|
I think 3D movies are pretty neat myself. I watched The Avengers in 3D and loved it. That said, I don't mind 2D.
I'd love to try gaming in 3D though - that sounds awesome.
|
|
|
|
do you think there is any chance of using an off-the shelf software platform?
I would say it is far, far more likely to have success with adding plugins/extensions to off-the-shelf software than to have new forum software programmed from scratch. I haven't seen any features yet that would require programming from scratch, so why reinvent the wheel? |
|
|
|
|
Alright, I quickly put firstbits.net up, but right now it just reads from blockchain.info's API. I need to rewrite the engine for calculating them, because the original one was simply too slow.
|
|
|
|
|
My "fix" is to remove the client-side "mandatory" fee altogether, and instead make suggestions for fees on every transaction. These fee suggestions would be based on an automated statistical analysis, which calculates how long it takes similar transactions to be confirmed at various fee levels.
"You've got a 1-day old 0.1 BTC with a tx size of 200 bytes that you want to send? Ok, but it'll probably take 6 hours to be confirmed, based on historical data. If you pay a 0.0005 BTC fee, it is likely to be confirmed within 1 hour, and if you pay a 0.005 fee, it is likely to be included in the next block."
This puts the power of fee-setting back in the hands of the miners, where it belongs, instead of the miners being mostly forced to go along with whatever the default client-side fees are, else risking losing out on most of the fee income.
The biggest problem with this idea is performing that statistical analysis. If you don't have your computer on 24/7 with your Bitcoin client running, then you don't see all of the transactions, and you don't know how long it takes until they confirm. Perhaps it would be possible for a Bitcoin client to check a "first seen" timestamp for each new transaction with multiple peers to ensure accuracy. If three peers say 2013/07/11 19:44 GMT (+/- a minute or three), one peer says 2013/07/11 13:34 GMT, and four peers haven't heard of it, then it's a safe bet that the true time is 2013/07/11 19:44 GMT.
|
|
|
|
we were going to run into this problem sooner or later, script allows for data to be stored in the blockchain, however since there is currently no incentive to hold the blockchain (fees being paid to hold it), eventually we'll run into serious storage problems enhanced by using the blockchain for storage, my companies design is looking at that seriously and we're currently trying to figure out a method that will keep bloat down to a minimum while maintaining a DDOS proof account ledger.
short answer is no 0 btc fees, which I would happily support. +1 Zero fee trasactions should be banned. Under all scenarios possible, sending 300 BTC should cost more in transaction fees than sending less BTC. In real world, we already have fucked-up monetary system that favours rich over poor, do we want the same or similar system online as well? No.The purpose of fees is to limit spam, not to create an advantage/disadvantage of the rich vs poor. If you want to "even it out", then simply require a fee that grow linearly with how much room the transaction takes. Say, 1 satoshi for every byte of room on the blockchain, or something. |
|
|
|
Since the rest of you don't seem to be saving much money for exercising your God-given right to pump your own gas, I would say that it is a fair guess that your money is going straight into the pockets of your politicians, corporate executive's bonuses, and lobbying firms.
There are pros and cons to living in any state or country. The issue I find humourous is not among your distractions: how much land you own, how much tax you pay, what you pay for gas in CA, or where my state spends the money I pay for gas (that I may choose to pump myself, BTW). The issue is folks claiming to be rebels, anarchists and devout freedom lovers who then get warm fuzzies over not being allowed to choose the simple act of pumping one's own gas, a freedom they used to have which was lost @1950 or so. I'm not much of a rebel, anarchist or freedom fighter but this irony is too much to let it go unnoticed. Oregon may be a fine state. More power to you rebellious lot. At least your motorcyclists have some balls: http://oregonmotorcyclist.com/misc_page.php?page=pumpgashttp://mentalfloss.com/article/18812/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-oregon-and-new-jerseyMeanwhile a timid Californian grandmother apparently has more balls than an Oregonian steel worker. I have heard tales of teams of fearless Hollywood grannies mustering the courage to pull into any local gas station, get out of their old Cadillac Sevilles and pump their own gas. In public, no less! I see zero correlation between ball size and whether I want to pump my own gas or not. It's a matter of comfort, not of gonads. The issue isn't a choice of pumping your own gas or not. It is a choice of living in a state where you have to pump your own gas vs living in a state where someone else has to pump your gas. As far as I am aware of, there isn't a state where you can actually choose which one you want. Maybe a rare gas station here and there that gives you the option, but no state has them as an option on a regular basis. I once drove from NJ to CA there are numerous states where you can pump your own or have someone do it at a higher price. Alright then, I have never met such a station, but I also don't travel a whole lot so I'll take your word for it. I redact my prior point then. |
|
|
|
Since the rest of you don't seem to be saving much money for exercising your God-given right to pump your own gas, I would say that it is a fair guess that your money is going straight into the pockets of your politicians, corporate executive's bonuses, and lobbying firms.
