|
Hi everyone
As you know, mtgox is famously slow to pay into and cash out from. I've been pondering fixing this issue by setting up a new site which will make use of the mtgox API to speed up payments (users pay on my site, they get mtgox USD instantly minus a small 1.5% fee).
To do this requires holding a large reserve, so i'm looking for potential investors.
The site itself will be hosted on google app engine for now and external payments will be through liberty reserve and moneybookers. I'm also thinking about integrating direct payments on other exchanges such as sending BTC instantly from mtgox to bitcoin-central, btcex, tradehill or bitcoinmarket without delays.
Basically there's lots of ways to speed up trading but doing so requires investment.
The 1.5% I quoted above is the 1% mtgox fee + a 0.5% premium, I will take 0.1% myself leaving 0.4% to be split between any investors proportional to what they invest. To get started I will need at least $1000USD.
Would anyone here be interested?
|
|
|
|
It can always verify the HTTP download with other peers afterwards, so it wouldn't be any more insecure.
Actually, the act of downloading the blockchain is quite fast. In fact, it's the verification part that takes the longest. This will be easier once we have "light" clients. They can start in "light" mode and convert to a full node over time. It takes 1.35 seconds to sha256sum the blockchain on my computer |
|
|
|
Couldn't you in theory hijack almost the entire network?
No, it wouldn't make much difference if the IRC network was compromised. It is just used to get a list of hostnames to try to connect to, but you only need to connect to one real node in order to be able to receive the majority block chain. It is just one of many methods used to find other nodes - the address messages broadcast on the bitcoin network are the primary means, and once you've been connected to the network the client keeps a local cache of the addresses it has seen. The ones it sees on IRC are just added to the list. You'd still be able to hijack new users That would be true of any bootstrapping mechanism you can think of. At least with IRC it's somewhat transparent in that people can log in and see what's going on.. I don't really see any way around this though.. Also, users would probably notice that they weren't on the 'real' bitcoin network since they wouldn't be receiving any payments made to them or be able to send payments and also if they ever connect to a single real node by any of the bootstrapping mechanisms then they'd 'break out' of the illusion. Connecting to a real node by what other mechanism? This is why multiple mechanisms are a good thing  |
|
|
|
Couldn't you in theory hijack almost the entire network?
No, it wouldn't make much difference if the IRC network was compromised. It is just used to get a list of hostnames to try to connect to, but you only need to connect to one real node in order to be able to receive the majority block chain. It is just one of many methods used to find other nodes - the address messages broadcast on the bitcoin network are the primary means, and once you've been connected to the network the client keeps a local cache of the addresses it has seen. The ones it sees on IRC are just added to the list. You'd still be able to hijack new users |
|
|
|
I don't think it would be possible to "hijack" anything, though maybe IRC could break things by returning millions of bogus addresses and filling up addr.dat. Does Bitcoin defend against this?
It would be simple - just add a bunch of peers you control and use them to poison the network - you could even be evil by sending your poison peers only to certain users to avoid everyone else noticing. Send one user 30 poison peers and they see 30 connections and think everything is normal. |
|
|
|
Just so everyone understands.. * LFnet IRC network is primarily used for bitcoin - a few others and I maintain it and we're all bitcoin users. * I am a regular bitcoin contributor. I'm also the guy that bought the 10,000 bitcoin pizza in case anyone is wondering. I'm a moderator on this forum, I maintain the Mac OS build and I wrote the original GPU miner ( http://heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/opencl-v2-svn-95-2010-06-30.patch) - I hope that's enough credentials to prove to anyone that I'm not some BOFH IRC admin * We will make sure the #bitcoinXX channels are not 'taken over' or anything like that. * The IRC servers have been configured to limit the number of records returned when a client joins #bitcoin and issues a WHO request. This greatly reduced the bandwidth and memory requirements. * We use and monitor IRC and will keep an eye on the #bitcoinXX channels. The channel modes will be locked to a reasonable normal setting like #bitcoin is today. I would like to add an option/preference to disable IRC in the client. It should be on by default, since that's the whole point, to bootstrap new users, but then the user should be able to switch it off. There will still be plenty of people who leave it on to provide booting to others, but not everyone needs to do that; especially if you don't have the inbound port open. I also think that alternative bootstrap methods are a good idea, but it should be possible to switch it all off once you're connected to the network. Thanks, Laszlo Couldn't you in theory hijack almost the entire network? I'm not claiming that you would of course, but i'm wary of that ability being available to any one entity - what if, for example, someone sniffed your connection and got /oper access? |
|
|
|
garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.
