Once you get that last hash and it is converted to decimal numbers, why do you skip the first 5 pairs?
Also, what if the resulting numbers were extremely repetitive and less than 4 unique pairs could be grabbed?
What would be the winning numbers in such extremely unlikely case?
The second case is practically impossible - someone generated a few million hashes and it didn't came up IIRC. |
|
|
|
|
It's unlikely that an API error would take them this amount of time to resolve. I'm guessing that they sold more BTC than they could buy at gox (aka ran out of money), and a price spike caught them off guard.
|
|
|
|
|
LoweryCBS is the person I'd trust the most in the lending section.
I can insure repayments for 1% - PM if interested.
|
|
|
|
.01 is barely anything people. I'm buying some btc through bitinstant tomorrow, I'll give whomever .02 in exchange for .01! I won't be able to buy what I need to buy by the time my btc gets into my wallet tomorrow.
Do NOT buy from BitInstant right now. Orders are not coming through, and a technical error does not mean people's funds are stuck for weeks. I'm guessing they accidentally naked short sold and are trying to get out of this mess by buying BTC with new purchases. |
|
|
|
|
There are no private schools in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm interested if you are willing to ship to Australia. Don't expect to, but PM me if you're interested.
|
|
|
|
Did you try the same - in a different browser?
- with a different charset?
(utf-8 or something) [/list] It's intended behavior (nbsp -> 0xA0), but SMF doesn't like it. What about removing SMF's multiple space to   conversion? |
|
|
|
I like the sentiments of OP ... though 'network currency' can sound like 'networking marketing .... pyramid, etc.
"Internet Currency" could be more appropriate, useful and correct , since it operates on layer 4 and above, not on the network hardware anyway (yet?)
Bingo! I was wondering if this point was going to brought up, for if it hadn't I was going to pen something similar. Amway, et al., were considered MLMs, until it was remarketed as Network Marketing. Insurance companies are base on the same principle. There's probably a large demographic that has a negative cognition toward the term network, although I do see the beauty in its usage. One main problem I see with the term "Internet Currency" is the number of syllables it has. Perhaps, if it were shorten to something like "Netcy" it may have a chance. I don't like netcy - what about online currency? |
|
|
|
- Some could have sold for much higher due to speculation effect since the first deployment (Jutarul fixed auction for 0.5 was an utter loss and waste of effort for him in my opinion!)
Of course you're entitled to your own opinion. But I am an investor not a speculator, thus my math works a little bit differently. The price of 0.5 BTC/share was chosen for two reasons: a) it was a target sell from the get-go (yes I do have a schedule). b) It is what I consider a "fair" trading price, which takes into account the expected earnings in the foreseeable future. The current market price only makes sense if you assume that people "bet" on the genius friedcat to come up with a way to continue the success story past 2013. And for that very same reason I am not gonna liquidate my remaining position for a long time. Thank you. You also bought in at IPO price right?  |
|
|
|
I like the sentiments of OP ... though 'network currency' can sound like 'networking marketing .... pyramid, etc.
"Internet Currency" could be more appropriate, useful and correct , since it operates on layer 4 and above, not on the network hardware anyway (yet?)
Internet currency is a good term too! (through internet = internetwork) |
|
|
|
Because you are slandering my name? Because when buyers see scammer next to a name they lose a certain amount of confidence? If you do not understand this then you should probably finish your high school business course.
I'm sorry, but I'm trying to warn other people against a possible scammer. I'm not 100% confident that it is you, but it certainly looks like it. Also, I love how you complain about personal attacks and then you proceed to do the same thing  Now, please stop incorrectly labeling users (or maybe this is just a personal attack) as scammers when you lack any evidence or a REASON to believe that I am.
"MOST LIKELY" I'm not calling you a scammer. Bitcoin is still a small community. Two newly registered people selling the same products, the first who conveniently deleted their first listing. Similar posting times, posting styles, and your account has less time spent online than the first one, which can indicate that you're not completely new. Is it proof? No. It's why it's a warning. |
|
|
|
|
Currently, accessing moved topics require clicking on the (moved) link and then clicking on a link to the new location of the topic. It doesn't add more information (as people already know the topic is moved), so why not just redirect it instead of requiring another click?
|
|
|
|
We also might get more hashpower, like really Considering as well the "relatively"slow deployment rate that doesn't look like it is going to compensate for the two points I just mentioned
Trying to figure out ASICMINER's deployment process purely by watching their workers isn't a good way to predict future hashpower. Also, using a portion of the dividends to increase future expansion is not a bad idea at all. It's the difference between an actual mining company and a PMB. |
|
|
|
By next week we will hit the "Break-even" for the IPO price which will cut the dividends by 50% AND even more! because ASICMINER "might" save up to 35% of the profit for future investments and expansions. (Refer to IPO). This event will greatly affect the share price and open alot of opportunities for many of us either seeking liquidation or more shares.
We also might get more hashpower, like really |
|
|
|
Report: RevenueASICMINER dividends: 4.13 BTC G.ASICMINER-PT dividends: 0.7539 BTC ATC777 loan: 0.215 BTC scrybe line of credit interest: 0.1969 BTC TOTAL: 5.2958 BTC Paid as dividends: 4.7662 BTC Dividends per share: 0.00131 / share As always, the dividends will go out when the coins get 6 confirms on weexchange. AssetsNot traded on an exchange: 83 ASICMINER (directly) - 70.55 BTC BitFunder 11,134 G.SDICE shares: (mpex avg of bid/ask used) 55.67 BTC 400 G.BBET shares: 0.55 BTC 29 G.ASICMINER-PT shares: 24.79 BTC Coins: 12.10 btc Bitfunder total value: 95.81 BTC btct.co 3 ESECURITYSABTC: 1.2 BTC Coins: 2.185 btc btct.co total value: 3.385 BTC Asset loan to Ian Bakewell: 128.27 BTC ATC777 loan (remaining): 28.73 BTC scrybe line of credit: 35 BTC Total loans / lines of credit: 192 BTC (nice round number ) Other bitcoin reserve: 1.6329 BTC Total: 363.3779 BTC Shares outstanding: 3631 NAV/share: 0.1 BTC / share |
|
|
|
I have enough coin to cover the 1BTC loan, though. Then use those coins? |
|
|
|
Erm, why are you selling "private keys" instead of just sending the money in a normal transaction? That's a really weird way to do things and is just generally a lot more painful for people.
CC Processor: What are you selling? "Currency!" versus "Digital keys" |
|
|
|
21,000,000 x 8 decimal places.  It's a deflationary fractional currency. 21,000,000.00000001 BTC I see. Could a large financial institution discourage owning BTC simply by making it insanely volatile? (Purchasing huge amounts then dumping them all etc..) Depends upon how much money that they were willing to lose. Your awesome quote just introduced me to a book I had never read. Thanks! Care to share? Cuz I wasn't quoting anyone on purpose. Probably about your sig? |
|
|
|
21,000,000 x 8 decimal places. It's a deflationary fractional currency. 21,000,000.00000001 BTC I see. Could a large financial institution discourage owning BTC simply by making it insanely volatile? (Purchasing huge amounts then dumping them all etc..) Sure, but they'd have to purchase the huge amounts first unless they start naked short selling on gox (in which case we stop using mtgox). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
