How about a third option? Enlightened self interest  But seriously, I would look at whether the person needed it. If some corporation or rich did it, i'm not inclined to return it as I likely need it more than they do. If however it was just some dude who messed up, and actually needs the money, yeah I'd return it. Interesting point. Let's say it turns out money belonged to a CEO of a corporation you disliked (Monsanto if you are a typical guy) - would you just keep quiet, or would you make it public that you are keeping the coins because he is such an asshole? I've decided what I would do: make it public that I've got the coins, and that I can't send them back to him as he is such an asshole. I send them to a random address from the blockchain, and wish him good luck with that next owner. His chances of getting the coins back eventually would be inversely proportional to the fraction of people considering him an asshole. |
|
|
|
The poll is (almost) totally anonymous - no need to pretend. What would you do? Would your answer change in case of 0.9 or 9000 coins? If you returned the funds, would you expect a tip? Or would you take the tip upfront? Would you publicize your decision, whatever it may be?
I would expect a tip if it was troublesome to return. For example, we are discussing a "mistaken fee policy" for Eligius and I suggested that we have a 5 BTC recovery fee to deal with cleaning up the pool/reward/payout end of the equation (and a side effect of discouraging phony claims and neglegence). This is reasonable. |
|
|
|
How about a third option? Enlightened self interest But seriously, I would look at whether the person needed it. If some corporation or rich did it, i'm not inclined to return it as I likely need it more than they do. If however it was just some dude who messed up, and actually needs the money, yeah I'd return it. Interesting point. Let's say it turns out money belonged to a CEO of a corporation you disliked (Monsanto if you are a typical guy) - would you just keep quiet, or would you make it public that you are keeping the coins because he is such an asshole? |
|
|
|
I've never heard of anyone except evorhees being involved with SatoshiDice. You should really be careful with throwing names around like that.
Perhaps mrbigg has privileged access to non-public information? Perhaps this access has something to do with his job of posting amazingly inflamatory idiotic statements such as Bitcoin under ATTACK now: What YOU can do to help! Blockchain.info Colluding with SatoshiDICE to spam the network? ? |
|
|
|
|
The poll is (almost) totally anonymous - no need to pretend. What would you do? Would your answer change in case of 0.9 or 9000 coins? If you returned the funds, would you expect a tip? Or would you take the tip upfront? Would you publicize your decision, whatever it may be?
|
|
|
|
Eleuthria has been an upstanding and respectable member of the bitcoin community for as long as I can remember, and I am touched he gave back the transaction fees he received by mistake in that block that was mined.
OK, don't let us speculate. What did you mean by: Ahahaha you so funny  It was simply low level humour postulating on what the pool would do with the money which obviously you did not find funny. I understand people are very touchy with respect to transactions on this forum given the number of scams constantly going on, but lumping me with them given my history with bitcoin and free software when I'm not running any business venture and have only ever delivered code in response to donations is a bit harsh. On the other hand, the mere presence of this forum thread may well change the pool's response to this transaction error. I started it with my comment, so an explanation is due: I don't think I'm touchy because of scams, but because I feel people - even nice people - often manage to convince themselves how world is full of selfish assholes who would never return lost or stolen property to the original owner. This assumption makes even nice folks act not-so-nicely, in defense from an erroneous image of reality. Things are better than that, but will keep getting worse if we assume the worst. I am sure the majority of people reading this would return the money sent to them by mistake like this. |
|
|
|
|
Just curious. Not that the results will make anyone reconsider their strong opinion...
|
|
|
|
|
If I use the reference client to spend the whole wallet to one new address in the same wallet, have I removed the dust from the blockchain?
|
|
|
|
The fee system was created to prevent transaction spam.... use it!
Bring back the .01 minimum fee. Problem solved. Fixing the minimum fee in bitcoins for everyone is a bad idea, as you don't know how value of coins will change, but you do know it's been changing wildly. This is something that is best left to the free market - miners and payers - to figure out and adjust as we go. |
|
|
|
That is a really stupid way of investing 300k into bitcoin mining.
You should at least diversificate.
