(And, as an aside, as a matter of current policy— Wikimedia doesn't generally take funds with strings attached
I wouldn't call it that. , and has never— to the best of my knowledge— accepted donations which required promoting the donor on the site's pages (beyond the pages that list donors, of course), even ones much larger than the Bitcoin community is likely to offer.
The "promotion" would only be in an orphan page. No other active action on their part is required. I can only imagine that a promotion-encumbered "donation" offer would only improve the credibility of people arguing that Bitcoin is a pump-and-dump scam.)
This can be resolved in discussion. If we were to make a real effort at getting Wikimedia accepting Bitcoin, we'd do better to broker a conversation between kindred parties at say the FSF or EFF (Or the internet archive, which partially pays their staff in Bitcoin) that already accept Bitcoin with the appropriate people at Wikimedia, along with offers of advice from Bitcoin experienced people.
"Offers of advice from Bitcoin experienced people" is something I'm sure they've already received tons of. Most likely referrals to FSF, EFF and IA as well. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." But if you read the OP you know the plan is not to tell them "We'll donate X BTC if you accept Bitcoin, kthxbye". The goal is to start a discussion which may indeed involve all these bodies. But if all they have to show for this discussion is that the entire Bitcoin community donates just 7.5 BTC, it's not going to happen. I want to prove to ourselves and to them that we are actually willing to donate. But even if successful, I'm unsure of what value this effort would have for the Bitcoin community. Wikimedia receiving coins to immediately turn them into USD doesn't contribute to the Bitcoin economy beyond perhaps helping out some payment processor or exchange. Better to just do it yourself— perhaps even retain the potential of taking a logistically simple tax write-off on the donation.  ... Or save your donations for places which will pay their staff in Bitcoin, which helps bring more people into the Bitcoin economy, like the Internet Archive or to projects which our community is more likely to understand the value of than the general public. That's a whole other discussion but I believe it is very good that organizations accept bitcoins with immediate conversion to USD, since that's the first step. Afterwards they start noticing some of the suppliers accept Bitcoin so they save costs by keeping some of the proceeds as BTC and using them directly; and so on. The average path that each BTC goes through before being settled against USD grows, and with it the economic benefit. It also may be worth mentioning that the NYC wikimedia chapter accepts bitcoin (and presumably some of the other regional chapters would if asked). That's very interesting, will need to look into that. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't believe we are still in a stage were we need to beg people to accept our money...
I appreciate your optimism but we're still in a stage where most of my wealth is in BTC form, I'm actively looking for opportunities to use Bitcoin, and hardly finding anything. We need more organizations to accept bitcoins as payment or donations, and I believe Wikipedia is an important strategic target. How 'bout not giving your BTCs to a free information-providing service that doesn't want bitcoins, and giving them to a free information-providing service that does like bitcoins, like Khan Academy? Just my 2 cents... (and I am not affiliated with KA)
More power to KA and I sent them a small donation. But they're simply a completely different caliber than Wikipedia. Personally I use Wikipedia multiple times daily but don't recall ever using KA, and I expect most people are similar in this regard. The outgoing Wikimedia chairman is my partner for the last decade. In light of my experience with Wikimedia, I have to say is that I'm amused by this thread. Soliciting funds on behalf of Wikimedia to random forum members is not likely to help convince senior wikimedia staffers who steadfastly believe Bitcoin is inherently a scam and Bitcoin users are a mixture of rubes and scammers. This is one blog post from over two years ago. Possibly some staffers still hold similar misconceptions, but part of the process will be to flesh out and iron out these reservations. The plan is to have the bitcoins converted to USD before being delivered (via some payment processor). But yes, the plan is to have enough money pledged to make it worth their while. If you're planning to convert to USD before giving to them, why even talk about Bitcoin? Donators can already send USD to their bank account or via Bit-pay payment processor so they still wouldn't be accepting bitcoin directly, they