There are pros and cons to living in any state or country. The issue I find humourous is not among your distractions: how much land you own, how much tax you pay, what you pay for gas in CA, or where my state spends the money I pay for gas (that I may choose to pump myself, BTW). The issue is folks claiming to be rebels, anarchists and devout freedom lovers who then get warm fuzzies over not being allowed to choose the simple act of pumping one's own gas, a freedom they used to have which was lost @1950 or so. I'm not much of a rebel, anarchist or freedom fighter but this irony is too much to let it go unnoticed. Oregon may be a fine state. More power to you rebellious lot. At least your motorcyclists have some balls: http://oregonmotorcyclist.com/misc_page.php?page=pumpgashttp://mentalfloss.com/article/18812/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-oregon-and-new-jerseyMeanwhile a timid Californian grandmother apparently has more balls than an Oregonian steel worker. I have heard tales of teams of fearless Hollywood grannies mustering the courage to pull into any local gas station, get out of their old Cadillac Sevilles and pump their own gas. In public, no less! I see zero correlation between ball size and whether I want to pump my own gas or not. It's a matter of comfort, not of gonads. The issue isn't a choice of pumping your own gas or not. It is a choice of living in a state where you have to pump your own gas vs living in a state where someone else has to pump your gas. As far as I am aware of, there isn't a state where you can actually choose which one you want. Maybe a rare gas station here and there that gives you the option, but no state has them as an option on a regular basis.EDIT: Nevermind, turns out I was wrong. It is a shame that we have lost this freedom then. If I could save money pumping gas myself, I would. |
|
|
|
Free, is firstbits.com discontinued or just temporarily down? Thanks.
It's discontinued by him, but I plan to continue it at firstbits.net (and .com if I can get a hold of the domain). In the meantime, there's this website: http://bitcoinfirstbits.com/. I forgot who runs it. Lookups can also be done at blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
This thread is hilarious! Oregon "rebels" glowing over the "freedom" to NOT be allowed to pump gas. Amazing...
I never said it was freedom. I just enjoy the pump service. I was looking for maps where Oregon is in the top ranking, to correlate with Bitcoin use. Besides Bigfoot sightings and breast feeding, I came up with two: State income tax rates:  Is this fake? I live in TN, and we certainly have no Income tax. Well, TN is odd... it has striped green and white. Not sure what that means, since the legend doesn't say. But I know that for Oregon, it is accurate. We have income tax instead of sales tax. |
|
|
|
The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then. Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet. Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin. This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum.
EDIT: But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing?
It's not the minimum balance that's the issue. It's the fact that they have to acquire them at all. It could take days -> weeks for someone to do that. Even if it's for $0.01 worth of Bitcoin. You're in the lucky position of already having a bank account. What about those that don't? There's nothing wrong with promoting higher-level discussion but are you saying that users of this new forum should have a minimum level of understanding (and ownership) to even participate? You don't need a bank account to acquire 0.00005430 BTC. I'm not sure how often faucets typically pay out, but I'm sure a person could find one that pays out at least once a day. So that makes the longest potential time to acquire 1 day, if you really want to set the bar that low. I'm not sure why everyone is so against exclusivity. Forums do not have to be open to everyone to be good. There's nothing wrong with promoting higher-level discussion but are you saying that users of this new forum should have a minimum level of understanding (and ownership) to even participate? If you want to get away from the "noise", which is what Viceroy is proposing to do in order to keep smarter people around, then absolutely yes, people should have a minimum level of understanding and ownership to participate. |
|
|
|
If they want to do it every 3 blocks, they might want to make sure the transactions won't have trouble getting through in case 3 blocks are mined rather quickly after each other. Or, they just had 300 BTC handy that they didn't want to split up. Or.... ??
