 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Our bitcoind has been serving us well, but recently some transactions have been stuck. Consider this example: {
"amount" : -2.95800000,
"fee" : -0.00040000,
"confirmations" : 0,
"txid" : "310791a1863c7a61b460795bfd76bda8adf1b1d309c91e489392b90e12c82e99",
"time" : 1392745775,
"timereceived" : 1392745775,
"details" : [
{
"account" : "",
"address" : "1FdYW7LvSmP9xejrdVKp6Fpe37WKRpoGKv",
"category" : "send",
"amount" : -2.95800000,
"fee" : -0.00040000
}
]
}Nothing special there, yet the transaction sits on our daemon, the amount deducted from available balance yet it does not get to reach the blockchain. How should we go to resolve this? |
|
|
|
|
Yeah the subject tells my dilemma. What's the short answer - why is the BTC rate on Bitstamp and MtGox consistently about $100 higher than the slightly smaller (yet still in top league) exchanges?
|
|
|
|
|
This may have been sidelined here a few times. I need help of the bright thinkers!
Say you want to develop a cryptocurrency for semi-closed environment that, to unknown extent, is planned to replace the national currency during many years ahead. Yeah grand thoughts, don't worry about that (note unknown extent)! You may consider this as a thought experiment.
Management, PR, valuation mechanisms, even technology are well planned and going to be in good hands. A major issue is the economic experience that we not only lack, but realize to be largely nonexistent. Formulating the best course of action for a p2p currency for with centralized issuance is in no books. But maybe some economic theories can be put into use here.
Theoretically, the currency is going to be majorly controlled by "the state" - whatever it means in the future (face it, the state is the single most powerful entity using and holding the bulk of funds in a nation).
The mode of minting the currency needs to be different from the start-from-scratch-and-let-everyone-mine-their-own-coins model. This is because:
- there are a handful (ideally <10) of organizations that in co-operation control the release of currency to public, arrange basic income / new currency adoption rewards for citizens, grant bounties for companies to motorize development of both technical and systemic reforms etc. These organizations not only regulate the release of tokens to benevolently oversee the adoption process, they also require mass funds converted to old world currency to continuously to keep the ball rolling.
- there are supposedly hundreds of second level operators who receive grants with limited release rights
- mining is supposed to remain tightly distributed - no ASIC not even GPU miners unless very sophisticated software is impemented
Now, the obvious solution for the above is PREMINE. [Let's omit the fact that has become a curse word in the pyramid crypto games. We are talking about a completely different scenario where centralizing the bulk of coins serves a purpose other than the storage guards becoming rich.]
The obvious remaining question is: How much premine?
The crypto needs to be fully issued in approx. 10, say max 15 years. This coin is not the final solution, but an important step towards eventually more healthy value transfer systems of unknown type.
We want the crypto to be relatively scarce. This with the time span sets the range for the block time, rewards, final # of coins etc. that need to be adjusted according to the level of premine eventually decided.
Having put in quite hard thinking already, I simply can't see even a ballpark figure of the premine % to start with! On the other hand the reputation of large premine puts us off, although there are valid points above that would make 90% or even 95%+ premine feasible.
Naturally, we need a healthy portion unmined to keep the incentive for p2p network to solve blocks for the 10+ years to come. What proportion would be healthy? Remember the centrally held premined millions are not to be partied with. They are held as reserve and to propel productivity. Thus, for being scarce (although mined, but unavailable), the coins should be well desirable.
50% would just be a "nice" symmetric figure as well. But I don't see great benefits with that. It only dilutes the circulating money and puts the rate at risk. We want a deflationary currency initially, like Bitcoin. Deflation brings along desirability and pulverizes many otherwise impossible obstacles for adoption. Receiving 10 coins a day out of 5 million (eg. 5% of 100M) available-to-mine-coins sounds actually more thrilling than receiving 10 coins out of 50 million (eg. 50% of 100M) available coins when you turn your head around that a bit.
Is it sufficient to arrange the required level of trust for 95% "premine", or is it doomed to fail like Ripple seems to have gone with their premine? XRP didn't handle it quite well from the beginning, which may turn out to be the crux of their likely failure. But can you still see some inherent economic problems with the large proportion central depository? Fractional banking is out of question, so this would still be fair money, just not to the extent where fair is understood as complete creation by the markets.
|
|
|
|
|
Needed: a client that allows the user to choose which address(es) the coins are sent from. I have done that manually with Multibit, transferring all coins in wallet to a single address before making a spend. But Multibit is currently for me unusable (cannot set tx fee), as is Armoury (too old computer). Even any web wallets with such a feature?
|
|
|
|
|
How do I set the transaction fee on Windows XP Multibit 5.14? It remains 0.0001 in the spend screen even when multibit.properties shows sendFee=0.0005 and previousSendFee=0.0005, and client is restarted. Transactions get easily stuck unconfirmed if the fee is 0.0001, thus rendering Multibit unusable for me at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
We would need to grant customers partial access to our bitcoin daemon's RPC API. Partial meaning basically all RPC calls (at least those related to accounts), but with only a portion of the full wallet balance available.