would be accepting USD as they already do- their problem is with "artifical currencies" such as bitcoin. Also if you're sending USD why would it not be "worth their while" no matter the amount in that case? there's no restrictions in place usually, they wouldn't be doing anything different, no extra work Below is their response to someone inquiring about bit-pay donations, as you can see they weren't too receptive and quoted some copy paste Thanks for taking the time to email is about this. Currently we do not accept Bitcoins as a donation option. The website you're referring to was set-up without our knowledge and with no contact from BitPay. We have no way to guarantee that the full amount of your donation will be sent to us. A full list of donation methods can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en. You've answered your own question. Bitpay's offer is in no way sanctioned by Wikimedia. People want to donate in a way that is officially supported. And I've explained in the OP some of their reasons for refusing acknowledgement of Bitcoin as a donation method. Bit-pay is one of the largest & most reputable processors in this field, so can't see why wmf would have a different opinion when the money comes from random member of a forum instead, donator status or not- they'd probably come out with the same shit
Bitpay is large and reputable, and Wikimedia has made no effort whatsoever to find out who Bitpay is or to enter a formal agreement with them, because they had no reason to. The pledged funds are meant to incentivize them to do the necessary work - finding out who the players are, enter formal agreements, monitor received funds etc. They will need to officially acknowledge that they're accepting donations via Bitcoin. However, it does not need to be prominently displayed. so even in small print somewhere it's OK, cause then 'wikimedia officially accepts Bitcoin' PR comes out and gives excuse to pump.. It will be possible to mention Wikipedia as an organization accepting Bitcoin donations, which can boost confidence in the currency and encourage more people to use it. And yes, it should also have a positive impact on its exchange rate. and if they don't agree what then? you say to the charity they can't have their money? isn't there a word for that? Sorry but the whole thread just seems wrong
Their money? Until we donate it it's not their money. And it's perfectly acceptable to specify the terms under which we are willing to donate. |
|
|
|
I don't think they should be bothered before we have at least $10K worth (100 BTC at current rates), preferably much more. Do you need them to quote a number? If so, why? You don't think they will be 'bothered' before we can offer at least $10,000, so your plan is raise that as a minimum to make it worth their time, then use it as a bargaining chip to 'tempt' wmf into accepting bitcoin? If I'm not wrong, they've already stated spelt out their stance clearly- they do not accept fake currency The Wikimedia Foundation, as a donor-driven organization, has a fiduciary duty to be responsible and prudent with its money. This has been interpreted to mean that we do not accept "artificial" currencies This response was written more than 2 years ago. They've since repeated it on occasion due to momentum, but it's not set in stone and renewed negotiations can shed light on the real reservations. As I clarified in the OP, recent informal discussions on the issue didn't bring up any qualms about "artificial currencies", just some practical issues. Is the plan to give them enough fake money for them to consider it "real" enough to take off your hands?
The plan is to have the bitcoins converted to USD before being delivered (via some payment processor). But yes, the plan is to have enough money pledged to make it worth their while. will it be done under the table with a kthx, or will they change their tune and publicly acknowledge it?
They will need to officially acknowledge that they're accepting donations via Bitcoin. However, it does not need to be prominently displayed. There's charitable organisations making visible differences who will gladly accept your money in BTC right now, they don't need to write generic legalese, I guess they are working under the notion that every little helps.. Are they not deserving enough for the $10k instead of giving to detractors, is the publicity more important?
The publicity is important. Whether it's "more" important than the donation itself is for anyone to judge for himself. You can donate to this drive in addition to other causes. We would need a large community effort to get this done. Just $10,000 is not going to cut it. Wikipedia acceptance of Bitcoin would lead to a nice little price spike, so we could consider it an investment perhaps.
I agree. Agreed. This needs to go to a reputable escrow.
