What would cause it to fail? If there's not enough coins with more than 6 confirmations? Or if those coins would cause too high of a transaction fee?
It only fails if there's not enough BTC. SelectCoins doesn't care about fees or transaction size (though it probably should). |
|
|
|
|
I tried to install the "ignore user" mod, but it broke the forum, so I had to uninstall it. Maybe I'll try to fix it sometime in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
In Japan, Satoshi disappeared. In Soviet Russia, Satoshi works for the government and disappears you.
|
|
|
|
This is a bug unique to the BBE mirror: pages sometimes appear before all of the necessary data is fully committed to the database. It fixes itself in ~30 seconds. |
|
|
|
|
Does Bitcoin even use any of Berkeley DB's features with the wallet? The wallet is loaded into memory on startup, so database performance isn't very important, and I don't think Bitcoin does much (any?) concurrent access.
Berkeley DB is an easy package. It has no dependencies of its own, and compilation is simple. It would take you less than ten minutes to build the 4.7 version for Bitcoin's use.
|
|
|
|
Hey theymos, is there a listing of how people can get banned and all the banning titles that go with them?
There isn't a rulebook. I ban people as required. The ban reasons are made up when I create the ban, with no organization. Only administrators can tell when someone is banned: their profile isn't marked at all. |
|
|
|
|
The ban should give you a reason, like "spam 7". Tell me this so I can see which ban you're hitting.
|
|
|
|
|
Script will never be changed in ways that cause many blocks to become invalid. If a script op needs to be disabled in the future and past transactions use it, the transactions will need to all be whitelisted.
But probably no more script ops will be disabled if there's any chance they can be fixed. Those ops that have been disabled were disabled when there was probably less than a thousand Bitcoin users. It was safer at that time.
|
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10940211: In the UK defendants must prove statements are true, whereas in the US claimants have to prove they are false. US libel laws include the so-called Sullivan defence, in which the claimant must prove malice or serious recklessness before the case proceeds to the courts.
|
|
|
|
theymos, I do not think this scammer mark is such a good idea. This makes operators of the forum VERY vulnerable to real world libel lawsuits. I strongly suggest to reconsider this practice. Better stay away from this. I think he'd need to prove that he has never scammed someone in his life, which is almost impossible. |
|
|
|
|
It should give you a ban reason like "spam 12" or something. Tell me the reason so I can find the ban. Or PM me your home IP address.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll remove the scammer status when 1LwicyHMxvmo5WdbWU14ZCsdoJKbHyzKJu gets 1 BTC from BitMole. However, I have no confidence in BitMole's sense of morality, and I will never trade with him.
|
|
|
|
|
The "court" is the thread where someone is accused of something. Evidence can be presented there, and all readers can reach their own conclusions.
People are awarded the scammer mark when they're proven to have acted in ways that make all of their future trades suspect. It warns traders to stay away without preventing the poster from defending himself.
Note that the scammer mark is not any form of dispute resolution. It is not a punishment. It is only a warning to other traders, and it will only be given when such a warning is necessary. The board should not be doing dispute resolution: that's a job for other organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
It's mostly to give moderators time to find the really bad posters before they are "released into the wild".
You can post elsewhere now.
|
|
|
|
|
SMF bug: split topics are sticky if their origin topic was sticky. I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
More categorization never hurts. Many people (such as myself) are not interested in speculation, but are interested in the other things discussed in "Bitcoin discussion".
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction IDs are SHA-256 hashes of transactions. It's very safe to use them as unique IDs, and it's a waste of time to try to detect collisions.
It is possible (though very rare) for the exact same transaction to appear twice in the block chain, however.
|
|
|
|
None of Jessy Kang's posts have been individually deleted. A few of her posts were unfortunately caught in a poorly-advised merge of an ex-moderator of the newbies section. (Moderators no longer have the ability to merge topics due to incidents like this.) I've said myself many times that the newbies section is not optimal, but I believe it to be better than nothing and better than any existing SMF mod. The point of moderators is to remove viagra adds, not shape the discussion, or to have an opinion about someone supporting their arguments (good or bad) with references to their offline qualifications.
The criticism of the newbie section is on topic and salient. A better system has been implemented by many hugely successful open forums such as /., hacker news and others. You needn't heed the well intended advice about the boards organization, but actually moving and locking threads, or expressing *any* subjective opinion by mod-ding is a big no no in anyone's book.
I'll express my opinions freely, and I expect other moderators (and other members) to do the same. |
|
|
|
Even if the thread is literally about people with Bitcoin tattoos?
Yes. No embedded NSFW images, even with a disclaimer. NSFW links are OK if they have a disclaimer. |
|
|
|
|
Well, at least it's out of the other sections.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
