As informações são publicas. Legalmente você pode continuar reproduzindo os dados, e deveria. É um ótimo serviço.
Quem falou ai que que os dados não são publicos está falando beteira, isso não é nem se confunde com direito autoral. É como querer dizer que os preços em um super mercado são direito autoral, ou que os balanços trimestrais de empresas listadas na Bolsa são direito autoral.
Não existe autor aqui no caso, e principalmente não há obra intelectual. São meros dados de mercado divulgados pela própria empresa e podem ser livremente reproduzidos.
1- Não são "meros dados de mercado" divulgados pela empresa, são compilações de dados e como tais são cobertas pela lei de direitos autorais. 2- Balanços trimestrais de empresas listadas em bolsa são públicos POR LEI, e não por definição. Balanço de empresas não negociadas em bolsa não são públicos. Ambos são protegidos por direito autoral. Cuidado ao falar que os outros estão "falando besteira" quando quem está falando besteira pode ser você mesmo. Preços também são publicos e devem estar bem expostos, por lei. você parece confundir tres conceitos: Público, Publicado e de dominio público. Preços de varejo são obrigatoriamente publicados em local visivel. Isso nem os torna publics nem os coloca em dominio publico. Me mostra a lei que diz que os dados que o bitvalor usa são propriedade da empresa. É a lei de direito autoral? Esta falando besteira.
Ao dono do site bitvalor: Cara, se você está com medo simplesmente consulte um advogado apenas para perguntar isso. Vai te cobrar uns 200 reais.
Mas já antecipo que você pode reproduzir os dados a vontade. E só lamento por essas empresas de merda!
São varias leis, mas as duas principais são: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9610.htm e http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9279.htmNenhuma das duas se enquadra, uma lei é de direito autoral e para existir direito autoral requer que exista obra intelectual, o que não existe no caso. Ver "Título II Das Obras Intelectuais Capítulo I Das Obras Protegidas". A outra lei é de marcas e patentes, aí que não tem nada a ver mesmo. |
|
|
|
As informações são publicas. Legalmente você pode continuar reproduzindo os dados, e deveria. É um ótimo serviço.
Quem falou ai que que os dados não são publicos está falando beteira, isso não é nem se confunde com direito autoral. É como querer dizer que os preços em um super mercado são direito autoral, ou que os balanços trimestrais de empresas listadas na Bolsa são direito autoral.
Não existe autor aqui no caso, e principalmente não há obra intelectual. São meros dados de mercado divulgados pela própria empresa e podem ser livremente reproduzidos.
1- Não são "meros dados de mercado" divulgados pela empresa, são compilações de dados e como tais são cobertas pela lei de direitos autorais. 2- Balanços trimestrais de empresas listadas em bolsa são públicos POR LEI, e não por definição. Balanço de empresas não negociadas em bolsa não são públicos. Ambos são protegidos por direito autoral. Cuidado ao falar que os outros estão "falando besteira" quando quem está falando besteira pode ser você mesmo. Preços também são publicos e devem estar bem expostos, por lei. Me mostra a lei que diz que os dados que o bitvalor usa são propriedade da empresa. É a lei de direito autoral? Esta falando besteira. Ao dono do site bitvalor: Cara, se você está com medo simplesmente consulte um advogado apenas para perguntar isso. Vai te cobrar uns 200 reais. Mas já antecipo que você pode reproduzir os dados a vontade. E só lamento por essas empresas de merda! |
|
|
|
|
As informações são publicas. Legalmente você pode continuar reproduzindo os dados, e deveria. É um ótimo serviço.
Quem falou ai que que os dados não são publicos está falando beteira, isso não é nem se confunde com direito autoral. É como querer dizer que os preços em um super mercado são direito autoral, ou que os balanços trimestrais de empresas listadas na Bolsa são direito autoral.
Não existe autor aqui no caso, e principalmente não há obra intelectual. São meros dados de mercado divulgados pela própria empresa e podem ser livremente reproduzidos.
|
|
|
|
|
@eric@haobtc
Try to get informed and ask questions at reddit's subs /r/btc and /r/bitcoinxt ( this message board and /r/bitcoin are censored ).
|
|
|
|
Drives are pretty much cheap now, but I think a huge problem is still bandwidth caps. 40GB is about two times the bandwidth cap I get where I am right now.