I don't want this to turn into a discussion about my reputability; it's off-topic and I have a vanity thread for that, which you're free to comment on. I'll just say that in 2.5 years of working on Bitcoin (2 of which full-time), with both voluntary contributions and various business ventures, I have not once lied or reneged on any commitment (including some upwards of $20K). This has to count for something. Being called an "escrow" doesn't make one magically more trustworthy. It all boils down to what one has to gain by defecting, and what he has to lose. In fact, being an active escrow already sitting on some customer funds just adds to the "has to gain" side of the equation. But yes, I do wish more treasurers to be on board. Yea right! I'll volunteer my way down to electric avenue. The max I can do right now is offer shitty marketing advice.
Advice needs to be more concrete to be useful. There's definitely more work that can be done for promoting this drive, I'll do what I can but I do need help. I wish I could get away with attempting to raise 1000BTC / $100,000 with a single forum thread.
It wouldn't be the first time. Though admittedly these amounts are usually raised only with some promise of profit. Just saying, without enough of a presence this attempt will fade into obscurity
Even if "this" attempt fizzles, any collected funds will still be available for any future attempt, or for when Wikimedia accepts bitcoins without any attempt. If you believe in donating bitcoins to Wikipedia and/or getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations, there's very little risk in donating, even if you're bearish about this particular attempt. And again, "if". I'll personally try to make this a success, and I welcome genuine help. and free coins for OP!
This again. I already said I will not use the collected coins for personal purposes (and neither should any other treasurer). You can either believe that or not. |
|
|
|
Wikipedia to accept bitcoin donation would have given a push to bitcoin's legitimacy ... in 2012 !!!
Since then, bitcoin has been talked about in almost every news and TV show on this planet.
It's been talked about all right, but what is being said? Usually it's ranging from neutral to negative. Few people can value Bitcoin on its own merit; most need the approval of others. Having a site of Wikipedia's caliber accept Bitcoin would greatly improve the perception. Have you considered donating to initiatives that helping grow the Bitcoin ecosystem instead ?
Why does it need to be instead? There are many initiatives that help grow the Bitcoin ecosystem, this is one of them. Where's our cool wiki bitcoin fundraising website... page... hell a widget even...
But really, fundraising of such high value needs a little more than just a forum post for adaptive adoption.
Are you volunteering? I sure hope all those coins make it to wiki, even if it takes a few more years to get to 1000BTC. Until then, enjoy the free coins.
I can't use the coins for any purpose, I have to secure them and I have to pay out of pocket if anything happens to them. What is there to enjoy? |
|
|
|
1. It is not trivial to implement correctly.
2. While its principles are simple, the results that follow from these principles are fairly complicated.
That's one reason I prefer Proportional payout. It is fairly easy to verify and the Pool does not need to risk loss due to bad luck. And with easily verifiable payout system you get enhanced trust. Wait, what? Proportional is the most broken, hoppable method that exists. Question for you: would Prop still be hoppable if it used a larger scoring window? Rather than using a single block period, what if it were to use a 5 block period? Or 10? Still keep it simple, but extend the period of time you're looking at. Rather than (Your shares for current round)/(Total shares for current round), it would be (Your shares over last 10 rounds)/(Pool's shares for last 10 rounds). Does that make sense? It would still be hoppable, perhaps not as much. |
|
|
|
Laziness on your part? etc...
Just to be clear - I don't doubt your dedication or integrity for a moment. However this is the internet and so extreme caution is always best.
I'll emphasize that this project isn't about just me. I believe I'm qualified to make the contact and am happy to do so, but if I don't push this forward anyone else is free to pick up the slack. The rules for the pledge are fairly clear; and as a treasurer myself I am committed to properly use the funds I hold, however this proceeds. If we all forget about this thing and at some future time someone will want to take another shot, the funds will still be waiting. Will it help if we rephrase it as two separate goals?
