California sunshine, I think I realized where the fundamental disagreement lies. Financial privacy / freedom is a larger issue than Bitcoin, and I personally think it would be better to fight that fight separately from Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin is a great tool that will (I hope) bring us greater privacy/freedom. But I see advocating for Bitcoin as separate from advocating for financial privacy/freedom in general. So: I think if you want financial privacy/freedom in general, then there is at least one US organization dedicated to that goal ( http://freedomandprosperity.org/ -- we should get them to accept Bitcoin donations). I hate reinventing wheels, and am a big believer in focused organizations and projects as the way to get things done, so I think the Bitcoin Foundation should concentrate on making Bitcoin successful. Gavin; you said yourself that the Bitcoin Foundation is being modelled on the Linux Foundation. How many lawyers and lobbyists does the Linux Foundation employ? Just as a point of reference. Also, you must realise that most of the members were of the impression when the foundation was set up (less than a year ago) that it was basically to fund dev work. Now it is talking about hiring a team of 6 lawyers and lobbyists to go to DC. Does this sound like dev work? It sounds more like a deceptive bait and switch ... |
|
|
|
|
Whoa ... is this what I think it is, blueprint for P2P exchange?
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to try this on OSX without compiling? Is there a downloadable .dmg file somewhere?
I believe it works on OSX ... you may have to install brew version of python and PyQt first. |
|
|
|
Got my coins back today ... doublec came through (never doubted it  ) |
|
|
|
The letter said: "Your entity is not, at this time, engaged as a money services business in Canada as per the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing and its associated Regulations.
"In fact, your entity doesn’t provide the services of remitting and/or transferring funds for the sake of the service. The transfer of funds is simply a corollary of your actual service of buying and selling virtual currency. Therefore, you do not have to register your entity with us." This is how I interpretted it originally ... basically bitcoin exchanges facilitate the buying/selling of virtual currency ... much like a commodity exchange ... if people want to use those assets to transfer value that is a corollary (and not something the exchange has any control over). Basically, the laws surrounding "lawful money" do not apply to virtual currencies. That whole FinCen 'guideline' sounds like a hand-wavy fix-up because they just wanted to back fit a prosecution on to Gox's Dwolla account. |
|
|
|
Why not now? It allows people to easily review the changes.
Dumping tarballs and binaries is not how you do development, especially open source.
heheh, Satoshi might argue with you ... in an ideal world everyone would know perfect git and write essays about philosophy behind minor modes... but let's not be too anal shall we? ... and at this point namecoin will take whatever dev work it can get. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
