|
Yes, the only FUD here is in the original post in this thread.
|
|
|
|
People are stupid when they are going to buy shares, one of these days the other exchanges that have allot of people AND work Great will add many more alt-coins. Exchanges that have a lot of people and work great? That must be a pretty small list? |
|
|
|
|
The only deleted posts you have shown are ones complaining about your deleted posts.
Seems within the realms of self-moderation.
|
|
|
|
|
Cryptsy shares are trading at 4-5x initial value, so people are clearly still interested.
|
|
|
|
There are three large multipools: middlecoin.com - does everything for you, converts all coins to BTC hashco.ws - more configurable, allows you to specify which coins to convert to BTC and which to keep multipool.us - no automatic conversion, but can autosend to crypsty and autosell there You can also set up your own automated switching setup using MultiMiner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=248173.0That way you mine just the coins you want to, and can adjust the profitability weightings to bias in favour or against or certain coins. This option gives you the most control, without needing to constantly check the profitability figures yourself, plus you do all of the pool configuration for each coin, so the process is much more transparent. |
|
|
|
One of the biggest tickets we get are from cancellations. I know its slow but if you mash the button a bunch during lag it seems to cause way more harm then good. If you have a balance error and don't want to wait for support. One little trick you might try is placing a very small order in the same coin pair for an amount that wont fill and cancelling it this forces an audit and may fix your issue. Try it on the buy and sell side might fix you right up. We have a fix for this but nothing is instant. This worked for me. I had tried to place a order that didn't get posted, tried placing it again, still didn't get posted. Came back an hour or so later to find that BTC for both trades had been deducted, leaving me with negative BTC, but neither order was posted. Cancelling another order for the same pair fixed the issue, and restored my BTC balance to the correct value. This only works if you have a positive balance of one coin or the other, or an open order that can be cancelled, without that you can't fix it yourself. Might be worth leaving a small amount of alt-coin sitting around, or a never-filled order, to allow this self-fix to work. |
|
|
|
What does this mean and how can I correct it? The pool operator doesn't want you using the pool as an online wallet or permanent storage, so is telling you that you have too many QRK in your pool account, and you should transfer them to a separate wallet. |
|
|
|
EDIT: There are a number of Chinese knockoff products that have the trademarked name deliberately misspelled, that are often sold in cheap retail places commonly called "dollar stores". The copycats aren't very good, perhaps deliberately, and anyone who thought the product was the original had to be less than observant.
The point of the separate dilution clause is there doesn't have to be actual confusion: ...regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury It is enough that is clearly meant to look like the original, even if it isn't exactly the same, or uses a misspelled name. |
|
|
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex. Fakes aren't, unto themselves, illegal. Selling them as the real thing is fraud, though. Perhaps US law is different, but I would have thought that selling them at all, even if clearly labelled as fakes, would still be a trademark violation. Edit: I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to be covered by 15 USC § 1125 (c) Dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment
(1) Injunctive relief
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
|
|
|
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex. |
|
|
|
You need to accept the basic problem:
X distinct input files must generate X distinct output files, otherwise you cannot retrieve the original files.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
If I were to accept your basic premise, I would have to say that one word cannot possibly mean anything more than just one thing. Therefore, the word "bow" cannot mean to bend over at the waist, when it clearly means a piece of ceremonial cloth tied at the neck. And there goes the other half of the "____ and arrows" equation. One input can in fact stand in place of many outputs, its all based on relative meaning. Space. Whether that space is in our imaginations or in the real world. We can clearly simultaneously understand that "bow" means bow and arrow, bow tie, and take a bow. One input many outputs. There are millions of guys named "Smith" ... by your logic, there cannot be more than one Smith, since 1 input = 1 possible output. You are almost there. What you have shown is that "Smith" is not a unique compression output for a person whose surname is Smith, because many many people would also be compressed to the same name. So Person->Surname is a lossy compression method, because it is impossible to retrieve the original person from just the surname. Similarly, natural language is a lossy compression of the objects or ideas it represents. Given just the