I signed up - how do I get the 0.01BTC free? Also, I tried the 50/50, and got this error: You Do Not Have Enough Yen To Gamble. Need At Lest 50 Yen
$15BBP_Remaining in Balance. $5449BBP_Remaining in House. Enough Yen? Wha...? You need to fill out this form http://bitpoker.biz/bitcoin/bbp-2-btc/The 50/50 game was acting strangely, you should be able to play now! Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
If the blockchain gets changed, is there any way to notify about it? Reason being, I have a database being written to based off of every new block that arrives, so if one of the older blocks changes, I'd like to know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Verification is getting close to complete. We may be able to bring the site back online tonight (PST timezone).
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Sgt:
Consider the system is structured in a way to prevent scam/hack attempts for ratings and it's geared towards the world in general and anything related to trust, not just bitcoin WoT.
Given that trust is important in so many aspects of everyone's life this is a revolutionary system.
"web" connections I am referring to are the "web of trust" and any person "entity/object" must have a direct connection to the complete web by being rated by someone who is in the web.
This is necessary to prevent "sub webs" from being created, by hackers or even valid groups who are not connected.
"sub webs" would make ratings that are not comparable to other "sub webs".
The downside is this demands that a "seed web" is started among original trusted (or not trusted of course) people and those people would then be able to invite people into the web by rating them.
People know lots of people so this certainly is not a problem.
Anyone good or bad can join the web. They just need to be rated.
Sure, if their initiating rater gives them a good rating just to get them in it's ok. They will show 1 rating and 1 web connection which should be seen as not yet mature.
Of course their initiating rater is foolish to rate a bad person good then their rating will suffer as soon as the bad person acts as himself (bad) and gets bad ratings so the whole thing takes care of itself in short order.
It was cool to see bitcoin WoT. I said "wow this really needs my algo".
The bitcoin WoT web could or would simply be part of the big universal WoT my algo would run on.
I wouldn't call it WoT though.
So what you're saying is, if I rate my buddy with a good rating so that he can come use the system, and then he abuses the system, I get negative rating on my scorecard because of actions he took? Or, say I purchased a bitbill from someone who is relatively new, so I give him a good rating because I had a good transaction, then he screws somebody over down the line, I would get screwed over too. It sounds like this whole system actually discourages people from leaving positive feedback. Why would I want to leave someone else positive feedback when it could potentially bring my own feedback score down in the future? |
|
|
|
|
Question: Why does Wikileaks need a lot of funding in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
So if no one can leave a rating without having ratings themselves, how does a person ever get rated?
What would stop me from performing 5 $10 sales in order to get good feedback, then screw someone over for $100?
What do you mean by "web" connections?
|
|
|
|
I signed up - how do I get the 0.01BTC free? Also, I tried the 50/50, and got this error: You Do Not Have Enough Yen To Gamble. Need At Lest 50 Yen
$15BBP_Remaining in Balance. $5449BBP_Remaining in House. Enough Yen? Wha...? |
|
|
|
Why do all sellers here try to scalp buyers?
Really. It seems nobody here wants to do honest business. It's all about ripping off someone.
Why do all posters here not understand Economics 101? It's not ripping someone off if $200 is the fair market value. |
|
|
|
You can't. I was only responding to the loss part. There is no 'gain' here though as he never cashed out on any 'earnings' or equity from the asset. On his claim he would handle it the same way you would any other purchased or acquired asset. There was no gain or loss when he commenced the trasnaction to acquire the capital asset as it was worth the very same at the moment he acquired it in comparison to bitcoins or other currecny that was used in the trasnaction. I.e. He traded the intrensic value of one thing for the exact same intrensic value of another under the presumption that both were equal at the time. (if there is any way to show purchasing a capital asset at a loss at time of purchase and that being at all beneficial is well beyond the scope of my limited knowledge)
It can be much more involved if one would so chose it to be but it has been my limited experience that overcomplicated filings on such assets tend to raise red flags....
As stated before I would highly recommend at least consulting a qualified tax attorney before filing anything.
My bad, I missed the "deduct your basis". I thought Joel was talking about deducting the full $500k value of the coins, not just the basis. |
|
|
|
Any tax experts here? How should I treat this 25K BTC loss; tax write-off? Doubt that would fly with the tax man.
