Wow, I was unaware of this. I stand completely corrected here. I find this pretty sneaky. I'll be uninstalling Multibit and Multibit HD just to register my discontent. If you ask me, if they wanted to do this they should have added a button to opt-in to such fees. Thanks for the correction, MZ. |
|
|
|
|
I was incorrect in this. See MZ's post below.
This is disengenuous and a bit misleading, in my opinion. The bolded part makes it sound like the developers of Multibit are on the receiving end of that fee. They're not. Those are fees for the miners. The developer of Multibit has said that he wants to support less sophisticated users who don't have time to figure out the details of what went wrong if a transaction takes a long time to confirm. For that reason, he wants Multibit to always include a good fee in for fast confirmation times. You're right that Multibit doesn't give you as complete a control as other wallets, but that doesn't make the wallet non-free in any of the usual senses of this word regarding software.
I'm not trying to discredit your preference for electrum---I just realized that electrum is in the debian repos these days, so that's very cool to me. I just it's unfair to call Multibit nonfree.
|
|
|
|
|
@ajareselde:
Surely you see that what you're proposing would only lead to unanswerable accusations of manipulation. As has been said above, dadice was doing an investigation and could bring the site back online at any moment. If they wanted to wait one more day or one less day and this was going to affect the outcome of the contest, surely you see how that means they can directly pick the winners. On the other hand, if you deduct the downtime then the contest proceeds exactly as if there is no downtime.
Try this, restate the contest another way. Instead of saying "tell me the date of the 750millionth roll", what if they had said "tell me the number of 24 hour periods of playtime it will take to hit the 750millionth roll". I think most people would agree that under normal circumstances those two contests would be functionally equivalent but the latter one would be much more tedious to play. But in spirit, they are the same thing. The idea of the contest was to predict how much playtime would pass. Clearly if the site is down, no playtime is elapsing.
Anyway, we can understand that you wish you won (I wish I had one too). But your idea that they should go by the calendar date and not take anything else into consideration is a little short-sited, I think, given the fact that that would essentially mean that dadice could look at the list of particpants and choose the winner by hand.
On the other hand, I will say this, contests like this are supposed to be fun and enjoyable and promote the site. I think if I were dadice I would have probably just doubled the prize money (pay both the downtime deducted winners and the calendar winners). I would have done this because it would have been an opportunity to change a bad vibe (lots of downtime) into a good vibe (extra winners). However, I don't think they would do this now because clearly they can't just start paying people for making a fuss.
Anyway, I think if you look carefully at the matter you'll see that short of paying everyone, what they chose to do was the best option. Maybe you'll have good karma from this and win a contest soon, ajareselde.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
You need some sort of limit at some point because you need restricted space so fee market can develop.
A fee market will be needed at some point, even tho its not necessary now.
Also, dynamically adjusting block size, is almost like having no block size limit. It can be gamed, and will increase with the effect of driving fees to zero.
edit: unless another way can be found of paying miners, such as discarding 21 million limit and having a small constant reward.
(also unlimited block size might lead to huge blocks and problems for network)
It looks like BIP100 is gaining some traction. BIP100 has a dynamic block size limit that's readjusted based on miner vote every certain number of weeks. I think it's a pretty good solution and I'm hoping that everyone will start to rally around it. It doesn't have the exponential growth problem of BIP101 either. @danielW: changing the hard limit of 21 million bitcoins isn't going to happen, if it does, a lot of people's confidence would be immediately shattered. That's considered one of those hard-and-fast promises. |
|
|
|
I had non-zero balance in 12 may 2014 in BTC encrypted wallet.dat Importing of this wallet do nothing. Where is my CLAM  It's not non-zero that matters, it's > than some established dust limit. I think that it was said upthread that this was something like 10KSat. If you're sure you had more than that in your wallet on 12 May 2014 maybe you wouldn't mind posting the relevant address so that someone else could check verify your issue. |
|
|
|
Well, I'll answer the first part. Do you even know math (not trying to be offensive)? Check it. - 0. 8 MB
- 1. 16 MB
- 2. 32 MB
- 3. 64 MB
- 4. 128 MB
- 5. 256 MB
- 6. 512 MB
- 7. 1024 MB
- 8. 2048 MB
- 9. 4096 MB
- 10. 8192 MB
2048
5096
2048x2 != 5096. Also, it is 10 doublings after 8MB, not including the 8 MB. LaudaM, I'm not offended. I hope you don't feel offended if I reply that the mistake I made 2048x2=5096 is a calculation error, not a math error. There's a difference between calculation and math. The latter being a branch of symbolic logic, the former being the application of that logic to a particular number system, ie the art of evaluation of some expression. Anyway, more seriously, thanks for setting me straight. In other threads discussing this, it seemed that the p2p protocol we're using for bitcoin was going to cause a limit of 32mb per block, even under some scheme where miners can indefinitely vote up the block size (bip100). So I guess I wonder how bip101 is supposed to address that issue. There is a current limit on the number of sigops (signature operations) to prevent a miner from creating a block that takes ages to verify due to an extreme number of sigops. Sigops currently include the OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIG as well as a few others. The current limit is 20000 sigops per block which is 1000000 (1 MB)/50. Thus the maximum number of block sigops will increase according to the formula of blocksize/50. It will become 40000 for a 2MB maximum.
