Why would that be the case? If you stored strong salted hashes of the URI keys, then it would be next to impossible for the attacker to brute force valid URIs out of your DB. The fact that the actual keys appear to be stolen and you set up a long time (3 months) instead of a short time for claims process raises suspicion.

Please do officially confirm that you did not store the secret in plain text on a webserver.

Also, how do you store user passwords in other Paymium services? Thanks.

This is the project's self description, taken from their website. Emphasis added by me. By donating you are supporting religious missionaries who who are doing this only for their fellows, not for any homeless person, like the thread title kind of suggests.

OP: Put your company address onto your website, so it can be verified? Scan your business registration and upload it here? Take some photos of your office/workshop? Meet at least two trusted forum members to verify your ID in person? Show proof of ASIC development? Then we can talk.

To keep the game accessible for people who want to bet amounts less than 100 USD, the bitcoin denominated value of bets would have to be lowered with a rising BTC price, which will reduce BTC profits.

"It's currently making about 15 BTC a month"

What you are saying is that bitcoingem made 15 BTC a month with an average of 50 USD per bitcoin in march. In april the average price may very well be 200 USD per bitcoin and most people expect it to rise even higher in the long-term.

So there are two possibilities:

A. Keep the BTC denominated bets the same and potentially lose a lot of players who wouldn't want to risk 200-500 USD in a single bet; or

B. Lower the BTC denominated bets and reduce BTC profits.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, why has rando's identity not been published yet?

I was under the impression that 50% of all profits were to be distributed to the investors and the other half to the Bitfountain founders. Now it's become roughly 41% for investors and 59% for BF because you stopped selling shares early. Did the original contract allow for this?

What if ASICMINER had been fully funded after only 50k shares were sold instead of after 164k, because of a sudden rise in BTC price? Then we'd have 50k/400k = 12.5% share for investors and 350,000/400,000 = 87.5% share for Bitfountain now?

Doesn't look like a fair solution to me. To get back to a 50/50 ratio for investors and founders, as it was originally announced, you'd have to subtract the 36k unallocated shares from the 200k Bitfountain shares instead of adding them. No?

Can you finally take your algorithm, GLBSE and 51% discussions somewhere else, please? I came here to look for news on ASICMINER, spent ten minutes to skim through the last few pages and found none.


Nope. ASICMINER security is based on GLBSE security, GLBSE security is based on SSL and Bitcoin security and so on. Shall we discuss everything in this thread now because things depend on other things? Just stop it.

It is morally reprehensible, but IMHO you can't complain without holding some double standards. The concept of insider trading isn't applicable to an anonymous free market. Everyone involved made the informed decision to invest on the GLBSE instead of a regulated stock exchange. And those who draw on the benefits have to put up with the drawbacks. You can't pick and choose the best of two opposite worlds.


24h average on the GLBSE is at ~50%.

Assuming it's not a scam... this is the most interesting and entertaining contribution I've read in the past few days. People who are still betting against a default probably have exactly this plan in mind. Pirate waits as long as possible so he can buy back his own liabilities cheaply. Then he starts a few payments to initiate another crash and finally buys coins to repay investors. I couldn't come up with a better scheme, it's brilliant.

And if he pulls THIS through, he's earned the Balls-of-Steel-Award, no questions asked.

I'm pretty sure this will be rightfully refused for security reasons.

It's not that complex to do...

- Verify deposits and add them to internal transaction table
- Send all deposits to main wallet
- Dump all internal transactions into the table
- Select all transactions of user to get account balance
- Authorize withdrawals <= account balance from main wallet

IMHO this is easier and faster than using bitcoin transactions and it puts less clutter into the blockchain. You may want to consider a service like coinbin for integration.

Generally bitcoin shouldn't be used to outsource internal accounting, you wouldn't use Paypal for that either. Not because of the fees and complexity of Paypal IPNs, but because it's the wrong approach altogether.

Only deposits and withdrawals should be done on the blockchain. Whatever people bet on a game or what percentage referrals get should be done by internal accounting in your script and not with actual bitcoin transactions.

Ich wollte schon lange mal in den Room 77, nur um in der realen Welt etwas mit Bitcoin bezahlt zu haben. Kommt am Wochenende vielleicht noch jemand?

G'day Brendio, I'm from Berlin and I've always wanted to visit Room 77 just because it's possible to pay with Bitcoin. On which day will you be there? Definitely interested to talk to one of the more famous bitcointalk people.

Ich kann nachvollziehen wie du zu dieser Interpretation kommst, aber ich sehe in fornits Beitraegen in erster Linie eine gutgemeinte Warnung an den OP, seine Zeit nicht zu verschwenden. Wenn wir die Situation stark vereinfachen, dann gibt es:

1. Unterschiedliche Wege, die eigene Arbeitskraft zu verkaufen (online/offline).

Beispiel: Wenn jemand 2 Stunden pro Woche einen normalen Job macht, kommen da im Monat 60 Euro (6 BTC) rein. Wenn diese Bannerklickerei durchschnittlich mit 0.1 BTC pro Stunde bezahlt wird, was wohl eher hoch angesetzt ist, dann muesste mindestens 15 Stunden pro Woche gearbeitet werden, um in einem Monat 6 BTC (60 Euro) zu verdienen. Auch wenn die Klickerei komfortabler ist als Kellnern oder irgendwas, dann rechtfertigt das diesen riesigen Zeitaufwand nicht.