I don't see any reason you can't treat it as a loss and deduct your basis. Note that if this was a business loss, it's only deductible against business profits. I believe you can hold it over for future years when you have a profit. If this was a hobby loss, I believe you can only deduct it if you previously paid taxes on a hobby gain. I don't think you can hold over a hobby loss, but I'm not sure. Basically, it's the same as if a physical object was stolen. Your loss is the lesser of its fair market value or your tax basis in it. This I can partially verify after running it by the wifey. She is a CPA/EA here in FL, mostly small to mid size clients. Best you could probably do as Joel pointed out is to Schedule B the loss at its fair market value at time it was stolen. It will only go to lower your tax liability though but can be carried over to future filings atleast. I would be very hesitant to file it as anything until you have run it by a qualified tax attorney though...... How could you possibly be allowed to file a loss on something you never filed a gain on? |
|
|
|
I went out and bought a whole new rig to mine BTC. It will probably take me a year or more to pay it off with mining. However, I was going to buy a new machine anyway and I have a job, so whether or not it is a good investment in your eyes means nothing to me. Admittedly, I wouldn't have bought 2 outrageous video cards if it weren't for mining (I would have just used the onboard GPU as I'm a sound guy, not a graphics guy). But still, I am doing it to support the project and because I wanted a new machine. Not everyone is mining for profitability. Hell, I don't even sell my coins that I mine... You greedy profit hungry buy every GPU available to make a profit miners are going to get squeezed by hoarders like me who will mine at any price or difficulty with the expectation of higher BTC prices several years from now. The funny part is, the cheap GPUs that will eventually be for sale, will come from people like you. Not the people like me who are buying overpriced GPUs that won't return a profit.  We have jobs and will outlast you. Who exactly are you talking to when you say "people like you"? Because I can guarantee you there aren't 50TH/s worth of people who will mine at a loss, which is about what it would take to push out those of us who are mining for the profit and have efficient GPU's and decent electric costs. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
New error.  Could not add prefix '1worLd': overlapping? I get this for a good number of targets. Can't see a particular pattern to the ones that error out, and they are only in the list once... New version 0.6 is now up. This version should be more specific about which prefixes it thinks overlap each other. Try it out and let me know what you find. Thanks, that definitely helps! I just didn't understand what the error meant, but this makes it crystal clear. |
|
|
|
New error. Could not add prefix '1worLd': overlapping? I get this for a good number of targets. Can't see a particular pattern to the ones that error out, and they are only in the list once... |
|
|
|
If, by then, many people have quit, how would the difficulty continue to rise?  The future of mining is in FPGAs. CPU mining was replaced by GPUs. GPUs will be replaced by FPGAs. FPGAs will be replaced by ASICs. The latter will only happen if bitcoins manage to keep their value long term and more real world uses are found for bitcoins in general. ASICs require a very large investment. I disagree regarding FPGAs. They are insanely expensive for the MH/s, and if you're only looking at the difference in electric costs, it would take years to pay back the difference. Not to mention, they're not going to be as easy to resell... Very few people will make significant investments in FPGAs. The only people who will mine on FPGAs are those who do not care if they are wasting money, or those who already have access to clusters. It's too risky of an investment otherwise, counting on being able to mine for years and years. ASICs might have possibilities, but again, it would require significant up front capital that would take months or years to pay off. But, I could definitely see someone interested in technology who just might give it a try. They make a whole heck of a lot more sense than FPGAs, at least if the estimated performance figures are in the ballpark. I remember the times when people (and me as well) distributed some calculation power for SETI@Home, BOINC, Folding@Home, or wanted to be the number one in a benchmark rating chart. This all for free and never got some money back for the wasted energy, invested time, patience, and for the whole equipment used for.
Now, with Bitcoins you get a little bit back for using a computer, and the opportunity to win a lottery is also much fun.
There will be always people who want to participate in a race.
Especially when graphic cards are rare for miners then prices increase.
When Bitcoins becoming seldom the same will happen.
This is true, but it is a matter of how many people you can find who will mine bitcoins at a loss. It's not a "feel good" project for most people. For most miners, it's all about the money, and they will leave when the money leaves. Sure, there will always be a core group of people who will mine no matter what, but when you're looking at the overall difficulty level, the vast majority of those megahashes comprising the difficulty level will be out the door as soon as it becomes unprofitable. Which means, it will become profitable again. Like I said, the only way we'll see close margins for some of the better MH/s/watt video cards is if bitcoins are reduced in value (somewhere on the order of 1/5th of what they are currently worth), or if they somehow, miraculously, stabilize at the exact same value for the next several years. |
|
|
|
If, by then, many people have quit, how would the difficulty continue to rise? |
|
|
|
I still don't understand the math.
If there are 10 pies and 8 are lost, why would you divide the 2 remaining pies?
Why would only pie holder #1 get to keep his pie and pie holder #2 has to give his up.
By the way. Which insurance company do you work for?
Neither has to give up his pies. What are you talking about? That simply divides the bitcoins up into smaller portions. Every bitcoin that is lost, is gone for good and simply reduces the amount of bitcoins there will ever be. If you make all other BTC worth more and they are divided up into smaller pieces, the net result is no change long-term. You're not hurting anything. You're only helping us out in the short-term. Ok. Have 10 people and 10 pies. We give everyone a pie. Now 8 pies get lost. Some get eaten, one pie was encrypted and the key got lost, another one's fridge was hacked and his pie deleted, a pie was dropped on the floor, etc etc. We divide every remaining pie into 10 pieces. One guy didn't lose his pie, he gets to keep all 10 pieces. The other 10 pieces are divided evenly over the other 9 people and piece gets destroyed by me, just cos I can. And pie makes me fat. We have 10 times as many "items of pie". We performed a digit shift on the pie basically... Yet now one guy has half of all items of pie available, while he only had 1/10 earlier. Still think shifting the digit will solve bitcoins getting lost?  So one guy gets to keep his pie. Why? Insurance? Why would the other guy only get 1/10th of his pie? No Insurance? ... "just cos I can. And pie makes me fat." It was a volunteer split of one of the two last pies. Neither one is forced to give up any of his pie. Both pies are worth 5x as they were previously. |
|
|
|
|
Well, sure, I could easily do it myself, if I even had the slightest clue what the name of the arbitration panel was or where their history of resolutions is kept.
Can anyone appeal the arbitration result? Can it be brought to a court of law to fight further?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