[sarcasm] Bandwidth's pretty much cheap now; I have unlimited 100 mb/sec. Lets increase the required bandwidth because its only waiting a couple of minutes longer. [/sarcasm] I get fed up with the "I'm alright Jack cos I have a 10 tonne tower of hard drives." attitude. It's not a problem FOR YOU and it's cheap FOR YOU and you can do anything you like to your computer because you don't have an IT department in your bedroom. Indeed, my bandwidth is unlimited and disk space is not a problem , so should i say bandwidth is pretty cheap and does not matter? but i don't have SSD drives to suffer less with the terrible leveldb Bitcoin Core uses |
|
|
|
If you take a look at the NBitcoin repo https://github.com/NicolasDorier/NBitcoin you will see that it is a very active project. In fact, yesterday there was a new release with many improvements. For example, the latest version allows you to use the bitcoin core consensus library to validate transactions. There are new features (see the TransactionBuilder and MoneyBag classes), improvements and, at the same time, NBitcoin is on sync with bitcoin core project. So, summarizing: there are a lot of news. I wonder if it does have some kind of coin selector and a wallet file format? |
|
|
|
Satoshi is never going to be found out .. unless he wants to be
I believe the USA gov. knows who he is if they are interested, he must have leaked his IP somewhere. Also his main e-mail account was hacked, there could be some ID info there but i find it hard. |
|
|
|
it is an incentive to miners but it is a side effect it is not the intention. Original implementation was not supposed to have any fees, then fees were lazily created to avoid spam. And that is what fees are for, to prevent spam, if they are not serving the purpose fees should be eliminated and an actual solution should be created.
Erm... no. Fees always have been and always will be part of the plan. Quoting from the Bitcoin whitepaper: 6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned
by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is
less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of
the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free. So again, once the block reward diminishes, fees will play a vital role in securing the network. You are wrong, do your research. In case you are correct the bitcoin developers lied to everyone about it, sou you saying they are all liars?
No one lied about anything, there just seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I don't know where you got this idea from that fees aren't an integral part of the design, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't one of the developers.
By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned
by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending
resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.The fees as incentive were a suggestion . not the convention and were not originally part of Bitcoin. If you search this very board you will find very old posts about it, when fees were added. It was all about spam. I will try to find them if i have the time. |
|
|
|
No fee is fair, it is not part of the original implementation and was created to prevent spam which is not working very well. An actual solution must take place to prevent spam and fees removed, all kinds of systems manage to prevent spam/DoS without charging its users any money - fees are just a lazy solution.
So when the block rewards wither down to nothing what would be the incentive for miners to continue to mine and secure the network? The fee should be high enough to keep the miners happy and confirm our transactions. You are trying to advance a theory problem that may only happen hundreds of years from now. The difficulty will adjust if "industrial" miners leave because it is not worth to mine anymore, voluntary non profit mining should be enough if it happens. |
|
|
|
|
Their intention is just to move money fast overseas in a private network owned by the bank, it is no competition to bitcoin. It is just the blockchain tech being used to make the current banking system more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
No fee is fair, it is not part of the original implementation and was created to prevent spam which is not working very well. An actual solution must take place to prevent spam and fees removed, all kinds of systems manage to prevent spam/DoS without charging its users any money - fees are just a lazy solution.
|
|
|
|
I don't get all the talking about miner's fee, we don't need to pay any fee at all if we don't want to and miners can leave if they want to.
If they leave the diffculty will be adjusted to the available hash power. We should not be held hostage of these mining corporations, mining could go back as low as the GPU days and it would not be a problem.
Why would the miners leave? What if they just ignore all the "low-fee" transactions? What could we, the bitcoin users, do except increasing the tx fee? You are right that we could choose to not pay any fee if we don't want to. But at the same time, the miners could choose to include our transactions if they don't want to. That's exactly the problem, fees were created solely to avoid spam but it is actually being used as an extortion instrument. The block reward should and must be the only reason to mine.I believe miners themselves are spaming. Are you aware, that the block reward will go to zero eventually? So, that basically means, miners should work for free. I don't believe that the last bitcoin will ever be mined, but supposing mining is not possible anymore for whatever reason we have to implement a solution when it is about to happen, not 500 years before it could happen in theory. Possibly voluntary non profit mining would be enough, see the nodes, there is a relay fee that i hardly believe could even pay for expenses of running it, for the most part nodes are voluntary. |
|
|
|
Ever thought of the possiblity that both are correct? Both of the option have a valid point about this I believe. After there is no block reward , then this miners fee will be the incentive for miners to keep on mining otherwise if there is no incentives than no one will sacrifice their electricity cost just for the sake of finding block I believe
Yes, both are valid points, it is an incentive to miners but it is a side effect it is not the intention. Original implementation was not supposed to have any fees, then fees were lazily created to avoid spam. And that is what fees are for, to prevent spam, if they are not serving the purpose fees should be eliminated and an actual solution should be created. |
|
|
|
You are wrong, do your research. In case you are correct the bitcoin developers lied to everyone about it, sou you saying they are all liars? First eliminate the fees.
