The next stage of enlightenment happens when you read Gavin's posts about how having a default value at all is temporary until the code for automatically calculating one based on a market mechanism between users and miners is ready.
I can't wait for the next implementations that fix the problem of decentralized market TX rates. But related, while different, the blockchain needs to smart-purge obsolete blocks(transactions that have been both max confirmed and transfered completely from the block of origin.) I remember this annoying issue with a dust-wallet I have. Its only purpose is for dust transactions. While I try to use my own concept of minimizing dust by using a dedicated dust-wallet, everyone has to realize that many BTC users have this very same problem. Many of them are newbies who are learning the complexities of the whole BitCoin world. Newbies are an important part of growing the BitCoin adoption.  I'm going to continue collecting dust transactions, others will also continue collecting dust transactions. So lets push for better solutions than centrally planned solutions, even if temporary(and right now, the word temporary is merely a promise as of 0.8.2, not the fact of the situation.) The best way to purge dust is to include the dust addresses in with your normal use wallet. I've had plenty of dust go to my mainly used address, some as small as 3 satoshis, but they've all been spent at one time or another with larger BTC outputs, automatically. At one time, I looked at the unspent transactions, and had a dozen or two, but now, I only have 3 unspent outputs. And I've never paid more than a 0.0005 BTC fee, either. |
|
|
|
|
I previously spoke out against this. Now that I know it is simply a default, and the mintxrelay is an optional setting, I am fine with the change.
|
|
|
|
|
I traded 10,000 ripples for a little over 1 BTC using bitstamp as my "base currency" or "issuer"... how do I actually withdraw those Bitcoins from my ripple wallet to my own Bitcoin wallet?
|
|
|
|
We have 43 registered customer accounts... And the winner, using random.org's reorder system, is simonk83! Congrats! I will contact you for an address to send the 1 BTC prize. Thank you all for participating, and be sure to check out FirstbitsRepo.com for some excellent, short and easy to remember firstbits addresses! |
|
|
|
Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Shame of them limiting the amount to one satoshi! it should be 1/100000 of a satoshi..... What kind of argument is that?  You have a point, but Bitcoin started with an understanding that 1 satoshi was the minimum. Now, we're being told that the limit is 5340 satoshis, with no free-market input on the matter. It's rather disappointing. Individuals should be able to decide what size of transaction is too small - we shouldn't all be forced to suddenly abide by the same arbitrary rule. This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. Uh. You realize your "should" are describing the change here, right? Yes, but there is no choice in the matter (as far as I am aware). Will there be an option where I can set what transaction amounts I wish to propogate and what transaction amounts I wish to block? This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. In this way, the free market would choose an appropriate minimum transaction size, as people could be waiting for days or weeks for their transactions to propagate the network and/or be included in a block if they are too small.
I can see all sorts of unintended consequences coming out of this. This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
Miners decide whether they include this patch or not. Same as in all Bitcoin forks. Including transactions is voluntary in all forks that I know of. True, but then those miners will receive no future updates. If 0.8.2 and onward include this patch, then those who disagree with the patch will be forever left on 0.8.1. |
|
|
|
|
This is a terrible idea, IMO. Miners and full nodes should be able to decide which transactions to relay and include in blocks, and which transactions to not. An option to set a minimum amount per output or transaction should be built in to the client. So miners, if they believe transactions below a certain size to be dust, should set the option to not propagate transactions below that certain size. In this way, the free market would choose an appropriate minimum transaction size, as people could be waiting for days or weeks for their transactions to propagate the network and/or be included in a block if they are too small.
I can see all sorts of unintended consequences coming out of this. This is a fundamental change of Bitcoin, and really seems to go against the idea of freedom of financial transactions. Now, we will be regulated to only sending transactions of a certain size. No free market choice here...