1. Get enough funds to credibly approach Wikimedia (tentative target: 200 BTC)
2. Get enough funds to convince Wikimedia (target: Unknown)
You may not yet have enough information to optimally contribute to the 2nd goal, but you can contribute to the 1st, also important, goal.
Sure - if you get some acknowledgement from wikimedia that they will agree to serious / technical talks if we can pledge 200BTC that's fine. If it's just a vague "I think this is enough" then I'll remain sceptical. It's turtles all the way down. Quoting a number that will persuade them to have a serious talk is itself serious talk. We need to bootstrap this somehow. And whatever we do, some uncertainties are bound to remain. One final point. Charity donation is more maleable that you are giving it credit for. Of course money talks, but it doesn't have to literally be cash undeneath someone's nose to have value. Being a respected representative of a wealthy community *is* tangible value to charaties - and they know this! Don't be afraid to talk yourself up!
I'll keep that in mind. Wikimedia isn't getting jack from me until they accept Bitcoin.
Yes, that's the point. Collected funds will not be given to them unless they accept Bitcoin or need the funds to work towards it. |
|
|
|
If you come up to them saying "how much would you want" you're less likely to get a response than "we raised $50000, how much more do you want?".
Perhaps, but I still don't think this justifies less stringent management. Besides, you can always open with "I know we can easily get $50000, how much more do you want?" That would be a lie, I don't know it without more supporting evidence. And even if we can and we know it, they have no reason to believe our optimism. I believe that projects like this need measurable attainable goals. Currently it's (appologies for paraphrasing) "If we raise lots of money I'm sure wikipedia will accept bitcoins". I'd like it to be "If we raise $100000 wikipedia will agree to accept bitcoin donations for at least 2 years". The key difference is that with the first there's a very real danger that I'm essentially throwing my money into a black hole, which is no good for anyone. The second one alows anyone to judge if the project was run fairly and achieved its goals.
Essentially I'd like to "kickstarterify" the project.
Your money is thrown into a black hole only in one of the following scenarios: 1. Wikimedia will never accept Bitcoin donations. 2. Wikimedia's decision to accept Bitcoin donations will not be influenced by the amount raised, and you have no interest at all in donating to Wikipedia, just in getting them to accept Bitcoin. I personally don't think either is likely. It's very simple to demonstrate the project was run fairly; the requirements are: 1. No funds are spent for a purpose other than those stated 2. When Wikimedia accepts Bitcoin donations, the funds are donated to them. Will it help if we rephrase it as two separate goals? 1. Get enough funds to credibly approach Wikimedia (tentative target: 200 BTC) 2. Get enough funds to convince Wikimedia (target: Unknown) You may not yet have enough information to optimally contribute to the 2nd goal, but you can contribute to the 1st, also important, goal. |
|
|
|
Stupid idea, waste of money.
People who spend their time to post wiki pages, make edits etc never get any money.
Wikimedia is already earning good enough money via donations for their operating cost.
The Wikimedia foundation is a nonprofit, they're not "earning" money. Whether they're putting the donated money to good use can be assessed from their financial reports. I am generally very supportive of this. 1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.
This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about.
Can you ask them to qualify how much exactly makes it "worth the trouble"? Once you have a specific target amount, and escrow, I will willingly donate $50 to this cause. I asked Jimmy in an informal context and he directed me to the fundraising team which makes the official decisions. I want to have something behind us before I make the first formal inquiry. I don't think they should be bothered before we have at least $10K worth (100 BTC at current rates), preferably much more. Do you need them to quote a number? If so, why? In the arrangement I suggested every treasurer acts as an "escrow". No qualifications are required other than being trustworthy. Do you mean there are some specific people you wish will be treasurers? |
|
|
|
Alternatively, don't donate anything to Wikipedia as they clearly just don't need the money that much. There are other good things you can do with your money!
