|
Prices are definitely dropping (5870's are getting close to $200 now), but that is to be expected when profitability is cut by 90%.
|
|
|
|
|
On that note... I'll destroy 1 BTC for every 1 BTC donated to me! GO!
|
|
|
|
this sucks. your extremely unlucky with malfunctioning and DOA parts.
A surprisingly high percentage of computer hardware is defective from the getgo. Considering the fact that he has 14 motherboards, 14 sticks of ram, 14 PSU's, 14 processors, and 28 video cards, well, that's 84 pieces of hardware that could be DOA. Having only 3 parts (that I am aware of) arrive DOA is actually a pretty good percentage... |
|
|
|
Sorry, forgot to send jav the other half of the bounty. Sent! Thank you both for your contributions.  |
|
|
|
Exporting of a key has a problem, doesn't it: the key is still in the source wallet. There's no way to remove it, is there? Even if there is, it's easy to screw up and people will wonder where their money went.
I do not seet it as a problem, so what if I have the same private key in many wallets? Actually for me that is the case, because I store my wallets in many places on the internet. Encrypted of course. That's backup-copies. I have those, too. But say I give a privkey to a friend as birthday present. He imports it at some point and I still have it in my wallet. Now there are two active bitcoin clients showing the balance of that key. If one of the two spends the money, it will disappear from the other client, also. So my friend or I will wonder "where the hell my/his money went" That's only if you gave your friend an address generated by the bitcoin client, or an imported address. If you generated one for him with "vanitygen" or some other bitcoin address generator, and never imported it to your own wallet, you could freely give a private key to a friend and intentionally "lose" the key yourself so that you cannot access his funds. So you're willing to make the assumption that I'll never want to give my friend an address generated by the bitcoin client, or imported by myself? I think that is a terrible assumption to make... Give people the freedom to import/export as they want. Sheesh, this is getting as bad as government. "Well, I know what the people SHOULD have, and that's more important than what they want." |
|
|
|
an address created a couple days ago, and used for the first time an hr ago is not showing up, it has 6 confirms on the transaction.
edit after 12 confirms it works now. (i didn't check in the middle of 6 and 12)
Sorry, we need to clarify the 6 confirmations thing. It does require MORE than 6 confirmations, so seven would be the minimum before you see it show up in a search. This ensures the system has sufficient time to verify that all addresses have been gathered and added to the database. |
|
|
|
I'd be willing to bet that he's incorrectly expecting there to be collisions.
I'd be willing to bet that you're right. |
|
|
|
|
biddingpond.com, though don't expect to get market rate through the site just yet - there really isn't enough trust/market yet. Too many people with 0 feedback selling stuff means that things get sold cheap.
|
|
|
|
Do it, sounds like fun. |
|
|
|
There are other, much better ways to deal with potential user incompetence. Have a checkbox with big red flashing text, saying "Are you sure you want to delete this key from your wallet? It is unrecoverable unless you have saved it safely elsewhere," and then a more detailed explanation beneath that.
There are indeed many ways to deal with user incompetence, and this is one way I like very much, especially the "I'd have to recompile the client every time a new version comes out" part. This is a barrier of entry, it's guaranteed to keep the great unwashed masses away from using the feature, and it's not an elitist one because all you have to do to overcome the barrier is educate yourself, which no one prevents you from doing. Also: the 20th century is long over. High time to ditch windows unless you want to be increasingly perceived as a has-been. Here we go, another Linux elitist.  I happen to like Windows, so I use it. Sorry if that means I'm stuck in the dark ages to you. You should know that whenever you import a private key, you need to trust the one who gave it to you. There is no way around that, not even a patch that would make dumpprivkey remove a key by default. If you do not have the necessary level of trust in the person you're dealing with, you shouldn't be exchanging private keys, but using normal bitcoin transactions.
That said, a removeprivkey would be very useful, as a separate command (i believe i saw an implementation already somewhere). I don't think removing within dumpprivkey by default is safe - what if you intend to write it down on paper, but the computer crashes before you're able to do so? The correct procedure would be dumpprivkey to extract a key, and as soon as it is safe, issue removeprivkey.
Yes, +1 for removeprivkey as extra command. Because without it, how could I trust even myself to not spend the money if I'm not even able to remove the key!?! Another +1 for having removeprivkey as a command. What's the point of exporting if you can't delete the key from the wallet? I mean, really, honestly, I can't think of any reason to export a key other than to get the address out of that particular wallet and into safe storage or into another wallet. Tis pointless to export a key otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Site is finally back up! Sorry for the delay.
|
|
|
|
I am not sure this a suitable to be on by default. This will cause a great amount of lost bitcoins because unsophisticated users are careless.