Do we need to write an RPC proxy "balance limiter" from scratch, or does there exist any such mediator software publicly or privately available? Note we cannot use the web wallets as access to our own bitcoind is required.
|
|
|
|
|
This is not particularly a bitcoin related question, but concerns all cryptocurrencies;
Suppose there arises the need to dispose of the existing codebase and migrate to a completely different algorithm / protocol (for instance from sha256 PoW to Proof of Stake), how difficult would it be to convert the whole blockchain to a different format in order to retain transaction history?
Naturally the size of blockchain has a large effect, but are there some particularly preventive difficulties instantly to be seen (for eg. sha256 or Scrypt)?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to use single bitcoind to securely allow remote access to multiple people's wallets? From initial look this could be done through a proxy site and cryptographically sufficient account names. Or can the account name be found by a third party easily?
If that is feasible, what is the magnitude of accounts a single <5yrs old dedicated server can handle seamlessly? Hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of accounts?
ADDENDUM: Talking mostly about single address per account.
|
|
|
|
|
We are in need of head developer to co-operate with for a TBA altcoin. Before proceeding there are many questions to be answered privately or publicly here, the best answer(s) are tipped.
My first question is, are there people willing to implement and support a variant of Primecoin for compensation paid in BTC (or partially the new coin, if you wish)? If it is not clear up to this point, simple copy-paste will not suffice.
Second, is it difficult to add a mixture of scrypt PoS and PoW to such a variant? I'm not very educated in PoS but am imagining it could be used to [benevolently] protect the issuer's interest as it will necessarily control a large share of the coinbase.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any effective way to protect an unreleased altcoin name other than going live and obtaining the relevant domain name? If there is dispute, then there just is dispute?
|
|
|
|
Graviton Capital Inc. is proud to present a genuine BTC <-> FRC realtime exchange: DGEX.comWe got fed up with the miserable state of exchanging FRC manually, had some code lying around for projects that are "coming soon" forever, so I quite literally whipped myself to prepare the exchange from scratch during the past 24 hours. Fully functional, moderately debugged and tested, securitywise using our standard framework, should be well feasible for the use of FRC hoarders right now and other altcoin traders in the not so distant future. * no demurrage * no trading fees! * 1% cashout fee * instant deposits of FRC and BTC * no hot wallets The site is officially in testing phase, operated in best effort basis and nothing is guaranteed. Taking note of these points, happy trading and feel welcome to post any remarks that will be addressed in this thread or the freicoin.org thread. |
|
|
|
Graviton Capital Inc. is proud to present: Goldtails.com - the authentic internet coin flip, as innovated in 2001. Goldtails was the first instant pay game ever [to the author's knowledge] and paved the way for what has long since become the standard in internet instant pay gaming. And now we're back in town! Verify the claim here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010724174919/http://www.goldtails.com/Goldtails offers: • 0-confirmation instant play without (or with, as preferable) registration • The best odds in the scene - pure 50-50 chances of winning a flip - provably fair • Account deposit and cashout functions, saving on transaction fees and further improving odds • Two levels deep 0.75% referral rewards • 2-confirmation cashouts with 2.5% fee (min. 0.001 BTC) • Daily flip against other players for up to 500% wins per day We are especially enthusiastic about the daily flip - invented in 2002, where you can use your psychological skills to outwit other players and win far more than the standard 200% your bet. If you manage to choose the face of coin that less than half of players choose for that day, you win - usually over 200% - at midnight. Minimum bet only 0.001 BTC. Maximum is adjusted as operating funds grow. Special promotions for the daily flip will be announced here on this forum. Goldtails is the site that true internet coin flip professionals use! Try it out and get hooked again to the oldest internet instant pay game ever. PS. Oldtimers knew us for rewarding good customers, like they do in Vegas |
|
|
|