I sympathize with the passive-aggressive stance, but it's factually false and not really helpful. They obviously do need the money. They need our help to overcome the reservations they have about accepting Bitcoin for it. Let's offer it. But yes, there are of course many other causes worthy of donation. |
|
|
|
I said "multi-insurance PPS". The pool's risk in this arrangement is low.
No one is forced to do anything, I'm just saying this is the best solution for everyone.
Do you have a link to what you've done so far? I'm only guessing, but does this have anything to do with sharing the risk over multiple pools ( sort of like a proxy pool does with shares )? Or am I completely off-base? That's basically it. The ideas are fairly simple, but I don't have anything written down yet. |
|
|
|
From their site: BitPay has setup a merchant account that will accept and forward donations to Wikipedia on behalf of the Bitcoin community. BitPay will automatically convert these into US dollars and deposit US dollars into Wikipedia’s bank account every day. BitPay will offer this service at no charge to the donors or to Wikipedia. This offer is not officially supported by Wikimedia. There's a huge difference. |
|
|
|
1. It is not trivial to implement correctly.
2. While its principles are simple, the results that follow from these principles are fairly complicated.
That's one reason I prefer Proportional payout. It is fairly easy to verify and the Pool does not need to risk loss due to bad luck. And with easily verifiable payout system you get enhanced trust. Wait, what? Proportional is the most broken, hoppable method that exists. I believe the future of pooled mining is PPS, specifically multi-insurance PPS (still need to write a post explaining what that is).
I hope your wrong. If pools are forced into a PPS they will have no guarantee of a sustainable business model since the risk will be too high and will just stop providing the service. Then only dishonest people will be able afford to run pools by screwing over their user base, selling their users information or using the hashes for something nefarious. Just my two Satoshi's worth, Sam I said "multi-insurance PPS". The pool's risk in this arrangement is low. No one is forced to do anything, I'm just saying this is the best solution for everyone. |
|
|
|
Wait, I have to send money to the address to pledge?
Yes. The pledge needs to be credible. We're not going to say "We have X BTC pledged" and in the moment of truth start chasing people and hoping they'll come through. The only problem is the current address, I'd prefer that there be some trusted escrow address or something along those lines.
What do you mean by "a trusted escrow address"? We could do a multisig thing after all, but barring that actual people will have to hold the funds. I want more people to share the load but I'm as good as anyone else, my reputation is rock solid. We should get John K.
By all means. |
|
|
|
DGM is in no way a scam, it pays miners fairly and is IMO the most flexible and elegant single mining pool reward method. I don't know if using DGM is a cause for pools losing popularity, but there are some things to consider: 1. It is not trivial to implement correctly. 2. While its principles are simple, the results that follow from these principles are fairly complicated. 3. In its vanilla form, it is not suitable for large-scale parallel implementations; and parallelizable variants such as the hypothetical shift-DGM are even more complicated. 4. The advantages it (and similar methods) has over PPS, which is profoundly simpler in every possible way, will be less pronounced in the future. I believe the future of pooled mining is PPS, specifically multi-insurance PPS (still need to write a post explaining what that is). Guilty as charged. You do know that the blocks which pay less than 25 BTC are those in which the miners received more than if they mined PPS, right? Specifically for Ozcoin, DGM miners aren't 100% of the pool miners, so they don't get 100% of its rewards on average... They only get their share in the pool. @organofcorti Correct me if I'm wrong but, every PPLNS pool I've seen has full block payouts, minus the 1-2% fees, for each round.
That is correct. However PPLNS pools don't pay extra during unlucky rounds. Plzzz show me these numbers and I will stfu.  organofcorti is the empirical pool stats guy, listen to what he has to say. |
|
|
|
Could it be that you're using "redeemscript" instead of "redeemScript", ie with a small "s" instead of a capital one?
Yep, what dserrano5 said. The error should point you in the right direction: "Missing redeemScript".
