I thought confirmations were 10 minutes usually at max?
No. http://btc.blockr.io/block/list/327489 2014-10-29 11:44:39 327488 2014-10-29 11:01:10 generation of block is variable ... like the demand and offer on bitcoin. but block generation median time is rock stable : https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty -on the left- 1 block: 9.8 minutes 3 blocks: 29.2 minutes 6 blocks: 58.5 minutes The median time it takes for the miners to find new blocks is far from this stable. It can sometimes take the miners over an hour to find one additional block, or three or four blocks can potentially be found within a matter of a minute or two. You really need to look at much longer periods of time in order to get an accurate measure of average block confirmation times
|
|
|
BitPay serves a purpose.
A business might not know much about Bitcoin and might not be willing to change how their whole system operates to adopt it.
BitPay allows them to keep things running the same but take a few extra minutes and start accepting Bitcoin. They continue to do their finances the same way, get paid in fiat without any major disruption while saving a little bit of money on transaction fees in the process.
If you were really concerned, instead of a boycott you would be coming up with simple solutions for businesses to integrate bitcoins into their finances such that accepting them without a middle man would make a lot of sense.
This is a very good point. Too add onto this, companies like bitpay will help get more consumers to start using bitcoin as it gives them a reason to do so. This will overall benefit bitcoin over the long run No company is going to follow your political beliefs 100% of the time across all issues.
|
|
|
I don't think such a feature would be all that difficult to develop. It could easily be setup in a way that is similar to how the difficulty changes - so that, for example, the max block size for the next 2016 blocks would be 250% of the average block size from the previous 2016 blocks.
That might not work because it will drive the transaction fee down to 1 satoshi, and that may be too low. I disagree, especially as the block subsidy halves one or two more times. I don't think miners will confirm no/low TX fees in mass once the block subsidy is low as TX fees will make up more of the miners income If they don't confirm transactions with low fees, then they are throwing away free money. The only way to get fees up is to make people compete for space in the block chain. It requires an additional amount of work and an additional risk that a block will orphan for each additional TX that is included in a block. If the TX fee is too low then it will not be worth it to the miners to receive this additional small amount of money
|
|
|
Some time back my computer was hacked and I lost some coins. Reviewing all the evidence, including information from Kaspersky, it seemed likely someone in Russian government law enforcement position might have been involved. Recently I read the following article on the Intercept https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/24/nsa-official-implicated-potential-conflicts-interest-resigns/It occured to me that the people who have that sort of power are usually either very clean or very crooked. Historically in offices like that there is an ultracorrupt leadership that employes a layer of squeeky clean people for legitimacy. So reading the above article do you think there are teams at the NSA who aggressively steal coin wallets? I would believe that they have more important and valuable things to do with their time like homeland security, now unless they believed you were a terrorist supporting his troops with bitcoin i see no reason why they would take interest and target you or you even make a bleep on their radar... but out of all the gov't agenencies out there they i believe are the sneakiest (you knkow besides the ones that we dont even know exist) anything is possible though According to Snowden some NSA employees used to swap nudes of women that they'd come across via the mass surveillance, so I see no reason why it couldn't be possible for them to abuse their powers and try steal money or other such things. These are two very different accusations. One involves the trade of something that has very little value (and can be found for free on the internet) while the other involves the theft of actual property.
|
|
|
Why 200,000 Bits? How much is that in Bitcoin? 0.2?
I don't understand why people keep thinking that using Bits is any more convenient than just using Bitcoin and Satoshi.
The unit "Bits" is not an useful innovation and therefore this transaction will not become famous in any way.
ya.ya.yo!
Some people want to try to get different unit of measurements to be used when describing amounts of bitcoin. I really do not see any problem with simply describing amounts in terms of bitcoin as .01 bitcoin is ~$3.5 and I don't see any real need to get very much more specific then this (you could always go one or two more decimal places if you needed to). I think he probably got the idea from the lazo pizza trade and wants to replicate it
|
|
|
... a factor in where I choose to spend...
