|
SgtSpike, casascius: no, this is not it.
According to Micon, he already tried to remove the whitespace, it still didn't work for him.
For me, when I remove the whitespace, it does work, so either it is user error on his side, or a bug (an instance running on Windows cannot accept an invitation code from an instance running on Mono?)
|
|
|
|
kakobrekla, the bet has already been placed 2 days ago. We are just running a separate test. Besides, I had a bet on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 but Micon refused to trust it, so I think he would have refused to trust bitbet as well. |
|
|
|
Ok, Micon, I generated the same address as you for this coin flip. I sent 0.001 BTC to it: http://blockchain.info/address/1JhXYPL22cZF3q9iXqKRz5iPfFarDH9DNmCasascius: it would be great if you investigated why Micon encountered the error when he tried to be a payer with my payment invitation code: einvpQjRf4Gi9yodNgaFfYrvCiBtfSyXyrwvAZXcKR7rWJzZLiyYLse74RjT6DxEcz8g9MporecpRL5 mC74n36QiMvkcZw28Vh9cvgpz1a which should have produced the address 1JUsk88BGbZbRs3R3JoKxeR4Mc9sxf74kQ You have all 3 pieces (a, b, payment invitation) to investigate. |
|
|
|
|
Micon: then create the payment invitation, and send it to me.
|
|
|
|
|
One way to work around the flaw is via a slight change of process: before a person sends to the bitcoin address, he or she privately announces to the escrow the exact amount to be transferred (eg. 10.00001234 BTC when 10 BTC were supposed to be sent). Because the less significant digits have been predicted, the escrow can trust that this person originated this transfer.
Or, the proper way to solve the flaw IMHO is to have the escrow program generate not 1, but 2 bitcoin addresses: person A is supposed to send to address A, and person B is supposed to send to address B.
|
|
|
|
It's basically impossible to find any actual news about BFL amid the 130 pages of "LOL SCAM!!" "No U!" "I LIK UR DONGS". Josh asked me to clean it up, but it basically an impossible task at this point. I offered instead to split the thread (e.g. break it at the top post) but he declined. Well, regardless of what BFL staff thinks, I think it would ultimately be better for everyone to keep the polite, informed, and on-topic discussion in a separate thread from the madcap forum drama.
Here is a radical suggestion to reduce trolling: take the top N users that have the most ignores, and temporarily or permanently ban them from the forum. N as low as 3-5 will work very well, since most of the trolling involves the handful of the most ignored users. |
|
|
|
there is no delay in CC refunds - only short delay in BTC refunds because we need to buy more BTC
So, THAT is why the exchange rate has jumped from $13 to $17. I have seriously suspected this was you the whole time  No jokes! |
|
|
|
|
IMHO it is a complete waste of money and time to set up redundant power for a mining operation. I mean do the math, people.
A miner shouldn't care if he is down 1 day every year due to power outages. That's only a downtime of 0.27% therefore a 0.27% loss of your yearly mining profits... This is not like a high-traffic e-commerce website where a downtime of 1 day during the christmas season would cost you a bigger percentage of your revenues.
|
|
|
|
One more time, I was right. *sigh* Either he was a ponzi but still refuses to admit it, or he was "an overly confident man who is wrong to claim to be a low risk investment" (quote below). Please tell me what differentiates you from a Ponzi scheme? You match almost all red flags established by the U.S. SEC from http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm#RedFlags : - High investment returns with little or no risk: Check. You claim it is "low risk" while returning an insane 180-370% yearly (2-3% weekly)
- Overly consistent returns: Check.
- Secretive and/or complex strategies: Check.
- Etc... with the exception of difficulty receiving payment, because your scheme has yet to collapse.