I'm an idiot. Thanks. It pointed me at the right direction, but I didn't notice the case discrepancy, and since this datum was included in previous calls I assumed this kind of an error would have caused problems earlier. |
|
|
|
Most of us will agree that having the Wikimedia foundation (known for operating Wikipedia) accept Bitcoin donations could be a very important milestone in Bitcoin's adoption. They are famous for having refused for a long time with obscure reasons, but I believe they are warming up to the idea, and that it's high time we take concrete action about it. In a recent discussion on Quora, Jimmy Wales has stated a few reasons to reject Bitcoin donations, and surprisingly they were all quite tangible. By this point it is already assumed that the donations will be immediately converted to USD via a provider such as BitPay, to help with accounting and make it easier to use the funds. The main objections were: 1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about. 2. Adding more donation options is known to create "choice paralysis" and decrease the total amount donated. They have a process of A/B testing for measuring the effect of adding new options; this testing will increase the cost of even considering to add this option.To this Jimmy suggested that they could add information about Bitcoin donations in a separate page not linked to from the main donations page. I find this to be a very acceptable compromise; we'll be able to donate, and we'll be able to tell people Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin donations. 3. Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do.I believe this can be alleviated with proper framing, and that making this available only from an orphan page will further reduce the perceived impact. We have moved beyond the stage that we randomly bug them about taking bitcoins and hoping they'll eventually say yes. We need to have a serious discussion, and to do that we need to demonstrate that our intentions are serious. And I believe a community pledge is a key component of this. These are funds raised with the sole purpose of donating to Wikimedia; they will be collected by the community of people who want to donate bitcoins to Wikipedia, for the benefit of both Bitcoin and Wikipedia. Funds raised as part of the pledge can be used only to: 1. Donate to Wikimedia after they officially agree to accept Bitcoin donations. 2. Fund Wikimedia's research about the merits of including a Bitcoin donation option. They will not be returned to donators if the drive fails, donated to Wikimedia without a move to officially accept Bitcoin, or donated to any other purpose. They will simply sit and grow until we succeed. The funds needed are substantial, more than should be trusted with any single individual. I initially thought to hold them in a multisig address by a few trusted treasurers, but these are still hard to work with and error-prone. I suggest the next best thing: Interested, trusted members will post a Bitcoin address in their control, in which they will hold funds collected for the pledge; every donator will choose in whose address he is most comfortable storing the funds. To reduce management overhead, only several highly trusted members should collect funds; I will update the OP with the addresses of treasurers I find suitable. Note that my standards are very high. I offer my own collection address, 19HHHDya8PNqdVpiCdZYuwKyuWFoU1TC9A, and to get things started I'm donating 5 BTC. I request that someone will quote this address to reduce risk of tampering. The plan going forward is simple: 1. We keep the pledge going until a substantial amount of funds is raised. (I'm hoping for 1000 BTC but we'll work with what we can have.) 2. Backed by the promise of donating the collected pledge, I contact the head of Wikimedia's fundraising team with a detailed argument for their acceptance of Bitcoin. 3. We discuss the relevant issues, coordinating with other relevant parties as needed (such as BitPay or another payment processor), and get a sense of what it would take for them to agree to move forward. 4. We resolve any issues raised (with the possible inclusion of having to raise more funds, or donating some funds in advance to fund their research). 5. We succeed in convincing the Wikimedia foundation to accept Bitcoin donations, donate all collected funds, continue to donate more funds via their published address/button, and live happily ever after. tl;dr: If you want Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations and to donate to Wikipedia, please send bitcoins to one of the following. Remember, every little bit helps. Wikipedia pledge collection addresses: Meni Rosenfeld: 19HHHDya8PNqdVpiCdZYuwKyuWFoU1TC9A |