Bleh.
|
|
|
|
Win 1 BTC Promotion I am holding a 1 BTC drawing! Simply register an account at firstbitsrepo.com, fill in your bitcointalk.org username in the Account Information page at firstbitsrepo.com, and then post in this thread stating that you registered (no need to post any information about your account here). The drawing will be in two weeks, on May 5th. Good luck! Today is the day  Indeed! I will do the drawing this evening. |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Firstbits do not create spam any more than any other transaction creates spam. They solve real problems in a simple and better way than any other address shortener ever has. Well all it solves is a easily verifiable database, that makes other people to verify it for you technically. I mean there are other ways to solve it, that don't spam the blockchain. Like centralized, unverifiable databases? You could make an alt coin, you could do crypto-functions and use data, to store the data in a centralized location and still make it verifiable without the database being released. I mean there are other ways. Sadly popular shorteners like payb.tc aren't any of those and it is popular so yeah. How would an alt coin just for shortening addresses be a good thing? Sounds like something no one would ever use, considering firstbits is built right in to Bitcoin - no need to have yet another blockchain taking up space and CPU cycles on your computer. I'll agree with you that it is sad that a shortener like payb.tc is popular though! |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Firstbits do not create spam any more than any other transaction creates spam. They solve real problems in a simple and better way than any other address shortener ever has. Well all it solves is a easily verifiable database, that makes other people to verify it for you technically. I mean there are other ways to solve it, that don't spam the blockchain. Like centralized, unverifiable databases? |
|
|
|
● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down.
● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address.
● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets.
● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips.
● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first.
I could go thru many of these points and argue, saying there are other ways to solve these issues. But if you want to really kill off first bits, create an alt coin like namecoin that all they do is store shortener ID and the bitcoin address it points to. First bits is at the basic an encourage of spam and we can't have that right now. I'm sorry, I completely disagree. Firstbits do not create spam any more than any other transaction creates spam. They solve real problems in a simple and better way than any other address shortener ever has. |
|
|
|
The current site owner no longer has interest in maintaining the site. I am talking to him about taking it over and getting it back up and running!
That will be nice if you could get the site back up. Firstbits are encouraging spamming the blockchain... So I think it is good it is gone. How so? Well the way a first bit is calculated is by it's place in the blockchain, so if an address isn't in the blockchain no firstbits can be correctly calculated. So lets say for very example purposes I had 1gh356 and you had 1gh354 if you gets coins to your address before me, then you would have 1gh35, and I would get 1gh356, even if my address was created before yours. That is why it is a verifiable system. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FirstbitsI guess I don't see how this leads to any large amount of blockchain spam. It may not but it is extra spam we don't need... Firstbits are quite useful, actually... I'll steal from my website's FAQ as to why: ● Consolidating wallets between different computers. A quick firstbits lookup will show the full address to send Bitcoins to, rather than having to email a full Bitcoin address to myself or attempting to manually copy it down. ● Relative needs to pay me back for dinner? A friend bought a piece of computer hardware from me? If they need to pay me, I simply tell them what firstbits address to send it to, rather than having to remember to carry a QR code with me or emailing them a full Bitcoin address. ● Shortening the address for space-sensitive online postings, such as forum signatures, forum avatar text, email signatures, or tweets. ● Tipping! In the future, artists might sign their artwork with their firstbits addresses, in an effort to gain tips for as long as the image circulates. Writing in a full Bitcoin address wouldn't be practical, and relying on a centralized address shortener wouldn't ensure longevity of their tips. ● Memorizing the Bitcoin addresses of other people. For example, I might know that my own firstbits address is 1justin, which can prove handy, but because they are so short, I might also remember a friend's firstbits address is 1jones, and a relative's firstbits address is 1jerry. In this way, I can pay them for any reason at any time without having to ask them for an address first. |
|
|
|
The current site owner no longer has interest in maintaining the site. I am talking to him about taking it over and getting it back up and running!
That will be nice if you could get the site back up. Firstbits are encouraging spamming the blockchain... So I think it is good it is gone. How so? Well the way a first bit is calculated is by it's place in the blockchain, so if an address isn't in the blockchain no firstbits can be correctly calculated. So lets say for very example purposes I had 1gh356 and you had 1gh354 if you gets coins to your address before me, then you would have 1gh35, and I would get 1gh356, even if my address was created before yours. That is why it is a verifiable system. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FirstbitsI guess I don't see how this leads to any large amount of blockchain spam. |
|
|
|
This is good stuff, SgtSpike. The more players who play your server, the better our shot at Minecraft itself. And other platforms.
