|
The fee makes the market less liquid, and by a lot more than 2%. People offering trades going both ways trying to make a profit drives this together which means a better price for people who come to buy or sell. The fee, in addition to making a 2% spread the absolute minimum disincentive this behavior. The spread was at 15-20%, it's going to get a lot closer now.
There is another market, so if yo have a high spread and they don't you will always have the worst bid and asks.
An exchange site wants the spread down because that attracts customers. Once there is a thriving market is a better time to monetize with small fees or ads.
I donated. I think the site is coming along nicely.
|
|
|
|
|
I bid 1.00BTC on the 50 dinar note. It says the current bid is still 0.00. It also says my bid is 0.00. When I try to rebid 1.00 it says " You are the winning bidder and cannot place a bid lower than your previous maximum bid."
|
|
|
|
|
I hit 2700, up from 1250 stock.
I have 7 cores, how do I tell how many it's using? Can I control it?
|
|
|
|
OS is 64-bit. I loaded the runtime. It works now, but is the same khash as the x86. the more cores your computer has, the more significant the performance boost, you should also use the EXE from the intel folder, the VS one is inferior but included for completeness. I'm confused now, I don't see a VS or an Intel folder. When I unzipped vcredist_x64 I'm getting a bunch of numbered folders 1028, 1031, etc. I ran Setup and when I rerun it it just wants to repair Microsoft Visual C++ x64 Redistributable to it's original state each time. I've also just noticed that it's getting incoming blocks like 3 or 4 at a time. It could be they're coming in close together, but I think I'm getting them like simultaneously. EDIT: Okay, I see it now. |
|
|
|
OS is 64-bit. I loaded the runtime. It works now, but is the same khash as the x86. |
|
|
|
Really? There is some difference between his money and other's money? I say if he fulfills all promises he is not a scammer.
I don't think we disagree. If he fulfils all his promises, he is not a scammer. If he fulfils his promise to me, he has not scammed me. However, if he fulfils his promise to me by scamming someone else (which I loosely referred to as "with someone else's money"), then he is a scammer. (Still waiting to see my BTC 20 from 'weed'). Yeah, we agree. If he's just putting off the default he's a scammer. I wouldn't hold your breath. Though I think weed is just dumb, not intentionally malicious. |
|
|
|
]Well, in that case I think it would be equal, but if you have one person with ten dice and one person who has one die and they usually have to roll many many times before getting the winning number, then the person with ten dice will win more than ten times more frequently than the person with one die. I'm more than happy to write a little demonstration progam, but it will take me a while to get around to it.
No need to write a program imo, just show us the math for the actual odds. Okay, I'm thinking of something orange. Something ooooooraaaange ... Do you give up? It's an orange! Just show you the math? By golly, that's it! You're a genius!  Here I was thinking that half a dozen vague examples would be much more clear than just showing the math. Okay, I'm not trying to be some kind of genius or arrogant or anything. I'll just wait for the program. |
|
|
|
|
Amazing. ~1250 up to ~2200.
Is this for real? Other machine from ~600 to ~1350
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a total newb, I tried to use Olipro's file and it failed because I was missing
MSVCR100.dll I got it, now it says "The application was unable to start correctly." Should I just not mess with this? Is it supposed to be all good to go?
Just say Olipro's new thread. Got it working, so sweet.
|
|
|
|
]Well, in that case I think it would be equal, but if you have one person with ten dice and one person who has one die and they usually have to roll many many times before getting the winning number, then the person with ten dice will win more than ten times more frequently than the person with one die. I'm more than happy to write a little demonstration progam, but it will take me a while to get around to it.
No need to write a program imo, just show us the math for the actual odds. |
|
|
|
if he sends you 20 that also makes him a scammer He's only a scammer if he fulfils his promise (to pay me BTC 20) with someone else's money. If he fulfils the promise with his own BTC, he's honest. Really? There is some difference between his money and other's money? I say if he fulfills all promises he is not a scammer. |
|
|
|
Hello Everyone, I have set up an auction site that uses BTC as the currency. You can access it at http://www.biddingpond.com . Right now image gallery uploads are broken and being worked on ( What is working: you can include image links/tags in the item description). Please feel free to auction your items. Registration requires only a valid e-mail address. Stop by and lets trade some items :-D! I bid 1.00BTC on the 50 dinar note. It says the current bid is still 0.00. It also says my bid is 0.00. When I try to rebid 1.00 it says " You are the winning bidder and cannot place a bid lower than your previous maximum bid." I don't know if this seller made a mistake, or not. But it seems possible that he's going to send me this note for 1BTC and not charge shipping to Hawaii. I don't know if he meant that, is it possibly a site error? |
|
|
|
|
Is it easy for a newb to try this stuff?
|
|
|
|
We might not care that the minting rate is cut by 3/4 for months on end, but taking 4x longer to complete a transaction is a fairly big deal. You mean it will be slow for months because it was difficulty was ramped up and then someone bailed? In order fall to 25% wouldn't 75% of the computing power have to be pulled? If someone can do that they control the project anyway. |
|
|
|
Well, at least do it on the TEST network FIRST!
If you manage to break the TEST network, it's a pretty good bet that you'll be able to break the production network. If it doesn't break the TEST network, then I'd say go ahead and run against the production network to look for "scaling up" problems.
Really? I would think/hope that the real one is way more robust. No? |
|
|
|
Anyone can distribute any version, breaking or not, that they wish.