There are laws against rape, murder, theft, assault and various other crimes against individuals - i'd say enforcing those laws de facto protects people. Whether the police do their job well is up to debate, but what their job actually is isn't up to debate. Bottom line is this: They don't come and help you because you are in trouble they come and enforce laws against those who are breaking them. That's their directive. Do not confuse their directive with the consequence of them following their directive. You might say well they still helped the victim and I would agree accept that them following this directive often creates victims when they enforce laws that punish victimless crimes such as drug use. The police do not protect and serve the people, they protect and serve the state, period. They also enforce bad laws, true - but the argument that you should not report crimes against yourself because the police would also be the ones to take action against you if you break a bad law is just silly. Taking advantage of them for handling crimes against yourself does not mean respecting laws you disagree with. As a personal example: I suffered an assault a while back - I pressed charges, the police were pretty useless at handling the case (they only bothered to do anything serious beyond filing a crime report after I got a journalist involved to give them negative PR). At the same time they didn't instantly find all the copyright infringement i'm guilty of even if they did fail a bit at handling the assault. |
|
|
|
hardly Android is "open", let alone talks about "freedom".
its so outdated/crippled/twisted so it back to Linus tree only after Google pressure.
its based on Linux kernel. but thats almost all.
difference between Google and Microsoft[&Apple. for example] is mainly imaginary - same HR resources, same money behind, same ideology, similar technology/strategy. why someone consider then "Open" ? just because they "good" ? and/or exploit/crowdsource FLOSS-related things little more intensive than Microsoft[yes, Microsoft use Linux. years ago]? unlikely.
You can build your own android firmware image yourself, all the source is available. How is that not open? you can do same with WM SDK[with or without source]. or QNX[same]. does it make it "open" ? WM = Windows Mobile? Where's the source? QNX: source is only available for pay How precisely is android less open than any other open source project? How are you defining "open"? |
|
|
|
IRC isn't a sustainable discovery protocol anyway. It has lots of problems beyond startup time.
+1 I think the final straw is that it sets of botnet detectors for some ISPs. The last thing we want is for bitcoin to be classified as botnet True. My ISP just blocked something yesterday, no connections  I setup Tor last night just so I could proxy Bitcoin through it so it could connect. Bitcoin needs to NOT use IRC, IMHO. It's too prone to being taken down by ISPs. I don't know what to tell you guys, but I do know that it's unfortunate that my ISP did what they did. On the bright side, I found out about the wonders of Tor yesterday and am proudly running a relay  What is it about IRC that makes it look like a botnet? I happily run an IRCD and an IRC client without issue, so what's the criteria for being botnet-like? |
|
|
|
garethnelsonuk they have to enforce laws, just not protect and serve the people. Don't mix up those two.
There are laws against rape, murder, theft, assault and various other crimes against individuals - i'd say enforcing those laws de facto protects people. Whether the police do their job well is up to debate, but what their job actually is isn't up to debate. |
|
|
|
As I said: You can, but I can get the hash of the entire chain from peers and verify that what I just downloaded is correct while still getting the speed advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
JackRabiit took $150USD over paypal for some LR and took on the risk of doing so without any fuss
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction completed without a fuss - would happily do this again
|
|
|
|
|
try the -rescan parameter?
|
|
|
|
How about a mix of protocols? IRC - across different servers AND channels HTTP - REST API to publish your own IP and get other nodes DNS - do A lookups, dynamic DNS updates Bittorrent - create a torrent that doesn't actually transfer files but serves to hookup bitcoin peers and also helps confuse people with the name  |
|
|
|
Please imagine the following scenario:
I have a new wallet on device A which I receive 2 transactions:
12 BTC
8 BTC
So my balance is 20 BTC.
I then copy that wallet.dat to an installation on device B.
From device B, I spend exactly 8 BTC, leaving a balance of 12 BTC
(I assume this spend should come directly from the address that received 8 BTC so 'change' will not be an issue).
Let's say this 8 BTC spend gets old and has many confirmations.
Now, I go back to device A, which still shows a total balance of 20 BTC.
I then 'spend' the whole 20 BTC, dropping the balance to 0.00 in the client display.
This transaction should never be confirmed as 8 of it is a double spend, so my question is:
How to get the 12 legitimate coins back from this state of limbo and back into my balance?
You go back to device A, the client figures out your current balance from the blockchain, not from wallet.dat and it shows 12BTC |
|
|
|
hardly Android is "open", let alone talks about "freedom".
its so outdated/crippled/twisted so it back to Linus tree only after Google pressure.
its based on Linux kernel. but thats almost all.
difference between Google and Microsoft[&Apple. for example] is mainly imaginary - same HR resources, same money behind, same ideology, similar technology/strategy. why someone consider then "Open" ? just because they "good" ? and/or exploit/crowdsource FLOSS-related things little more intensive than Microsoft[yes, Microsoft use Linux. years ago]? unlikely.
You can build your own android firmware image yourself, all the source is available. How is that not open? |
|
|
|
Check your PMs |
|
|
|
proprietary OS-powered device ? RIM ? PIM ? security ? hardly.
? what about Android .. isn't that Open? Yes, android is a version of Linux. Notice that none of the open source programmers here have released anything bitcoin related for the closed source OS's for smartphones. a version of Linux? hmm... yeah, just the Linux Kernel, as far i know, Linux is not a OS. and with http://bitbills.com you no get viruses or trojans :-| Android is a linux kernel and a custom JVM (Java Virtual Machine) that uses its own bytecode rather than standard java bytecode. The whole system is indeed open, but a lot of manufacturers lock it down with tricks like locked bootloaders to prevent reflashing a custom firmware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