Any intelligent investor should assume that you are a Ponzi. Therefore I predict that your scheme will eventually collapse and default. I was right when I predicted this for pirate, I will be right this time again. I strongly recommend current Dank Bank investors to stress test the scheme by withdrawing all their funds at once on a particular day, this will collapse the scheme immediately.This is hilarious. I have three investors, I've had five in total. That screams ponzi? Yes. Again, you match almost all the Ponzi red flags from the above list. A Ponzi scheme can be sustained with even just 1 investor, as long as the rate of his/her withdrawals don't exceed the rate of deposits. For example, to convince us you are not malicious, you would publish a lot more information about what you invest in. But you don't. That doesn't mean I'm running a ponzi. [...] But that's how you look to potential investors: you look very much like a Ponzi with a 95% probability, based on the information you give them. At best, you are an overly confident man who is wrong to claim to be a "low risk" investment. But I am not there to argue with you. I am there to warn potential investors/victims. |
|
|
|
SMF breaks up long words by inserting a space every 79 characters (it is a space in a <span> with a negative margin). Example: here are 120 'a' characters: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa When copying/pasting the chars, the space is visible at the 80th position, which is very annoying... Instead, SMF should insert the standardized <wbr> tag ( word break opportunity) already recognized by most browsers. In theory <wbr> is identical to U+200B (ZERO-WIDTH SPACE) but this is false; for example the current Chrome version on Linux (Version 23.0.1271.97) replaces U+200B with '#' when copying & pasting to a non-UTF8 application, whereas <wbr> is nicely invisible... |
|
|
|
|
Micon, everything is fine. I copied and pasted the invitation out of the PM I sent you, and with my code A I am able to regenerate the same Bitcoin address. As you said, it seems that the pb is your code B.
PS: The space that casascius is talking about is inserted by the forum software (it's a space in a <span> with a negative margin!) to allow long words to wrap. This is really crappy... It should instead use <wbr> which doesn't break copy/paste (optional line break, finally standardized in html5).
|
|
|
|
|
I must have miscopied smthg. Will check things in 3h when I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
Dooglus, you need to install the Ubuntu package I mention a few comments above...
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea. We don't have to bet on a real-world event. Let's just do a test with .001 BTC each. Let's decide that you "win", and you can keep the coins for this test.
Casascius: I think it is important that *you* generate us another (a,b) pair the exact same way you generated them so far. What if you accidentally run a version of BtcAddress.exe that happens to be a debug version you accidentally left on your system in your PATH that generates invite/escrow codes that fail to lead to a valid private key? I don't know. I am just being overly cautious here. I am a software veteran and can think of dozen of bugs why this wouldn't work, although I am 99% sure everything works, as you said the bitcoin address is the same.
|
|
|
|
Casascius: ok.
Micon: let's raise the stakes. I feel confident about using Casascius' self-escrow app. Can we put down at least an additional 90 BTC each?
I am interested in betting more as well. Some of my close poker associates are watching the entire BFL thread & this bet thread. Give me 24 hrs and let me see how much interest there is with my friends, and either way I'll personally fire more coin on BFL failure on a very similar statement than what we already have. Ok. Let me know as soon as you are ready to send 90 BTC. I can send my coins first. |
|
|
|
|
Casascius: ok.
Micon: let's raise the stakes. I feel confident about using Casascius' self-escrow app. Can we put down at least an additional 90 BTC each?
|
|
|
|
|
I sent my 10 BTC as well!
|
|
|
|
I do beleive this is why BFL are now refusing to give refunds,
You can't make bold statements like this. BFL has never refused to refund someone AFAIK. This is my statment, I can be as bold as I like (joke)  But seriously, I beleive a partial refund is not a full refund, Ergo "no refunds" Just my view, Although it could be just on BTC? maybe fiat currency's can be refunded in full? They do reimburse the full USD amount. |
|
|
|
Ok, I installed Mono (and libmono-system-windows-forms4.0-cil which is needed to run casascius's app), Micon sent me the payment invitation code, and I used the Be a Payer tab to generate the same address as Micon: 1MmwAtYGs3ZGEtE8VKQFzcKufLXnFZSNyD ... so in theory I could pay that. But Micon, I would prefer not giving casascius the payment invitation, so please regenerate a new one. Casascius: when clicking the Done button to generate the Bitcoin addr, the app throws an ugly warning which doesn't make sense to me: The Payment Invitation Code appears to have been generated from the same Escrow Invitation Code you entered, and not its mate. You might be verifying a Payment Invitation you produced yourself, rather than one produced by your trading partner.
I did not produce the payment invitation myself, Micon did! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