Sent two bits. Two bitbits?
It is good indeed! I see lots of new people being introduced to Bitcoin this way. Very exciting.  |
|
|
|
The current site owner no longer has interest in maintaining the site. I am talking to him about taking it over and getting it back up and running!
That will be nice if you could get the site back up. Firstbits are encouraging spamming the blockchain... So I think it is good it is gone. How so? |
|
|
|
Have you tried the various legit markets?
Lol. |
|
|
|
This is just in: Taxes and other expenses rise proportionally! You are nitpicking something I wasn't even concerned about, well done. Oh here you have it: You're right.  What? I'm not nitpicking - I'm saying you're dead wrong. Which, you are. The information provided does not give any sort of conclusion with regards to the cost of payment processing. There is literally ZERO information about payment processing fees. And yet you're trying to say that people buying longer subscriptions with Bitcoin than with Paypal is "essentially, in this case the same thing" as Coinbase having a 32% better price when it comes to payment processing. These things have no relationship to each other, whatsoever. It is not essentially the same thing. It is not close to the same thing. At all. So please, retract your statements and stop spreading misinformation. This has absolutely nothing to do with fees, efficiency of payment processing, or anything else of that nature. Revenue does not take into account expenses of any kind. Ever. Period.
Not even customer-side fees? Does you have 10010 dollar in revenue when a customer has to pay 10 dollars to transfer 10000 dollars?  Customer-side fees are irrelevant to the merchant recording the revenue. In your example, the merchant would record $10,000 of revenue. |
|
|
|
|
I have a first-day preorder for 2 BFL 60 GH/s SC Miners.
Technically, it is a pre-first-day preorder, since it was an order for FPGA's from 6/14 or thereabouts that I upgraded into an order for SC Singles. It has been confirmed by BFL customer service staff that they consider my order a "first day" order, and it will be one of the first to be shipped out, once they start shipping the SC Singles.
I will sell one of them for auction, starting at 200 BTC. Bids should be in increments of at least 1 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Oooh, these are very special/interesting ones indeed! Almost up there with the first-day minted coins!
|
|
|
|
|
Heck, I would sell both of mine for that much and they're first-day preorders!
|
|
|
|
They have a 32% advantage* with coinbase over paypal when it comes to the price of payment processing.
If anything that shows coinbases pricing is very competitive... they just happen to process bitcoin.
*that does not include bitcoin network fees and exchange slippage though.....
No, they don't. They brought in 32% more revenue PER TRANSACTION compared to Paypal. Revenue is income before any expenses, fees, taxes, etc. Which is essentially, in this case the same thing. Not at all. You said "They have a 32% advantage * with coinbase over paypal when it comes to the price of payment processing." This is not true. The price (or better put, cost) of payment processing is not factored into revenue numbers, because revenue is income before any expenses, fees, taxes, etc.Let me give you an example, since you're still not getting it. 1 year subscription is $29.99 1 month subscription is $3.99 Paypal stats (example): - 1851 transactions - 695 year-long subscriptions - 1,156 month-long subscriptions Bitcoin stats (example): - 71 transactions - 35 year-long subscriptions - 36 month-long subscriptions Paypal usage = 96.31% (1851 / 1922) Bitcoin usage = 3.69% (71 / 1922) Paypal total revenue = $25,455.49 (695 * 29.99 + 1,156 * 3.99) Bitcoin total revenue = $1,193.29 (35 * 29.99 + 36 * 3.99) Paypal revenue % = 95.52% (25,455.49 / 26,648.78) Bitcoin revenue % = 4.48% (1,193.29 / 26,648.78) So, Bitcoin revenue compared to Bitcoin usage is up by 21%! Does that mean that Bitcoin is 21% more efficient than Paypal at processing payments? Of course not! It simply means that Bitcoin users bought higher priced items than Paypal users did. If you notice, almost 50% of Bitcoin users bought a year long subscription, vs only 37% of Paypal users doing the same. This has absolutely nothing to do with fees, efficiency of payment processing, or anything else of that nature. Revenue does not take into account expenses of any kind. Ever. Period. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
