they are a total scam
I ordered they told me they would have my tracking number to me last thursday now they wont even reply to emails.
i took an 80$ gamble and lost - my own fault for being stupid but let this be a warning to you - please no one else fall for this scam
it is not real
Pictures or it didn't happen. I have a lot of emails from CS pleading their case and swearing that all would be revealed today. I just see no need to beat the dead horse. What if you are just trolling so others don't buy because you already have the miner in your hands? Or... wtf... there are people that actually sent them money... wow. |
|
|
|
So is anything over 250 soft limit not safe, or not over 500, or not over? Or has that not been determined yet?
The limitation is not related to block size, but rather number of transactions accessed/updated by a block. In general, the default for 0.8 (250k) is fine. Raising that to 500k is likely just as fine. But it is not very simple to answer the question, because this 0.7 BDB lock issue becomes more complicated with larger BDB transactions. TY for the clarification. |
|
|
|
they are a total scam
I ordered they told me they would have my tracking number to me last thursday now they wont even reply to emails.
i took an 80$ gamble and lost - my own fault for being stupid but let this be a warning to you - please no one else fall for this scam
it is not real
Pictures or it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
So who do you blame? I mean the blame lies on Gavin, I think. He is project lead -snip-
On an open source project. A p2p system. We blame one person? I blame people for not upgrading. Especially mining pools. |
|
|
|
Step 6: Mention once again how you were some kind of BTC pioneer and are important/vital to this community.
ROFL!!!! OMG I just about joked to death while laughing. Pirate was a pioneer too by his definition. My previous post in this thread may be ignored, but worth repeating. This "pioneer" doesn't know how to back up his hot wallet? Doesn't even cross his mind before upgrading to a new client? Come on... |
|
|
|
The only question is when does it happen and who will lose out because of it. The really important question is what would have happened if there wasn't a coordinated effort to help the "correct" fork? The longer one would have won. No. A majority of miners cannot effect a change in protocol rules. A hard fork like this would require the intentional support of a majority of merchants. Short of an emergency, that means everyone will be given at least 2 years to upgrade. 2 years according to who? Luke jr who is maintaining the older clients? There are major advancements in version 0.8 and there is no reason that anyone should be wasting CPU and hard disk cycles when 0.8 is actually functional and older versions can't even keep up with the block chain. If 0.8 had been released 6 months ago, and we had twice as many people on 0.8, the scenario that might have played out would have been upgrade to version 0.8 because the only pools left on previous versions might just have been you lukey. I don't see where it has been pointed out anywhere else, but it looks like it was slush's pool that made the original block at 225430. Then also had 5 more orphaned blocks. There were many blocks around 500 KB, it's the one at 974 KB that choked it. So is anything over 250 soft limit not safe, or not over 500, or not over? Or has that not been determined yet? |
|
|
|
I am sorry for my angry post last night and I apologize to anyone I offended, I was upset that I was being portrayed as a scammer when that was never ever my intention.
It sounded like you were trying to come up with a way not to pay everyone else back. And it was just lies. You have a history going back long before ASICs where wallet corruption caused problems with you repaying people. You would have figured a long long time ago that you could have figured out how to make a wallet backup. Especially before changing any versions. You can be better than that if you choose to. You're just not making that choice. The percentage of people who have not been refunded versus those who have been refunded is minuscule.
please work with me. I have all the amounts and addresses on a spread sheet, and please when you receive your refund please post to the forum about it so people know that refunds are continuing to be made.
Let's see some proof when you make such bold claims. Let's see a list of what you owe. Order numbers and amounts. No personal information. People can make sure their refund is on your to do list. And see if your time lines for paying back are real. But that would make things transparent. It might just be easier to pay back the maddest people and hope that some people have already given up on you refunding them. That again, would be your choice. Do the right thing this time. |
|
|
|
Eligius gives out a payout of 25 BTC each time a block is found by the pool. Everything that's over that 25 BTC (tx fees) funds the server.
Are you posting this in the correct thread? What does his pool keeping the fees have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
It's not really a problem there were just transactions sending .00000001 outputs all to the same address to several addresses.
This was strange because it puts more data in the block chain, and Luke Jr., who started this pool, hates these .00000001 transactions.
Since this block I believe some of these outputs have been consolidated into larger outputs. Maybe the pool Eligius is just taking "unspendable" outputs and over time turning them into spendable ones again. Maybe they're doing it for a fee. I don't see a problem here.
At first I thought that this pool was trying to bloat the blockchain, maybe to prove the point that the blockchain shouldn't bloat, but I do not think it's malicious now.
The single satoshi transactions do not have transaction fees on them. It is pretty interesting. |
|
|
|
That's actually pretty damn awesome. I'm having problems making the shadow match the picture. |
|
|
|
I have gotten several pms from people saying they had the same thing happen. apparently the day the ownership changed is the day my cash got hacked
Wait... What?? OK, in which day did the ownership change, mind telling us? The ownership changed? HUH? What ownership?  The only ownership that changed is when you sent your coins to some web wallet. You owned them, then gave ownership to someone else. For convenience sake that may make sense for a hundred bucks or less. For $40,000...  |
|
|
|
Do you mind me asking where you live? $4000 is not a whole crap load of money to most Americans. It may give them a short live shopping spree but it wouldn't change their life... I did some bitcoin sells and purchases when the price was low. I exchanged my new desktop computer brought by bitcoins to high-end laptop for increased mobility. Sold the laptop to spend money on my girlfriend. Girlfriend rejected me. My 4 years old workhorse desktop died. My backup desktop computer was destroyed when the place it was kept caught fire and then was flooded by fireman. Now I'm without secure and powerful computer to work on and earn money. No adequate computer no Bitcoins for me. That sounds more to me like you're a kid without a job and an exception of the world owes you. And that you are in the USA. |
|
|
|
I will keep all of them. I'm much poorer than 90% of people here.