$300k could cover NRE cost of building your own ASICs, and a significant quantities afterwards/ Remember, you don't need to beat power efficiency of current vendors, you only need to beat their dollar-per-hash/s price, which is not hard at all. This is what ASICMINER did with ~$120k, and are happily mining! You would need to team up so you cover all the bases of the project, but given BFL track record and obvious incompetence at all levels, your investment would be much less risky then giving it to Josh, Sonny, et al. |
|
|
|
Repeat... Let's keep the soft block size limit at 250KB and see what will happen  I don't think people are so stupid that without that added transaction capacity they will leave bitcoin Yes. Bitcoin is an experiment, and a complex one for that matter. This is a rare opportunity to see how this complex system responds to limited block size, limited bandwidth of an average node, and relatively large volume of transactions. This thread is one of responses, and even though I dislike the idea, I appreciate the opportunity to observe how it unfolds. We should all watch and learn, and only act after carefully thinking through all the intended and unintended consequences of our actions. At this point, only an idiot would have a firm opinion about the interplay of SD, dust transactions, economics of mining and fees, scaling, Moore's Law, and future adoption rate, modes of use, and value of coins. |
|
|
|
Please explain to me why anyone would spend 10,000 satoshi to send 1 satoshi? They wouldn't, but that's not what he was talking about. If I'm spending half of a 10 BTC output and have a 1 satoshi output laying around I could add it as a second input to the transaction and send 5.00000001 to the change output instead of 5.00000000 Do this enough and the dust problem is solved. If this works - great, everybody happy. If not, then Articmine proposal makes sense: Then at least set the min tx value to the transaction fee. It will have the desired effect. My proposal is to deal with transactions which create one or more addresses that contain only dust leading to blockchain bloat that is very difficult if not impossible to prune. A bona fide send many transaction that creates dust as a byproduct can deal with this by adding the dust to the TX fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be okay if SD eliminated low-value bets, thus making gamblers play less often and place higher bets?
|
|
|
|
You want to use p2p technology, but don't want to contribute resources? That should be being asked of SD, not of me. I give more resources to the network than I take. SD pays the miners and the winners of their game but takes more from the network than it gives overall. Every time you or I broadcast a transaction for our own reasons, we use exactly the same resources and pay same fees as anyone sending an SD transaction. After all the noise here, I still fail to see the difference and a problem. |
|
|
|
Seriously, if you want to play cops and impose your moral views on others:
I don't get that sense. Psy makes a good point: SD is making money off the rest of us and giving us nothing in return, except for the miners. They're getting paid for the spam we all have to carry and we're not. I have no issue with folks making money. I dislike people making money at the expense of others. But isn't every transaction you verify and relay using up some of your resources? How is SD different from SR or MtGox or bitmit or anyone else using Bitcoin? This is what peer-to-peer means. Take some time to think about it. You want to use p2p technology, but don't want to contribute resources? |
|
|
|
We do not have blockchain bloat due to *all tx's with more than 13 inputs or tx's below 0.0002x* but we *do* have blockchain bloat due to SD (i.e. the source of the current soft limit needing to be raised is just them). Of course if SD would like to buy me a new hard drive then I would be more than happy for the (hard) limit to be increased just for them.  I don't get it, please bear with me: 1. SD transactions include fees and adhere to the protocol. block them, and you have reduced the blockchain bloat (assuming others follow you), and CPU verification cycles. 2. All transactions with, for example, more then 2 and less then 5 inputs. They include the fees and adhere to the protocol.Block them, and you have reduced the blockchain bloat, etc. What is the difference? |
|
|
|
I don't know... maybe you want to save 80% of the bandwidth your bitcoin client spends and 80% of the CPU cycles used to verify TX's... If you want to save 80% of the bandwidth and CPU cycles, you could choose to block all transactions with hashes not ending in {insert some random string here}, or all transactions worth below 14.71662334 and above 0.00014455 coins, or just block transactions first heard from an IP originating in the U.S., or any other criterion. SD transactions, just like most other TX today, include TX fee, and adhere to the rules of the protocol. Your choice to block them over any other arbitrary group of transactions, under the false pretense of "avoiding blockchain bloat," is retarded. Seriously, if you want to play cops and impose your moral views on others: the U.S. (unlike S.D.) is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Why not block all U.S.-originating transactions? Fortunately, clicking the "ignore" button under your smokin' avatar is even easier then applying this retarded patch. I don't give a shit about gambling, but I think I'll roll a few dice tonight... |
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. SD transactions include fees, correct? What is the rationale behind blocking these transactions as opposed to, for example, all transactions with more then 13 inputs, or transactions below BTC0.00020477??? All of these would lower the "bloat". What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Can I not accept the Coinlab ToS and kept my Mt. Gox account. And then open another account at Coinlab, so I would have 2 accounts at the same time?
Sounds like people residing in USA and Canada cannot continue to have business relationship with MtGox. The deal is exclusive. There may be workarounds if you incorporate outside of North America (just guessing). You can certainly close your MtGox account before March 22. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