-snip-
Rate Limiting
BTC is a POW coin which means that it will always need miners to mine blocks for confirmation and the fees are incentive for the miners to work after the block reward goes to 0. Without fees at all, miners will have no incentive to mine anymore . This may only happen in after 100+ years however eliminating fees is not the answer for this. As for the rate limiting are you actually meant limiting transaction that below X BTC or so? This is also not an option because BTC suppose to give the ability to send micropayment as well . Limitation to the transaction isnt healthy for BTC because it is merely discrimation to some transaction You got it wrong. 1- Fees are NOT an incentive for miners, it is an incentive for individuals to not spam. 2 - No, i don't mean that. You are refering to a simple value limit, anyway fee is a lazy solution that does not work well and virtually blocks ALL transactions that don't pay the toll. Any solution regardless of the type or the mix of them will be somewhat complex but far less complex than the blockchain itself. Nope, arallmuus is quite correct. Fees might not be a huge incentive for miners just yet, but they will be in future. Unless your solution involves altering the block reward, which in turn alters inflation and the subsequent value of each coin (so no one in their right mind would agree to changing it), then the fees will become the primary incentive for miners as the reward diminishes over time. Or were you working under the assumption that miners are going to keep securing the network forever for free? |
|
|
|
First eliminate the fees.
-snip-
Rate Limiting
BTC is a POW coin which means that it will always need miners to mine blocks for confirmation and the fees are incentive for the miners to work after the block reward goes to 0. Without fees at all, miners will have no incentive to mine anymore . This may only happen in after 100+ years however eliminating fees is not the answer for this. As for the rate limiting are you actually meant limiting transaction that below X BTC or so? This is also not an option because BTC suppose to give the ability to send micropayment as well . Limitation to the transaction isnt healthy for BTC because it is merely discrimation to some transaction You got it wrong. 1- Fees are NOT an incentive for miners, it is an incentive for individuals to not spam. 2 - No, i don't mean that. You are refering to a simple value limit, anyway fee is a lazy solution that does not work well and virtually blocks ALL transactions that don't pay the toll. Any solution regardless of the type or the mix of them will be somewhat complex but far less complex than the blockchain itself. |
|
|
|
Fees don't work well and should be eliminated, but some other solution must take place - a solution that actually works and that can't be used as an extortion instrument by miners like the fees
what is your suggestion? because it is to say "we need to remove this and remove that"; but if none can offer a better solution, we cannot move ahead
i think for the time being, i'll not bother with it, even in the case that you need to pay 100k satoshi per TX this is not even a problem, we are talking about few cents, camo on, with visa and mastercard fee are far beyond this
First eliminate the fees. Then there are several ways to avoid spam thru' Atificial Intelligence, Rate Limiting and more. Other systems avoid spam and DoS-like behaviour successfully without charging anything for system access. I could suggest several methods but i'm sure the bitcoin developers can come up with much better and appropriate IF they want to. |
|
|
|
|
Fees don't work well and should be eliminated, but some other solution must take place - a solution that actually works and that can't be used as an extortion instrument by miners like the fees
|
|
|
|
I don't get all the talking about miner's fee, we don't need to pay any fee at all if we don't want to and miners can leave if they want to.
If they leave the diffculty will be adjusted to the available hash power. We should not be held hostage of these mining corporations, mining could go back as low as the GPU days and it would not be a problem.
Why would the miners leave? What if they just ignore all the "low-fee" transactions? What could we, the bitcoin users, do except increasing the tx fee? You are right that we could choose to not pay any fee if we don't want to. But at the same time, the miners could choose to include our transactions if they don't want to. That's exactly the problem, fees were created solely to avoid spam but it is actually being used as an extortion instrument. The block reward should and must be the only reason to mine. I believe miners themselves are spaming. |
|
|
|
i think it is time that developers do something about this issue, it is getting more and more annoying . the number of people being affected by this alleged stress testing is growing everyday.
i am not sure that bigger block sizes can be the solution to this problem, but something definitely needs to be done, and it needs to be done fast.
Maybe some kind of rate limiting, and get rid of the fees that were supposed to avoid spam |
|
|
|
|
I don't get all the talking about miner's fee, we don't need to pay any fee at all if we don't want to and miners can leave if they want to.
If they leave the diffculty will be adjusted to the available hash power. We should not be held hostage of these mining corporations, mining could go back as low as the GPU days and it would not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