As for why it is written like that, probably because the code is like that to allow for any blocksize but still preserve the ratio between blocksize in bytes and number of sigops.
Thanks knightdk. That explains it. I guess bip102 is sorta a kicking-the-can-down-the-road proposal, so to speak. I think my questions are answered then. Presumably bip102 is so terse because there's nothing really to see here, it's just a proposal to more-or-less keep the status quo albeit with slightly larger blocks until a more long term solution is agreed upon. |
|
|
|
I just read through the text of 100, 101, 102. If I understood correctly 101, ends up at block size limit of 5GB in 20 years (10 doublings). ' 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 5096 Is that correct? 102 was very terse and I didn't really understand the detail of the proposal. https://github.com/jgarzik/bips/blob/2015_2mb_blocksize/bip-0102.mediawikiThe "specification" section is only 3 lines (the first of which just says the current state of affairs): 1 Maximum block size permitted to be valid is 1MB. 2 Increase this maximum to 2MB on November 11, 2015 at 00:00:00 UTC. 3 Increase maximum block sigops by similar factor, preserving SIZE/50 formula. I believe I understand lines 1 and 2 completely, but what does line 3 mean? Increase by a similar factor (x2?, how often?). What's the SIZE/50 forumla he refers to? |
|
|
|
knightdk is right. When you use online decoding tools which are used for mainnet, they show the mainnet address. Using https://tbtc.blockr.io/tx/push or any other testnet transaction decoding tool will give you correct address. Even better, thanks MZ! Bookmarked! This is why I love this forum! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the confirmation, knightdk. I'm going to forge ahead then, and look into creating a signed transaction that I can broadcast. I'll probably post again here when I (almost certainly) run into technical details that I need advice on.
|
|
|
|
To dig all you do is import your old wallet.dat file into your CLAM client. Nothing hits the network until you move or stake those dug CLAMs, which is what we're seeing now.
Which one is it? That is, is the dig-whale moving these CLAMS to new CLAM addresses or are you just seeing them stake? |
|
|
|
Hey, thanks, that does help! Here's what I got back: {
"lock_time":0,
"size":110,
"inputs":[
{
"prev_out":{
"index":1,
"hash":"3ca5868acb7ea66fc8c2a3ed841337d24774183ec8edb626d0e05d799a271e57"
},
"script":"76a9140f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee88ac"
}
],
"version":1,
"vin_sz":1,
"hash":"5ac07664014523a1dd0b6de82700add59fc6017e536b06dba6561e7206ede029",
"vout_sz":1,
"out":[
{
"script_string":"OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"address":"12Q2mc7LmWZcj72pXqUhWZemW3Vixm3PWp",
"value":9190000,
"script":"76a9140f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee88ac"
}
]
}
The only thing that stands out as clearly not what I intended is the out["address"]. It's showing up as 12Q2mc7LmWZcj72pXqUhWZemW3Vixm3PWp, but I actually intended to pay to mguz4fCKaXzsWDWSFQT5LUs6N36RuNu9To. This seems related to my use of a testnet address. It's not clear to me, however, if it's the case that this decode tool assumes a bitcoin address, or if I created the payToScriptPubKey incorrectly. |
|
|
|
Ahem, uh, quickseller, hello? You seem to feel obliged to reply to dooglus and others, do you think it's okay to ignore this and hope it goes away? It's much better for your reptuation to go ahead and solve the problem. At this point, you know the right thing to do. You have removed one of your sockpuppet ratings. Can you please take care of the trolling from FunFunnyFan so that we can say that part is resolved? It would be a great step forward for you to eliminate your trust-spam in this situation and you and I will apparantly only have the matter of your unsupported allegations of me at coinchat to talk about. |
|
|
|
|
It may be the case that it's not important whether this is on testnet or mainnet.
