 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
There's another feature request for Havelock which I would be interested in - but I understand if it's not possible.
Up until now I'd been using the difference between the total book value and total market value in Havelock's Account Overview to give me a rough guide as to how well or badly I was choosing my investments.
When you buy back B.EXCH and transfer B.MINE and B.SELL, the B.EXCH disappears from my portfolio (obviously) and the B.MINE and B.SELL come in with zero book value making it look - from those simple totals - like I've spent less on investments than I have.
Is there any way that B.MINE and B.SELL could be transferred in with a book value?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the detailed explanation - that's really helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm trying to understand this properly, but I can't quite get my head around it.
If I have 1 MINE and 1 SELL, then common sense tells me that I'm not going to make money.
But, every day the MINE will pay dividends, and every difficulty change the SELL may (and probably will based on the past) pay dividends.
Am I right in thinking that the way I'm losing money by holding both is that the price of EXCH goes down every difficulty change and therefore the market value of MINE and SELL follows it down?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
How exactly will Grand Parents bitch about the hardships of their youth with a deflationary currency. "The more I spend the cheaper things get"
Well you don't need to be that old to remember when RAM was something like $50 per MB! You kids... I was just going to say about how the first PC I owned cost £500 - it had a 100MHz processor, 4MB RAM and a 300MB hard drive... |
|
|
|
Yes, I get that you're far smarter than I am - but please enlighten me. Where is the hole in JoelKatz's logic?
Other than being false? Which bit is false? If something is going to be worth $X in the forseable future then it makes sense to pay nearly $X for it now. The difference comes from the risk of it not being worth $X when you think it will and the value to you of having $X in your hand now. |
|
|
|
Why? (That is, why is it stupid? I assume that you laughed quite audibly because you thought it was funny)
I can't find any hole in that logic.
LOL...it just never stops here. Yes, I get that you're far smarter than I am - but please enlighten me. Where is the hole in JoelKatz's logic? |
|
|
|
|
There's no way to overcome this problem at a theoretical level without people up the supply chain accepting Bitcoin.
People up the supply chain will accept Bitcoins if it is in their business interests to do so - so the question becomes "under what circumstances is it going to be in a supplier's interest to accept Bitcoins?"
For a startup, the initial barrier to trading (especially internationally) in Bitcoins might be lower than other forms of payment. The costs may be lower so they can sell goods for a lower price than their competitors while making the same profit. If you are the only supplier accepting Bitcoins then that might bring you some extra sales too.
|
|
|
|
This is based on a misunderstanding of what predictable deflation does in a market. In fact, predictable deflation is already priced into the current price of a bitcoin. If a bitcoin is expected to be worth $25 next year, it cannot possibly be worth $10 right now because all the people who would rather have $25 next year than $10 now would bid the price up.
HAHAHAHA... This, now this is a special kind of stupid. I literally laughed quite audibly. Why? (That is, why is it stupid? I assume that you laughed quite audibly because you thought it was funny)I can't find any hole in that logic. |
|
|
|
|
When it says "E-5" it means that the decimal is moved back 5 places
So 7.984E-5
= 0.7984E-4
= 0.07984E-3
= 0.00007984 BTC
|
|
|
|
IPv6 needs to be switched on globally and most of these problems would go away.
I've just noticed this comment. How do you think that IPv6 would protect against DDoS? It offers some protection against random scanning due to the large address space, but as far as I know it wouldn't do anything to help against this kind of attack. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, I think I might be able to see how this worked...
Are you outputting something along the lines of md5sum("Left-Left-Right")?
If so, it's a simple dictionary attack... the gambler computes the 15 possible different MD5sums in advance and then compares them to what displays.
|
|
|
|
I'm a retard, I forgot to switch to random.org after testing: //get a random number for next game:
/*$ch = curl_init('http://www.random.org/integers/?num=1&min=1&max=8&col=1&base=10&format=plain&rnd=new');
curl_setopt ($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
$randnum = trim(curl_exec($ch));*/
$randnum=rand(1,8); //temp
But that still doesn't explain to me how they could know rand() was going to return three 1's in a row. I might be being dumb here (I'm not logged on and don't have anything deposited,) but the MD5 on the page doesn't change when you refresh the page. That suggests that the same combination is coming up every time. |
|
|
|
Whats to stop them from simply solo mining ... they are a bot net ... they should have power enough to match most mining pools ?
It's a lot more work?  1. They're likely to be CPU mining, so probably don't have the power of even the smallest mining pool 2. It's more tracable since it will be going back to 1 bitcoind daemon 3. If you're likely to be taken offline at any point it's better to get small regular payouts than possibly one large one, but probably nothing. |
|
|
|
|
And to think I thought I was getting a bargain at £13.50...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that VoIP maps onto Bitcoin very well. Bitcoin is good for distributing information - so would work as a directory - but information does not spread through the network quickly enough to make things like calls work in the way people are used to.
|
|
|
|
There is no argument, just make what you want. If you want a iPhone-like GUI, make a iPhone-like GUI. If you want a better wxWindows-based GUI, make a better wxWindows-based GUI. I really don't understand some of the people here.
You can either work with me or do your own thing. Open source = freedom.
And if you can't make it, offer a BTC bounty for someone else to. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a reason why this project isn't done as a fork of bitcoin on github? It seems to me that it would be easier to integrate changes from the core of the reference client if it was.
(By the way, that's intended as a respectful question and not a criticism just in case it comes across that way.)
|
|
|
|
Did you try to build using just mingw or cygwin instead of MS VS?
I've only tried mingw so far as it's integrated with QT Creator. As I understand it there can be big problems trying to link libraries compiled by MS VS to a program being compiled in mingw (I'm not an expert on Windows type stuff, but nobody else seemed to be actively trying...) |
|
|
|
I'm still trying to get the Windows build working. If anyone's able to answer this then it would be really helpful. Current status: 1 build error which I think is due to the old version of BDB which I'm using (I had trouble compiling BDB under Windows so I found a pre-compiled version and used that.) Leaving out the 2 header files which are causing a problem for me might have knock-on effects though so I don't think its as close to working as it looks. |
|
|
|
I've hit a problem I haven't been able to solve yet in the Windows build. Can anyone help? I have the same problem building that Jaromil has here. The solution for that is to remove "-l." from configure.ac What is the equivalent with the QT SDK? |
|
|
|
|