Absolutely true. If people who propose changes can phrase the changes in terms of " a client" rather than " the client", that will help to filter out impossible proposed changes. Having said that, there are ways that breaking changes could be addressed. A client could be programmed with dual behavior. It keeps using the old behavior unless it sees that more than a certain percentage of clients on the network have signalled that they can support some new behavior and are willing to switch to it. At that point, clients which support the scheme will switch to the new behavior, and everyone using other clients will need to change their software if they want to keep playing with the majority. The devil is in the details, of course, because different clients have different peers and will see different percentages of those peers being able to support the new behavior. You could have two thresholds. A client could switch to the new behaviour if it saw (say) 85% of nodes capable of supporting the new behaviour, AND was receiving new-behaviour transactions. If it saw (say) 95% of nodes capable of supporting the new behaviour, it would switch unilaterally even if it had not seen a new-behaviour transaction yet (someone's gotta get the ball rolling). Personally, I think it's going to be years, if ever, before a breaking change is needed. To address the topic at hand, the MOST important change to Bitcoin isn't any technical change, it's just to gain more users who actively trade, so that Bitcoin doesn't fade away. Nice. Is it possible to put any kind of message in a block or does it have to be 'clean' or 'perfect' in a sense? I ask because that's more important than the number of nodes you talk with being willing to change. If you see that 80 of the 100 most recent blocks were created by clients ready to change then you could be confident and switch. |
|
|
|
Versioning sounds like version numbering to me, but anyway, if you were to go back and improve the ability of Bitcoin to be more backwards compatible with then future changes, then yeah, that sure would make it more flexible. Good choice! I realize there are already version numbers. However, as things stand older clients will just reject anything with a new version number, which results in splitting the block list. There is no protocol in place to allow new clients and old clients to coexist (which would be rather impressive--the changeable parts would have to be moved to some Turing-complete language that could be downloaded at runtime) or, perhaps more practically, to allow older clients to detect when a new change is being introduced and insist on an upgrade rather than proceeding under the old rules. What I had in mind was something like this: - The client is distributed with the developers' public keys.- When a breaking release is introduced, the developers first add a special transaction to the block list warning about the upgrade. - The client validates the signature of this warning and, if valid, passes it on to the user. - The new client is released with support for both the old rules and the new ones. (This is already necessary, as the old blocks must be validated.) - The client's highest supported protocol version goes into each transaction. - After a fixed number of block are produced after the warning with no client protocol versions less than the announced version, the upgrade is committed and the new rules take effect. (Blocks with older protocols are accepted, but do not count toward the goal.) - At this point new transactions with obsolete protocol versions will be rejected, and older clients will cease to operate rather than attempting to start their own independent block chain. Obviously this can be worked around by modifying the code, but there is little benefit in doing so. Anyone who wants to continue using Bitcoin will be driven to upgrade instead. This way, rather than starting and abandoning a bunch of mini-block-chains as different users upgrade at different times, there would be a window during which upgrades could take place while maintaining compatibility, after which all the upgraded clients would switch to the new rules at the same time. The critical changes are (a) the upgrade notice transaction and associated key distribution & validation; (b) a protocol version field in the transaction structure (already present?); and (c) kill-switch code in the current client to detect a committed upgrade based on the upgrade notice and subsequent blocks. This goes fundamentally against the decentralized nature of the project. Absolutely no one is special except as people choose them to be. Anyone can distribute any version, breaking or not, that they wish. |
|
|
|
|
12 hours? Not sure exactly because I went to bed and when I next checked it was there.
|
|
|
|
Factoid of the day: I willed Bitcoin's monetary value into existence. Satoshi was all like, "This is beta, don't use it for real financial transactions." And I was like, "Dude, this is friggin' awesome! I think I'll give it monetary value." And then I did. Look it now, with the all the monetary valuing. Brings a tear to the eye, I tell ya!  That's pretty cool. What was Satoshi wanting to wait for? |
|
|
|
Of course they arose out of barter. Bitcoins were traded for their novelty, and value as a decentralized system. People thought "Oh hey, this is a cool idea, lets try it out." "Oh hey, send me 5 bitcoins so I can check it out." etc. Then, as it became more widespread, merchants began providing goods and services for it.
Granted, the evolution of Bitcoins is quite unique compared to other currencies, but I still say misers theorem holds here.
No, it's not. You guys switched from the crucial point - an existing pre-monetary value of the thing that becomes money, to the secondary one - the process (barter) by which this thing emerges as a universally accepted medium of exchange. It is like declaring that water is good for fire extinguishing because people tried different liquids for the task, and water proofed itself the best one. It doesn't follow, however, that water properties have nothing to do with the matter. This is the weakest spot of Bitcoin. In "Human Action" Mises said that valuation of money (true money) always includes two components - valuations of its monetary and non-monetary properties ( F = M + N). What does this mean for gold, for example? It means that if, suppose, some nerd, having been hoarding a huge pile of gold, suddenly releases it on the market, he, theoretically, can destroy the M component. Suppose even people would think that gold is not a good means of exchange anymore. But he never can destroy the N component, because it resides in the properties of gold that have nothing to do with the exchange process. Gold is needed as a consumable material for jewelry, medicine, electronics etc. So immediately after the intervention stops, the N component, so to say, kick-starts the process of imputing the monetary value to gold. The question is: where is non-monetary component of Bitcoin? There is none. That's why Bitcoin is vulnerable to all kinds of "loss-of-confidence" attacks. I think that this is precisely what Nenolod is doing right now. According to Nenelod he is NOT doing that. he has as many coins as he needs and is on to the next step in his project. Is there some minimum value that N has to have? Are you sure that N is exactly zero for Bitcoin? I'm eagerly awaiting "loss of confidence attacks". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