Also, I guess I wonder if there's any transaction validation tool I could use to try to drop my hex in and see if it parses okay (ie, get some feedback on the construction of this thing).
|
|
|
|
Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.
[snip]
I was looking for the text of BIP 100 and 102 when I noticed that (what I think is the official) github ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) only has BIP 101. OP links to BIP 100, so that one's solved. Where can I find the text for 102? So far, having looked only at the outlines, I like 100 better than 101. |
|
|
|
Hi Guys.
Question
I am using still old version of Multibit Version 0.5.18 and recently I am getting payments with the following error message.
This transaction is not standard and should be not be trusted.
I emailed the support of where I get the payouts from and they told that they recently started using Bitcoin XT.
So is this error just related to this?
I am going to upgrade my wallet soon so I guess this might not be an issue.
Just putting it out there anyway.
Ian
That is an interesting little message. As far as I understand it, even if the transaction was mined with an XT node, as long as you keep an eye on the blockchain and can see that the chain has not forked (with your transaction in the wrong chain) for several blocks, you shouldn't have to worry about a double-spend attempt. The original Satoshi whitepaper has a bunch of info on just how increasingly difficult it is to try to double-spend with each successive confirmation (NB: it's pretty hard!). |
|
|
|
Hi bitcoin pros, I'm trying to put together my first "by-hand" transaction. I'm following along with ken sherrif's bitcoins the hard way blog and looking at the docs etc to try to get this going. I decided that I wanted to do something on testnet first before trying anything on mainnet. So my step 1 was to generate a testnet address and get some coins sent to it from a testnet fountain. I did this. https://www.blocktrail.com/tBTC/tx/3ca5868acb7ea66fc8c2a3ed841337d24774183ec8edb626d0e05d799a271e57I own the address: mtmAtMCFotG5NbFgkbVHTPhARKpqToWsky So, in theory, if I do things right, I should be able to put together a transaction to send those coins along. Here's what I got so far: 0100000001571e279a795de0d026b6edc83e187447d2371384eda3c2c86fa67ecb8a86a53c010000001976a9140f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee88acffffffff01703a8c00000000001976a9140f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee88ac00000000 This isn't signed yet, but I wanted to get someone looking over my shoulder to see if I'm on the right track. The first part "01000000" is the "version number" Next "01" is the input count. I only have a single input for this transaction. Next, 571e279a795de0d026b6edc83e187447d2371384eda3c2c86fa67ecb8a86a53c is the bytes reversed of the transaction hash where the input is found (3ca5868acb7ea66fc8c2a3ed841337d24774183ec8edb626d0e05d799a271e57) Next, the index of the previous output (it was the second output in that transaction, the first was change) 010000 Then, the script from the output (length, script, ffffffff) -> 001976a9140f532b6d8285d6d1bba1286cd74350270edbc7ee88acffffffff Then the output count 01 Then the value of first output 9190000 satoshis encoded as hex (leaving 10KSat for fee), reversed "703a8c" Then the script to pay to the address OP_DUP OP_HASH160 DATA OP_EQVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG Then the block lock time (00000000) How is this looking to you guys? |
|
|
|
Ummm who was giving a loan to whom?
Maidak was one of the most trusted escrows around and was often looked to for trades in the thousands of dollars.
How exactly are people supposed to do due dilligance without some kind of reputation system when some opinions are more heavily weighed then others and users can create an unlimited number of accounts, and trades can easily be faked? Panthers52, Perhaps I was misunderstood (or perhaps I misunderstood something myself). My point was that once Maidak had scammed, the people who were scammed would have added their rating and their references and any further traders with Maidak who were responsible sane people would do due dilligence before loaning to him and would have seen his recent breach of trust and thought twice about it. As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today. I see that argument as flawed. New users may not be able to judge the evidence that is being presented. This is why more experienced traders are in the default trust network as they are more able to accurately come to the conclusion that someone has scammed in the past. There are plenty of baseless accusations out there and without the trust system inexperienced users would not be able to conclude who should be trusted and who should not be. I understand this argument. However, I don't agree with your conclusions. I hope you can respect that.