|
|
|
Thanks, however this is less intuitive for me than using the raw transaction API directly. (though a GUI would have been much preferred over either) |
|
|
|
I tried experimenting with Multisig and followed Gavin's example, running Bitcoin-qt v0.8.3 and using the debug console. However, I could not get it to work. I'm using the following 3 keys, all generated in my bitcoin-qt wallet: privkey: L2JjrJNUJjLwLHcLShFsbJVt6KuWqE3svqMUrfwbNJXgssujVWgV pubkey: 02fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc2 privkey: L1HKChJArnfKpApV7Cz7HEw9c5YKHRr9BwWtFf6f8RYmnyDXrq87 pubkey: 02a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d10 privkey: L1hbxmK8H4dkk2dyHpNEN7H7RvAhaJnQUH27cdC4yAtAjQ1TNkdA pubkey: 037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f1123 I created a multisig address: createmultisig 2 '["02fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc2","02a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d10","037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f1123"]'
{
"address" : "3P1TEdL5DJYeRTSxYsaR4onfjQyZrQ5oGL",
"redeemScript" : "522102fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc22102a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d1021037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f112353ae"
}
Went on to fund it (with the GUI). Details of funding transaction ( https://blockchain.info/tx/683e77cbac7356bab448a90a0f652ab68314c1b026833431cd56abaf40d6031b): decoderawtransaction 0100000001d97502e9eee14adedc356a000c8e506d1e62e49242c7519281410d6cacde91d11d0000006b483045022100f4dfccaa5871a28f2843e0179142693963c24ead8b8e7238fca1fe989d56debd02201526d623fcb53b1c295116eee655b800c7dc8f29f32d7eed2fe4974c4c2ae2df012102095d1ffb1a31b9adceb15d006230b1987e34a6816680ac9e8917019a5445a360ffffffff0232082a00000000001976a91498070b4f2c6f333ed11396830c9932d84ef9e2c788ac40420f000000000017a914e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e133248700000000
{
"txid" : "683e77cbac7356bab448a90a0f652ab68314c1b026833431cd56abaf40d6031b",
"version" : 1,
"locktime" : 0,
"vin" : [
{
"txid" : "d191deac6c0d41819251c74292e4621e6d508e0c006a35dcde4ae1eee90275d9",
"vout" : 29,
"scriptSig" : {
"asm" : "3045022100f4dfccaa5871a28f2843e0179142693963c24ead8b8e7238fca1fe989d56debd02201526d623fcb53b1c295116eee655b800c7dc8f29f32d7eed2fe4974c4c2ae2df01 02095d1ffb1a31b9adceb15d006230b1987e34a6816680ac9e8917019a5445a360",
"hex" : "483045022100f4dfccaa5871a28f2843e0179142693963c24ead8b8e7238fca1fe989d56debd02201526d623fcb53b1c295116eee655b800c7dc8f29f32d7eed2fe4974c4c2ae2df012102095d1ffb1a31b9adceb15d006230b1987e34a6816680ac9e8917019a5445a360"
},
"sequence" : 4294967295
}
],
"vout" : [
{
"value" : 0.02754610,
"n" : 0,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 98070b4f2c6f333ed11396830c9932d84ef9e2c7 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex" : "76a91498070b4f2c6f333ed11396830c9932d84ef9e2c788ac",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "pubkeyhash",
"addresses" : [
"1Err9baeyDLCqundwncXonx8ea1v1WmS5o"
]
}
},
{
"value" : 0.01000000,
"n" : 1,
"scriptPubKey" : {
"asm" : "OP_HASH160 e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e13324 OP_EQUAL",
"hex" : "a914e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e1332487",
"reqSigs" : 1,
"type" : "scripthash",
"addresses" : [
"3P1TEdL5DJYeRTSxYsaR4onfjQyZrQ5oGL"
]
}
}
]
}