That, and they have really good stuff at insane low prices. Take a look now: www.overstock.com Advertising is a key of the 17% increase!! I read somewhere that there are not actually that many buys via BTC. Than again we are just in the beginning. Overstock will help Bitcoin a lot!! They received well over $100,000 in bitcoin sales within the first 24 hours of starting to accept bitcoin. It was said that the level of sales were somewhat inflation at first because many people wanted to 'take the plunge' right away and use their bitcoin on overstock right away.
|
|
|
Basically they detail a denial of service attack to Bitcoin nodes running behind tor, by sending transactions from all known tor exit nodes until all those nodes are banned for 24 hours.
It seems to me the solution to that is to run your own Bitcoin node outside of tor and whitelist the IP address you want to connect from, or a modification to the protocol that allows transactions to be specially signed and let through even from blocked nodes.
Another solution would be to not rely a transaction via tor with a full node, but rather use either blockchain.info/pushtx or a light client like multibit. There is no real reason to need to use a full node to push a tx. You could sufficiently protect yourself by using a full node to monitor for you receiving a TX or to use a trusted block explorer that you can access via a tor hidden service
|
|
|
According to Andrew Ittleman, an attorney at Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, this would mean that any business that wants to accept Bitcoin, would need to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to become licensed as a money transmitter in each state, in addition to several other requirements. "It seems to me that, according to FinCEN, any company that’s dealing with bitcoin is a money transmitter, and I don’t know if I could have said that before before I read the payment processor note."Basically, if this attorney is correct, the rulings are the equivalent of a ban on Bitcoin in the United States. http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-rules-bitcoin-payment-processors-exchanges-money-transmitters/This attorney is incorrect. The only reason why you would need to become a money transmitter if you are accepting bitcoin is if you are trading fiat for bitcoin (or bitcoin for fiat). If you are accepting bitcoin for cute puppies then accepting bitcoin is little different from you accepting checks as payment
|
|
|
I PMed him, he's from France so he is most likely sleeping. I'll update you here and how it goes, but I am 100% sure I gave Pierre11 back to the right owner.
Also, in the tx he paid back 0.095 (was supposed to be 0.096), because he was two days late. 0.08 + 20% (10% late fee each day) = 0.096.
I don't want to waste my night replying here for this stupid guy claiming he is Pierre. Unless he gives us REAL proof, such as owning that address, just ignore the guy.
You have claimed to have given him back his account, so claiming that he did not send you enough is not a valid reason for him to be making a claim against you like this. You can either claim that he did not send enough (so you did not need to give him the account back) or that you did give the account back and that he is lying, but you cannot claim both. If you are going to claim that you did not need to give him his account back then you will lose credibility. He has already provided a screenshot of PMs from both you and someone else regarding the loan that he was requesting. This is certainly not proof beyond a doubt, but it is something that gives a good indication that he, at one point had access to the account after he requested the loan. This is also not the first time you have been accused of scamming from someone as a few months ago it was claimed that you were overpaid for an account, but when you were called out you refunded the scamee. (I can't find the specific thread but it was in the beginners and help section)
|
|
|
What is the username of your other account? If you click on the trust (you can only do this when you are logged in) then you can see if the password was changed in the last 3 days or reset in the last 30 days.