You need to remember that scammers also like to create and purchase a lot of accounts and use such accounts to give trust to themselves; without the default trust network, it would be easy for scammers to make themselves look like it is appropriate to trust them with larger amounts of money (or any amount of money).
Yes, and some people (surprisingly enough) are selling these default trust accounts for profit. How does that affect your trust in the "default trust" network? I think it is very strange that dooglus is in the business of selling trust to scammers. How much interest did you give him for that loan? IMO someone on default trust should not be selling trust and they should be removed once it is exposed they are selling trust. Maybe it is that dooglus has no ethical issues with exploiting sites with vulnerabilities/bugs in them. I think it's very strange that you accuse me of being off topic but here you seem to be talking about something completely unrelated. If you have questions about dooglus or a loan he gave me, or anything along those lines, perhaps you should PM either of us, or start a thread about your questions if you want them to be public.
The suggestion of how to "fix" the implementation of the trust system would certainly weaken the trust system, this is without any doubt.
This is an assertion, not an argument. I hope it's okay for me to disagree with your assertion.
BTW - it is very difficult to make an on-topic reply to your off-topic posts. I am not an expert on the posting etiquette on this forum, but on other forums it might be more appropriate to post your comments that are off topic in a more appropriate thread.
Unpopular is not the same thing as off-topic. allyouracid wrote about people uninvolved in the situation giving many repetitious negative feedbacks. He was called ridiculous and was diagreed with. I happen to agree with him and I tried to argue why. Now both you and hilarious have replied to me with insults, accusations, and references to other situations and people (tecshare and dooglus) and then you go on to say that I am off-topic. Please, gentlemen, I don't have anything more to say to you about this. I hope you can allow me to disagree with you without attacking me personally. If you want to talk about other situations, there are other threads. |
|
|
|
It does, because exactly like tecshare your off topic and irrational arguments are biased by your previous experiences of the feedback system and it's the only reason you're complaining here, just like tecshare. Never a peep about feedback until both of your incidents then you both start shitting all over the place any time you can. It's annoying and only makes people lose respect for you. Actually, I made several posts about this kind of trust-rangering previous to my "incident" (where, by "incident" you mean a particular trust-ranger attempting a character assasination attack with several alts and threats and all kinds of nasty behavior). Anyway, if you want to make such a statement, it's important to get the facts straight. I was complaining about the trust-rangers long before QS attacked me. Vod and I were able to have several discussions about it which didn't escalate to name-calling or false accusations, or anything else. I think it's important for you to try to maintain that here. I'm not attacking you, I'm disagreeing with your ideas. Saying that "this makes me just like techshare" is indeed a fallacious logic, a red herring. I don't see what techshare has to do with my ideas and I don't appreciate you attempting to discredit me by (false) association with somene who's not in this conversation. [snip]
If it wasn't for the feedback from default trust members maidak would still be in the green and appear highly trusted and I'm sure he would have just continued to collect as much money as he could using his rep as a scamming tool which is exactly what he did until he was hampered by the feedback he received when it was brought to peoples' attention. ^^ Emphasis mine. My argument is that this is ridiculous: the idea that people will loan large amounts of money based on a red or green text under a username on an internet forum. So how else are people supposed to decide who they can and can't deal with? If it wasn't for the feedback system nobody would have anything to help them decide who can be trusted with what. As I understood hillariousandco's argument, he seemed to be suggesting that unless everyone on (or jockeying to be on) default trust mindlessly apes the ratings of everyone else, Maidak would still be scamming today. I see that argument as flawed.