i dont see how your station in life is of any relevance to the question at hand. Right and wrong dont flip on their head simply because you are poor. Lets be clear im not saying you shouldnt keep the coins or anything, im just saying that there is no good reason why being poor or wealthy should effect the situation. If I'm rich enough to get 90 coins effortlessly and they don't change much in my life, I will most likely send them back if the person asks me. In my current situation the 90 coins will change everything. It will be turning point in life. Will never send them back. Do you mind me asking where you live? $4000 is not a whole crap load of money to most Americans. It may give them a short live shopping spree but it wouldn't change their life... |
|
|
|
Urmom.
A brilliant point, moron. When MPOE at least thinks they are right, they respond. They may not be, but a response is given. When they are wrong, you are ignored. Take it as, they can't see how to appropriately respond to you. |
|
|
|
2-3 hours.
Hey, I was pretty close! And I wasn't even serious! |
|
|
|
I always thought you were an idiot MPOE-PR, but now there is no more doubt in my mind.
He's got a few rational suggestions in there, no? Point them out. His collection of names he tosses out there aren't on the same level. And it's an open source program. There is no one in charge. If you want something "fixed" in the code base, fix it yourself or hire someone to do it. Huge companies contribute to open source projects because of the benefits it makes to their companies. Interesting thing is, we don't need ideas on how to improve bitcoin. We need people to do it. There are a dozen things on the slate that will make bitcoin so much better. Not as many capable or willing people to implement them. |
|
|
|
...but WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 But really... $40k in an online wallet is hard for me to swallow. |
|
|
|
Despite our forum clashes, I humbly and with goodwill ask:
Would you mind de-listing S.DICE temporarily to encourage shareholders to put pressure on the site operators to stop taking advantage of the block chain during this critical stage of Bitcoin growth? I know this might go against your short term financial interests but really if you stop to think about it, the "startup capital" of the Bitcoin network (gmaxwell's terminology for the currently unused space in each block) is going to unproductive activity which does not grow the Bitcoin economy.
If nothing is done about SD transaction spam (economically unspendable outputs which can't be pruned), transaction fees will be driven higher and every miner will bear the cost of forever storing these unprunable tx in their copies of the blockchain. In the long run, increased fees are not a problem but at the early stage we are in, it could dampen Bitcoin adoption or possibly kill it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The approach proposed is fundamentally flawed in multiple places.
First and foremost, the only reasonable authority in Bitcoin is derived through the working of
contracts. Put another way this states that the power of "a collective", ie a group of users no
matter how large to dispose for the future is nil. Put in yet another way, Bitcoin is not a
democracy, but a republic.
Consequently, to propose that MPEx breach its contract with SatoshiDICE because you would like
me to is a waste of breath : you are not a party to that contract, and consequently you have no
standing whatsoever in that relationship. The contract specifies clearly how it works, and it
will work as such.
Secondly, and just as importantly : the current codebase is broken beyond belief. As explained
in an earlier Trilema article, the main problems Bitcoin faces currently come from the general
inability and ineptitude of the de facto dev team. These problems are a. that users can not
create arbitrary size transactions up to the size of one full block ; b. that the client does
not correctly select the best possible combination of available inputs to feed a list of
arbitrary outputs. More generally speaking the codebase is replete with magic numbers, which is
no way to code. The fact that a 7Gb download takes an hour if we're talking a movie and a week
if we're talking the blockchain - especially considering that the average torrent rarely has
over 100 seeders and the Bitcoin blockchain rarely has under 1k - is further testament to the
utter inability of the core team.
Consequently, the correct approach is for these people to either fix the codebase - which will
require serious work - or else step down and let other people do it. The early enthusiasm of
"everyone's welcome and we're glad to have you" may have bridged us between Bitcoin being worth
nothing and Bitcoin being worth 1/10`000th of a pizza, but we are now playing in the grown-up
league and as such we need grown-up code. It is certainly not acceptable to proceed as proposed,
from a "this is what the codebase can do, we will pretend to limit usage of Bitcoin to that"
perspective, as is contemplated here. The only acceptable and the only correct approach is,
"this is how Bitcoin can be used, therefore this is how Bitcoin should be used, therefore this
is what our code must accomodate, let's get to work on it."
The fact that a number of people - such as Luke-jr, Gmaxwell, Mike Hearn etc - feel inclined to
compensate for their modest technical ability with a disproportionate and unwarranted political
preocupation is of course to be expected : the marginal and the stupid have tried to propel
themselves in the position of populist "leaders" for as long as humanity existed. This will not
work in Bitcoin, because that is not how Bitcoin works. It is specifically designed to foil the
very common alliance between the stupid but lazy and the ambitious but inept that regularly
wrecks fiat ventures of all sorts, from small business to entire countries. It will work as
intended for that purpose.
Please you idiots, fix the codebase. If you can't do that, go away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=THL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- I always thought you were an idiot MPOE-PR, but now there is no more doubt in my mind. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