|
|
|
80% "buyback" price
80% huh? Sounds a bit like those fruit gambling machines...brilliant! great prices as always GAW 80% is a company buyback if nobody else places an order. What would you expect? To buy a contract, mine for a month or 2 and sell for what you paid in the first place? "I sold a share for less than I bought it! They scammed me!" Pathetic. So you can mine with it for 6 months and you will still get 80% of the original purchase price? or the current market price? You can read about the buyback program here: https://hashtalk.org/topic/9443/gaw-guaranteed-buy-back-program-scarcity-and-proof-of-burn-would-spur-reinvestment80% Guaranteed Buy Back Program and subsequent destruction of Primes sold into the program (Buy back isn’t working at the velocity is should, and no way to track destruction of sold-back Primes)This is what the OP basically did, he wanted to sell for more, but in fact activated the buyback option and sold to GAW and since all sales are final he couldn't cancel it. The OP actually more likely sold the hashlets to a third party at roughly the selling price that GAW sells the hashlets for to the public. Everyone received what was roughly the market price
|
|
|
Pierre doesn't talk like that at all, lol. I can give proof I gave it back.
Nobody bother talking back to this guy, he is most likely Bitcoin-Police or someone else that has something against me.
The BTC was sent back to me, I gave him the acc. Deal done, and his account was back to normal and everything is fine now. Whoever claims they are Pierre, really isn't.
You don't give me back my account ; I tell you put the old password and you don't do it. You change the mail adress associated ; It's not the same. You tell you have proof ; give it in this topic so... I don't think this is proof. I think that you should have pierre11 sign a message from 13k3pGFoJG5TWSVnXoUE7mD4QUnYDn5ZBU (which is the address that he requested the loan to be sent to) confirming that he received his account back. If you can get him to do this then you returned the account back to him, if he cannot do this, or if he does not log back into his account, then you most likely stole the account from him Since you are trustworthy, I will take you on a join.me and show you all PMs sent back and forth. Otherwise, not wasting my time. @ OP: You forgot another thing before trying to scam. People only get their accounts back if they payback their loan within 5 days of the due date, or if they talk to me. You did not do either, and you're asking for "your" account back? Think again next time, lol. Pierre paid back 2 days after it was due, and he got his account back. PM's don't prove anything, you could easily have given him a fake password via PM. I think you should get pierre11 to sign a message from the above address. If you are going to quickly dismiss the idea of him signing a message from such address then I think you did not give the account back. If he replies saying that he cannot sign a message from that address for some reason then we can go from there (most likely we can have someone like VOD log into his coinbase account - or what ever account is receiving the btc at that address - to verify that the account actually receives btc at such address)
|
|
|
Pierre doesn't talk like that at all, lol. I can give proof I gave it back.
Nobody bother talking back to this guy, he is most likely Bitcoin-Police or someone else that has something against me.
The BTC was sent back to me, I gave him the acc. Deal done, and his account was back to normal and everything is fine now. Whoever claims they are Pierre, really isn't.
You don't give me back my account ; I tell you put the old password and you don't do it. You change the mail adress associated ; It's not the same. You tell you have proof ; give it in this topic so... I don't think this is proof. I think that you should have pierre11 sign a message from 13k3pGFoJG5TWSVnXoUE7mD4QUnYDn5ZBU (which is the address that he requested the loan to be sent to) confirming that he received his account back. If you can get him to do this then you returned the account back to him, if he cannot do this, or if he does not log back into his account, then you most likely stole the account from him
|
|
|
If MK of Gox can still happily sip coffee in the morning everyday in Japan, I doubt you will get into any serious trouble. Show prove of your communications with the culprit and the bitcoin transaction and you should be able to leave. Your account will be still be frozen and will be under investigation, but you will be able to post an update tomorrow. Mark of Gox is in a very different situation from the OP. The potential evidence that involves Gox is very complex, probably too so for law enforcement to understand. However the "hacking" of bank accounts (making unauthorized withdrawals?) as the OP claims to be framed of is a much simpler crime.
|
|
|
moreia is a scammer
moreia was involved in various Bitcoin HYIP/ponzi scams. moreia has also tried sending malware / wallet stealers, LOL.
FairProof, don't pay out this user.