If maidak only had two negative feedbacks from relative unknowns you know as well as I do they would likely be ignored or overlooked. Many people especially newbs don't even know or check the untrusted section so a lot of good that will do them. There's no issue at all with the feedback here and you wouldn't be complaining had he stole thousands from you. As it stands maidak has stolenfailed to repay several thousands of dollars and that is quite a substantial amount and the warnings that are there are wholly appropriate. FTFY. Oh do shut up. You're being ridiculous not to mention annoying now. He's stolen money. You can't rob a bank then say "I'll pay it back when I can" so everything is gravy. He's stolen money. End of. If he pays it back the politest thing I'll be able to say about him was he deceivingly took out several interest free loans on his own terms to try get himself out of trouble, which is still dishonest and scammy and he wont be trusted with money again that's for sure. Well, it's starting to seem like politeness maybe isn't your strong suit. But, and please understand that this is only my opinion, I really don't see that "robbing a bank" (a violent crime) is the same thing as failing to repay a loan. And, again, in my opinion, the escalating theatrics don't help anyone. Indeed it is a substantial amount. Indeed, it is a shameful situation. However, I don't see how the vultures circling with their mindless feedbacks and their mob-mentality of justice helps the situation. You don't see how it helps? Who else has been scammed by maidak on here since he was given the appropriate feedback? It helps because he's unlikely to scam more money from people. This is not logically valid. I'm sorry if you think I keep harping on this, but in my opinion, rational thought is important. This particular fallacy is called "post hoc ergo propter hoc". The idea that because A occured before B, that means that A caused B. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) In the best case at this point, Maidak will make a repayment plan and fulfill it. How does many, many echoed feedbacks help him acheive this. Yes, that's the best case scenario but how he manages to pay it back is irrelevant. Don't scam money from people then he wouldn't be in this situation. It seems weird that you'd say that "how he manages to repay it is irrelevant" (robbing a bank?), but then again, maybe I'm just misunderstanding whatever point you're making here. The feedback is there in an attempt to put a stop to his behaviour. So far so good, but like QS said had it been put there earlier he likely would have gotten away with a lot less. That's unsubstantiated speculation. But I repsect you and QS' right to speculate. I hope you can respect my right to disagree. All I can see that it does is that it poeple start posting in meta that "I neg-repped Maidak before you therefore I am the new Vod." And this is why you are exactly like tecshare. You talk about ad hominems but why are you complaining about people trying to be the new vod? FYI, the ad hominem fallacy is when you attack the person instead of the idea. I didn't attack you personally. And mentioning Vods name in quoted speech isn't attacking Vod. This is misdirection. As I said above, while Vod and I disagreed often, we had very resectful disagreements and didn't call each other names and even exchanged PMs from time to time about some of the issues with the trust system. Completely irrelevant and off topic, and exactly what tecshare did every single time and it was just his way of attacking those on default trust for trying to do the right thing.
Well, perhaps I'm in the wrong here. But when I look upthread I see that allyouracid made a post about how so many people uninvolved in the situation were negrepping Maidak and you wrote that he was "ridiculous". I happen to agree with allyouracid and to disagree with you. I'm sorry you see my opinion as pathetic. I don't know what else to say though. If it's okay for allyouracid to talk about this, and it's okay for you to call him ridiculous, why isn't it okay for me to say "I don't think it's ridiculous at all."? It's pathetic. If you don't want to get compared to tecshare then don't do exactly the same thing he did by trying to demonise people for using the feedback system appropriately all because you fell fowl of it.
Perhaps by "fell fowl of it" you mean "were abused by someone jockeying for power on it". Anyway, I agree that things seem to have gone afield of the original conversation. I hope you can try to respect my right to disagree with you. I respect your right to your opinion and you'll note that I haven't resorted to calling you names or insulting you. Best, --TSP |
|
|
|
Ah, thanks. Have just imported my BTC wallet (approx 3yrs old) and entered password as requested (currently at block 85567 in Clam) but nothing has happened as yet.
I guess it can take a while?
Once you're synced to block 10,000 you should be seeing your dug CLAMs. If you're not seeing any by block 85,000 then you don't have any. Are you sure that the BTC wallet you imported had a non-dust amount of BTC on 12th May 2014? Yep, I had a " in my passphrase. I have now changed that and started the import again. In some interfaces, you can "escape" the embedded quote using a backslash "myquote\"includingpassphrase" However, I now get: Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first. (code -13) Sounds like you're supposed to give the command "walletpassphrase WALLETPASSPHRASE" where the all caps is your actual passphrase. This is just a guess. It is a funny reading error message. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