I have old wallet.dat files that I cannot bring to my online machine due to fears of being compromised by trojans from mining software. 1.) If I download the latest blockchain with an empty wallet.dat, take my machine offline, and replace wallet.dat with my old one having bitcoins on it, should it show the correct balance? 2.) I already risked a wallet with 7.5 bitcoins on it. I cut connection as soon as I noticed it, noted the only two addresses I had in "Receive" tab (Bitcoin-qt 0.8.1 for Windows), and checked blockchain.info for those two addresses. The final balance of blockchain.info for both addresses shows nearly zero, while in bitcoin-qt with 2 days old blockchain it showed 7.5+ btc. There are no transactions this year for either of the addresses at blockchain.com Is the final balance supposed to show the same balance as bitcoin-qt wallet.dat? Please explain where the obvious discrepancy could arise from. [EDIT: For part 2. I just read an explanation from Bitcoin Wiki: The situation is made somewhat more confusing because the receiving addresses shown in the UI are not the only keys in your wallet. Each Bitcoin generation is given a new public key, and, more importantly, each sent transaction also sends some number of Bitcoins back to yourself at a new key. Confusing indeed, what a mess. I hope method 1. would be viable for knowing the up-to-date balance securely, anyone objecting?] |
|
|
|
We have released a test version of BotDice.UPDATE 2013-07-18: Just-Dice.com simulation added!Simulate thousands of Just-Dice / Satoshidice rounds with automatic progression and see how much you would win or lose with your betting strategy. From the simple options menu you can customize your bet progression extensively. Simulation lengths available are 100 or 1000 bets, just once or 100 sessions in a row. Current options include the following: Max rounds to play
Initial bankroll (cash)
Target profit %
Game type
Payout multiplier on win
Payout multiplier on loss
Initial bet amount
Adjust bet after win
Adjust bet after loss
Reset to initial bet after wins in a row
Reset to initial bet after losses in a row
Maximum single bet
Transaction fee per bet
Single session (show all bets) or big data (100 sessions just results)Try it out and see the statistical value of your strategy before risking your monies and wasting time on the Just-Dice / Satoshidice site in an attempt to find out the best strategy! It's also eye opening to notice how large effect the nasty transaction fees or their absence have on your final profit. Special thanks to mem for the inspiration arising from his memtingale simulator giving the igniting spark for this project! Project will be updated more or less regularly. It's still very early alpha. Please report any errors or requests to this thread. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin adherents once advertised transfer of value "for free or trivial fee". This is no longer the case. The higher USD rates and standard Bitcoin transfer fee amounts make the minimum fee about 5 US cents. It makes micropayments effectually nonfeasible, and for a transfer as high as $0.50 that's 10% overhead, which is hefty. Certainly that's far lower than Paypal minimums for instance, but average 1% per transaction for ordinary amounts above micro level is nothing to sneeze at. Do the transaction fees currently offer significant addition to miners' incentive? If not, with the rising profits already from finding blocks, could they consider collectively lowering the standard minimum fee for the benefit of the network, even better adoption rates (if it needs any in the current crazy momentum  )? Would this become a more potential option when the block size is increased (because of transaction rate requirements -> miner profits)? The perfect fee amount for equilibrium of expansion rate vs. fee income is high science, and needs to be found by trial and error. |
|
|
|
GCInc. has finally rolled out the changes to bring back the blockbuster e-currency gaming site from 2005 - 2007, and make it - yes - bitcoin compatible!Please feel free to try your luck at Gold Game Land, starting with 4 classic original games. We offer free 0.10 BTC for every registered client. The deposit and withdraw facilities are allowed to be used for instant exchange of Liberty Reserve USD to / from Bitcoin, for the price of a cashout fee that is currently set at 4%. The renewed site is in beta stage, so we will appreciate reporting of errors / anomalies to this thread or through the site contact page. Small rewards may be paid for findings of faults. Hacking attempts are encouraged  . Funds are limited while we currently require just 2 confirmations of deposits and provide instant cashouts of winnings. |
|
|
|
This must be a simple question, the answer for which has evaded us for too long - What ways are there to programmatically check the number of realtime confirmations for a single transfer (transaction)? I know there is blockchain.info with for instance this: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/4646689/9b441b2bee99dc5611757a25a22140aa6488f25fcbf26b5fddb324724abc1fe9from which the correct value could be parsed, but is there a simpler API somewhere that simply shows the number of confirmations? Blockchain.info rawtx does not show that, nor does blockexplorer.com? |
|
|
|
|
Another simple question, WHY is it recommended to use a new bitcoin address for different purposes, or even for every transaction? Is there some technological reason behind that, as it would be much clearer to use a single payment address to identify your "bitcoin account" to make it more like the old ways for transferring money that people are used to?
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