While I do not consider any of this activity to be trustworthy, I do not think any of this is a valid reason to not pay moreia. If he won the money then he should be paid, end of story. Unless it can be documented that the maleware that was sent by moreia had caused him to win when he should not have won then he should be paid. Although admitting that the maleware had caused him to win would certainly be a black eye to your site, it is the only real reason why he should not be entitled to his winnings (I would not put it out of the question that this is what caused him to win)
|
|
|
Good evening , Sorry not to have answered before but I have not had time to do so. I am the true and pierre11 candystripe not gave me my account. I have not paid as evidenced by my transaction history on BlockChain (where I receive the loan): https://blockchain.info/fr/address/13k3pGFoJG5TWSVnXoUE7mD4QUnYDn5ZBUI send him a pessage for tell I will pay back but with late and HE DON'T ANSWER ME. CANDYSTRIPES DON'T GIVE ME BACK MY ACCOUNT. I AM SIRE HE SOLD IT !!!! I THINKS IT'S A SCAMMER And Open a scam accusation against candystripes. You will probably need to provide more proof then this No problem ; I could proff that I am the the real Pierre11. I post the scam accusation in the next minutes Include the PM where Candystripes indicates the amount to send and the address to send it to. this is the post when candy says that he gave the loan and the repayment address. this is the post when candy provides the TXID of the loan being repaid. (both posts are unedited as of now)
|
|
|
This is not entirely surprising. Candystripes seems to be very immature and I am surprised that he has not stolen more accounts via his lending thread. I have seen him spam the forum with useless posts with a couple of his accounts (the candystripes account, ejaculation, and your account). I am somewhat surprised that he has not been banned yet
|
|
|
http://ia802308.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531.110.0.pdfORDER The Court is aware of the growing lack of civility and professionalism among the parties in this case and, therefore, puts the parties on notice of several options available to it if such conduct continues. Through its inherent power to maintain respect and decorum, the Court is granted the flexibility to equitably tailor a sanction that appropriately fits any misconduct. See Plaintiffs’ Baycol Steering Comm. v. Bayer Corp., 419 F.3d 794, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizing inherent power to sanction after notice and opportunity to be heard). Available sanctions include a lecture from the Court, a monetary penalty, a recommendation by the Court to the appropriate bar association that the attorney be subject to disciplinary action, or a public reprimand directly by the Court and made available on the Court’s website.1 See, e.g., Local Rule 83.6 (discussing attorney discipline). More extreme sanctions include disbarment or contempt findings.
The Court recognizes that this is a contentious and vigorously disputed lawsuit. But the Court expects the parties to treat each other, the Temporary Receiver (which is appointed by, and serves as, an officer of the Court), and the Court with professionalism and respect. Name calling, veiled suggestions, ad hominem attacks, and unfounded accusations directed at opposing counsel, the Temporary Receiver, or the Court will not be tolerated and potentially subjects a party to the above sanctions.
I am not surprised that BFL is engaging in this kind of behavior against the FTC. They have always acted horribly unprofessional towards their customers, and I see no reason why this would stop for the people who are forcing BFL to stop scamming
|
|
|
There should be an algo written that can only be mined via a smartphone. I could finally dust off all my old worthless phones.
I think it would be very difficult to enforce such a restriction. Smartphones are designed to be able to be replicated on a computer so devs of apps can write and test apps for various smartphones. If such an algo was created then someone could simply run several instances of a smartphone VM on their computer in order to mine the coin that uses the algo
|
|
|
Nobody agrees to pay tax, its taken off automatically in our paychecks.
You agree when you voluntarily pay it. Move to a place that doesn't demand income tax. Don't some American states not even have income tax but just sales tax? I think it's the opposite. Some states have no sales tax. There are some of both. Some states have no sales tax and some have no income tax. Most have both. I don't think there are any states that have neither. Pretty much all states have a property tax. You do agree to pay the taxes because you are not forced to live in a locality that has taxes, as you could move somewhere that has lower taxes (or no taxes - although I doubt there are very many places like this because the government will provide services to it's citizens).
|
|
|
|