+1 This is fine living in a separate branch. Being able to recompile a branch is a nice barrier of entry for the tech. clueless. This SHOULD be included in the default client. Reason being, it is incredibly useful for people who know how to use it, and not all of us know how to use linux or feel like spending hours on Windows attempting to compile the source with all of the dependencies. Discluding a feature like this from anyone who doesn't know how to compile c code would be a terrible thing. No it wouldn't. If you're desperate enough for the feature and not smart enough to follow a wiki explaining how to recompile it, you'll find a way by asking someone to do it for you. In the end very few percentage of the user base will do this and people will prefer the 'official' client because it'll be perceived as more 'safe'. Again: barrier of entry, which will lower the percentage of fools screwing around with their wallet not realizing the giant security risk they expose themselves to when manipulating private keys directly. Don't get me wrong, I find the feature very useful. But in the same way you don't hand out a loaded AK-47 to a 5 year old, this feature belongs in a branch. Would you walk out of your bank with a 1kg gold bar sticking out of your pocket ? You can argue that you're a grown man and that decision belong to you. Fair enough, but when you're allowed to do this and it jeopardizes the entire bitcoin ecosystem ... I don't agree. I guess we're all entitled to our own opinions. And where is this wiki article you speak of? The only detailed compile instructions I've seen were posted on this forum, and involved MinGW and about 3 hrs of work downloading dependencies and waiting for things to compile. It worked, after I figured out why a couple of things weren't working. I still have no clue what to do with a patch file either. Also, I certainly don't want to have to spend another 3 hours recompiling bitcoin with the patch every time a new version comes out. That's just a waste of my time. It's a waste of everyone's time to have to compile their own client in order to import/export keys. There are other, much better ways to deal with potential user incompetence. Have a checkbox with big red flashing text, saying "Are you sure you want to delete this key from your wallet? It is unrecoverable unless you have saved it safely elsewhere," and then a more detailed explanation beneath that. |
|
|
|
And the worlds most boring thread award goes to OP!
Awww... I thought it was rather interesting myself... |
|
|
|
Thanks theymos. If blockexplorer does it that way, I'll take it that's the only way to find out. |
|
|
|
Why impose limitations for the sake of imposing limitations? If some people want to trade on the weekend, they should be able to trade on the weekend. No one is forcing you to trade on the weekend.
Well the idea is so that the market is not so volatile due to outside forces. Also people wont FREAK OUT cause they ordered to withdraw their money on Sat and its Monday morning and "WTF ITS NOT HERE!" In my opinion less volatility I think is better for the market. That's the beauty of the free market - it corrects things like this automatically, without regulation. Have you noticed that there is less and less of a dip on the weekends, since more and more people have recognized the dip and decided to take advantage of it? Their taking advantage of it means that they are selling during the week when the prices are theoretically higher, then buying on the weekend, when the prices are theoretically lower. This causes the price during the week to drop, and the price during the weekend to raise, evening out the discrepancy. Not only that, but there would be no way to force ALL exchanges to cease activity on the weekend. The moment one exchange closes for the weekend, people will simply move to the next exchange that doesn't close on the weekend. |
|
|
|
|
You still didn't answer my question about what would stop me from registering 100 new names...
Another potentially vicious downside: What happens if a group of people decide to attack a particular person they don't like? Not because of that person actually doing something wrong, but because the group doesn't agree with that person?
Take Anonymous for example. They might decide to go after Joe Shmoe, for whatever reason. Maybe just to troll. Maybe because Joe Shmoe made a post on 4chan that no one liked, and then all the anons went and figured out who he was.
Suddenly, Joe Shmoe ends up with -1000 rating, and since the majority of votes agree that Joe Shmoe is a scumbag, then he must be a scumbag, right? Since so many anons voted negatively against Joe Shmoe, none of their personal ratings are affected, since they voted "with the flow". Anonymous has accomplished their mission, which was to ruin Joe Shmoe's rating, with no personal side effects.
|
|
|
|
This SHOULD be included in the default client. Reason being, it is incredibly useful for people who know how to use it, and not all of us know how to use linux or feel like spending hours on Windows attempting to compile the source with all of the dependencies.
Discluding a feature like this from anyone who doesn't know how to compile c code would be a terrible thing.
+1 more. This is a very important feature, whether it's exposed to end users or not. Actually, I might have changed my mind (partly) Exporting of a key has a problem, doesn't it: the key is still in the source wallet. There's no way to remove it, is there? Even if there is, it's easy to screw up and people will wonder where their money went. The importing of a privkey is the part that is important for users (bitbill, import key generated with external tool like vanitygen) and this part, luckyly, poses no problems (that I can see), does it? So how about splitting this and putting importprivkey in default, but not dumpprivkey? I still disagree. I'd like to be able to export private keys from wallets, but really don't want to have to try to compile bitcoin again. That was a complete PITA. |
|
|
|
|
Ok, that makes a whole lot more sense now.
What would stop me from making 100 new profiles, then rating each of them with positive ratings to each other? I think you mentioned something about subwebs being prevented, but I am interested to hear more about that aspect...
How would you differentiate a malicious subweb from an accidental, but legitimate subweb? In other words, maybe a bunch of Amish people (I know they wouldn't, but hear me out) use the system, but only rate each other, because they have no real contact with other people?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