word "bow", I cannot know if you meant bow and arrow or take a bow. Lossy compression schemes can reduce sizes for all input files, but it doing so they lose the ability to exactly reconstruct the input file from the output file. MP3/AAC for music and XVID/MP4 for video are common examples of lossy compression schemes. What you have claimed to be able to do is create a lossless compression scheme that can compress [transform to less than their original size] all input files. That is simply not possible. There are 256 possible different one byte input files. If there were less than 256 different output files, then two input files would be mapped to the same output file, and it would not be possible when decompressing that output file to know which of the two input files was meant. Information would have been lost, so this would be a lossy compression scheme. So our 256 input files must map to 256 different output files. Each file must be at least one byte long, so the total size of all files must be at least 256 bytes, so no space has been saved. There are 256x256 possible different two byte input files. If one of them was to map to a single byte output file, it would have to be the same as one of the output files created by compressing one of our single byte input files, which would meant that we could not differentiate between those two files when decompressing, so this would be a lossy compression scheme again. So there must be 256x256 output files, each of which is at least two byes long. So no space has been saved. By induction, the same proof shows that for any input file size, the total set of all files of that size or smaller must map to a set of files of at least the same total size. Hence the average compressed size of any one file must be at least as large as the size of the file itself. |
|
|
|
And you have inadvertently undermined your own point.
"Jimovious" takes more space than "Jim" twice.
No, you just got confused as to the label. Two "aa" become "i" This is a 50% reduction. I purposely made the Jim name larger as Jimovious to point this fact out and you fell into my trap. But the point here is that in Layer 2, we will ONLY have labels that refer to combinations of 2 which came from Table 1, so they are unique like Jimovious, it wasn't about the size of the name I assigned it, it was about it being unique. If you have X possible input characters then you have X^2 possible combinations. So you have reduced the number of characters, but increased the storage required for each one. There is no overall saving. You need to accept the basic problem: X distinct input files must generate X distinct output files, otherwise you cannot retrieve the original files. Do you agree or disagree with this? |
|
|
|
However, some of you are just too ardent in believing that this is impossible and cannot be done, and I still believe that encoding can, if done correctly, result in a significantly smaller filesize than the original file. And I've devised a method of showing it might work. Oh dear. You clearly haven't understood the basic point, which is that if you have X total number of input files, each of Y bytes size, then the total size of all of the encoded files must be at least X*Y. If it is not, then you have lost some data, and two of the encoded files will map back to the same input file. It doesn't matter what process you come up with or how clever it is, the basic fact is that for a compression system to be lossless, information cannot be lost. It's like having a bunch of people, with random normal names, stand in a line. And then you say if there are two "Jim's" standing in the crowd, we can take them both out and replace them with a "Jimovious" a name no one else will have in that group. Now we have shrunken the number of bodies in the crowd by 1. But if asked to reassemble the original crowd, we just say throw Jimovious out and replace with 2 Jim's. And you have inadvertently undermined your own point. "Jimovious" takes more space than "Jim" twice. |
|
|
|
|
All of this really doesn't inspire confidence in the idea of trusting you people with my money!
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin users not affected by security problems?
How many wallets and exchanges have been hacked, with users losing all their coins?
|
|
|
|
It is not amazing this low IQ idiot continues to miss the points that were made upthread. Indeed it is  I'm guessing you won't see the humour in that, though |
|
|
|
All orders were sent to the facility at the same time in one batch file, all overseen by a logistics contractor handling the bespoke software that integrates the production line with UPS. One guy sits in the office, one on site when needed. Do not pretend you know anything about what you are talking about.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that they went back on their word to provide refunds right up until your device shipped. |
|
|
|
PS: my code i wrote is NOT GPL
If it is a modification of a GPL program then your code is GPL'd. |
|
|
|
...hard to compete with a pool that personally controls roughly 20% of the network hash rate in their private farm.
And has 0% fee with merged mining. And admits that under previous developers it misused its mining to perform double-spend attacks? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