2. Unterschiedliche Waehrungen, in denen der Zeitaufwand bezahlt wird.

Es ist irrelevant, in welcher Waehrung die Arbeitskraft bezahlt wird, so lange diese Waehrungen problemlos gegeneinander austauschbar sind, was auf BTC/EUR mittlerweile zutrifft. Wenn der OP Bitcoins verdienen will, ist es also besser, fuer Euro zu arbeiten und dann gegen BTC zu tauschen, statt extrem unterbezahlt direkt fuer BTC zu arbeiten.

Zudem bezahlen die Werber nur etwas fuer Bannerklicks, weil sie erwarten, durch die gekauften Besucher Umsatz zu generieren. Wenn OP dort sowieso nichts bezahlen will, macht das die Taetigkeit 100% sinnlos und die Klickpreise werden auch noch weiter nach unten gedrueckt.

+1
+1

PS: Ulrich, wenn du fuer einen hirnlosen Onlinejob unbedingt mit Bitcoins bezahlt werden willst, koennte ich dir was anbieten, das mehr Kohle bringt. (Aber immer noch weniger als ein normaler Eurojob.)

You will not be creating any asset at all because nobody will send you money. At this point it doesn't even matter if you're a wannabe scammer or a wannabe fond manager. You've been trolling this forum for NINE WEEKS now and you couldn't come up with 100 USD of your own. No one is going to invest a single bitcent in your "fond", even if you miraculously succeeded to get on the GLBSE. You've disqualified yourself in every imaginable way. Get real.

Some of the user-unfriendliness is probably rooted in the perceived inconsistence of user experience. With conventional payment processors like Paypal you do everything in a single environment. Create account, deposit money, send payment, receive payment, everything is done using the same interface. To use a standalone Bitcoin client you not only need to install software and setup secure backups, you also have to choose a currency exchange service. So you end up using at least two seperate and different user interfaces.

OP asked how Bitcoin can improve the situation and in this regard the answer is it can't, because this is the very foundation of how Bitcoin works. Available standalone clients are already pretty straightforward to use, so there's little room for improvement.

However, most computer illiterate people may choose to not use a standalone client but rather the webwallet supplied by their currency exchange service. Though they surrender some advantages of Bitcoin, they can have a consistent and familiar user experience, which is highly important. An account-based webwallet is quite similar to a Paypal after all.

Somewhat offtopic: I don't think we're going there. Bitcoin may be one of those kind of inventions where the underlying concept is revolutionary, but the first actual implementation has disadvantages over newer ones. Let's assume we have 2022 now, Bitcoin price has risen by two to three orders of magnitude and there's a Newcoin with stable hashrate in existance. I'd probably prefer the Newcoin because at the point of time where 5% has been mined it's going to have a fairer distribution of wealth. There are no early adopters that were able to buy/mine substantial percentages of coins almost for free. Also, there will be less volatility because no one can drop huge early adopter holdings into the market.

Besides more objective concerns the Bitcoin legacy may have a psychological impact: Once a Newcoin has "arrived" - will people buy a Bitcent for 1000$ if they know that quite a few people own quite a few Bitcents they bought for a Dollar or less? I don't see Altcoins becoming worthwhile in the next few years, but as Bitcoin becomes more widely adopted and the price rises, as the concept of cryptocurrency becomes general knowledge, people will be more and more concerned about the infancy period of Bitcoin and eventually create a successor. My guess is it will happen within 5-10 years from now. This doesn't mean Bitcoin will become worthless, it won't. But it will neither fulfill the prophecies of becoming the one major worldwide cryptocurrency. All it takes is the well-coordinated and widely supported creation of Newcoin once the time is ripe.

(EDIT: Clarification on my implication of Bitcoin wealth distribution being "unfair": I do not think it's unfair at all. Early adopters played a vital role in establishing Bitcoin. They will be rewarded for thinking ahead an risking money in a revolutionary project. Above I'm referring to the fairness *perceived* by the general public in 2022 after a major increase in price.)

Well, if you put all new accounts into a subforum and force them to post, then you're obviously getting a mess. Maybe you're co-creating something that wouldn't exist otherwise. (See? In my right mind I wouldn't make such a pointless circular argument, but the voices rules made me do it. Second post, heading north.)

I dislike the current system strongly. There are still people on the internet who'd never post stupid questions but rather lurk, then lurk some more and finally submit only a few well thought-out contributions. At the moment I really can't motivate myself to create meaningful content in a spammy sub-forum just to increment my post count. There are more pleasant activities to waste time on. Getting back to the lurk cave.