And then tried to spend funds from the multisig address: createrawtransaction '[{"txid":"683e77cbac7356bab448a90a0f652ab68314c1b026833431cd56abaf40d6031b","vout":1,"scriptPubKey":"a914e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e1332487","redeemscript":"522102fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc22102a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d1021037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f112353ae"}]' '{"1BBsbEq8Q29JpQr4jygjPof7F7uphqyUCQ":0.0002}'
01000000011b03d640afab56cd31348326b0c11483b62a650f0aa948b4ba5673accb773e680000000000ffffffff01204e0000000000001976a9146fbfa5eb9cf96799b0ff7d25f9e3ea9e4323db5988ac00000000
signrawtransaction '01000000011b03d640afab56cd31348326b0c11483b62a650f0aa948b4ba5673accb773e680100000000ffffffff01204e0000000000001976a9146fbfa5eb9cf96799b0ff7d25f9e3ea9e4323db5988ac00000000' '[{"txid":"683e77cbac7356bab448a90a0f652ab68314c1b026833431cd56abaf40d6031b","vout":1,"scriptPubKey":"a914e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e1332487","redeemscript":"522102fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc22102a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d1021037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f112353ae"}]' '["L2JjrJNUJjLwLHcLShFsbJVt6KuWqE3svqMUrfwbNJXgssujVWgV"]'
Missing redeemScript (code -3)
When trying to sign all I get is the error message "Missing redeemScript (code -3)", even though the redeemScript for the multisig address is included in the data. Same thing happens if I use a different privkey format. If I don't specify privkeys at all, nothing happens, even though the needed keys are in the unlocked wallet: signrawtransaction '01000000011b03d640afab56cd31348326b0c11483b62a650f0aa948b4ba5673accb773e680100000000ffffffff01204e0000000000001976a9146fbfa5eb9cf96799b0ff7d25f9e3ea9e4323db5988ac00000000' '[{"txid":"683e77cbac7356bab448a90a0f652ab68314c1b026833431cd56abaf40d6031b","vout":1,"scriptPubKey":"a914e9d7420b3e02e16089372cd9b9c77c58b3e1332487","redeemscript":"522102fff1a3da4dbc93d10fba4791689411a17d8308770f9cf6ea5854358441df6bc22102a06a164106420bcc36908700af4dccc727b1e834f7424f1627623523d6751d1021037bac6d147cd915b74f51c0e839d5345d816b2ab70da0a862b5bef6ab6d7f112353ae"}]'
{
"hex" : "01000000011b03d640afab56cd31348326b0c11483b62a650f0aa948b4ba5673accb773e680100000000ffffffff01204e0000000000001976a9146fbfa5eb9cf96799b0ff7d25f9e3ea9e4323db5988ac00000000",
"complete" : false
}
Any ideas what the problem is? |
|
|
|
the post is not talking about boycotting ASIC miners, only on retrieving the power to 'vote',
i actually brought up the term 'economic majority' which was attributed to you, and i am trying to think how to apply it in the future of the protocol when the set block reward will not be as significant as the transaction fee.
Ok, I think I understand a bit better what you're trying to do. I had noticed you linked to the page on economic majority. I should point out that the page had some information which I think is untrue and is different from what I was thinking of when bringing up the term (I've now edited it). Specifically, people who have bitcoins don't have much power in this - they'll have the same bitcoins whatever fork is chosen, and must go along with whatever other people choose if they want their bitcoins to maintain the value. Those with power are people who have other things of value which they are willing to exchange for bitcoins - they can hold their valuables hostage and refuse to give them away for bitcoins of the "wrong" branch. Basically, if Bitcoin is seen abstractly as a service provider, you can only negotiate your "terms" (how the Bitcoin protocol works) before buying - afterwards you're locked in. Of course, you can have bitcoins and still offer more valuables for more bitcoins, with bargaining power corresponding to the additional value you can offer. The point of this is that 1. You should not expect people who have bitcoins (and can thus pay tx fees) to have a say in this. 2. No special action is needed to maintain the power of the economic majority, this happens organically through market forces. 3. Trying to maintain voting power by choosing who can mine a tx is not appropriate, as the real voting is not done in mining, but on the market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