If I sat there using online banking to transfer money from one account to another over and over - my bank would put a hold on my account. I think there should be a way to prevent this. This one person is unlikely to have any effect but if the bot-net dickheads get hold of it... There is no way to prevent it besides changing the fee structure. 300 BTC is enough that it could be sent in every block without a fee. |
|
|
|
their financial issues
People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me. Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion? My suggestion was a mere 0.1 BTC. My point was, they should prove they can do the legwork of acquiring BTC and understanding how to use it before being able to post on the forum. It would prevent some of the same old newbie posts from being reposted over and over again. It also helps, in a small way, to prevent sockpuppets. People could more easily connect the dots between sockpuppet accounts, unless the sockpuppeteer works hard to make sure the two addresses never interact. But it also depends on what you want the forum to be. Should it be a place of higher-level discussion with less "noise"? That's what I heard it was supposed to be. Locking out people who are just finding out about Bitcoin is a good way to do that. They can go research elsewhere and discuss elsewhere until they have a greater understanding of Bitcoin, enough to keep down the noise and keep up the number of relevant and interesting conversations relative to noise posts. If the new forum is supposed to be friendly to all, then it'll just turn into the same cesspool we have here (IMO). Here's another rather radical idea: Bitcoin addresses as usernames.
In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC. You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address. In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC. Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).
This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration. It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses). It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place. But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.
So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520? Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course. The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak. And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much. What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves? So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin. Sounds like quite a barrier to entry. The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then. Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet. Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin. This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum. EDIT: But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing? I think that the forum should be as newbie friendly as possible. This will help allow to attract a lot of members. It's better for all of us if we treat newbies in the best possible way. I guess it's your call Viceroy More members does not necessarily make a better forum. That's why I said what I did. Viceroy's goals seem to be to hold on to "smart contributors". You don't do that by making a forum newb-friendly, you do that by making a forum smart-people-friendly. We've been losing good members for months now. The post about a dismal level of discourse is telling. If things do not change in these forums we will continue to lose smart contributors like Jason. |
|
|
|
You are not even allowed to pump your own gas because the government is so into protecting you from yourself.
This is correct, the only states where you can't pump your own gas are Oregon and New Jersey. Talk about a nanny state. The reason gas rates are cheaper is because of lower gas taxes, not because of people pumping gas for you. Course in Oregon you are allowed to kill yourself medically, so I guess they get points for that. It might be a nanny state, but it's one part of the nanny state I appreciate! I like being able to stay warm/cool/dry in my car while someone else does the dirty work. |
|
|
|
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days. Ah that makes sense as to why 300 BTC then - nicely pointed out [EDIT] but yeah - why not 50 then? If they want to do it every 3 blocks, they might want to make sure the transactions won't have trouble getting through in case 3 blocks are mined rather quickly after each other. Or, they just had 300 BTC handy that they didn't want to split up. Or.... ?? |
|
|
|
if tipping is no require for letting folks pumping my gas, I'm fine with it. Most other countries have staffs to pump gas for customers and the gas station is responsible for paying them.
No tipping required (or ever given in my experience). Gas pumpers just make the minimum wage, $8.95/hr. |
|
|
|
Curious as to why they would use 300 BTC for an experiment when 5 would do the trick just the same...
Because it wouldn't do the trick just the same. If they are sending transactions just a few blocks apart, then 5 BTC wouldn't be able to be sent without a fee. Remember that a fee is required whenever Bitcoin * Days is less than 1. 30 minutes * 300 BTC = 6.25 Bitcoin Days, but 30 minutes * 5 BTC = 0.104 Bitcoin Days. |
|
|
|
Dang Mormons. But Oregon is back in the lead now! |
|
|
|
their financial issues
People being required to demonstrate the ability of not having financial issues before voicing opinions sounds like a very good thing to me. Seriously? So you think that people with financial issue due to their class, situation etc shouldn't have an opinion? My suggestion was a mere 0.1 BTC. My point was, they should prove they can do the legwork of acquiring BTC and understanding how to use it before being able to post on the forum. It would prevent some of the same old newbie posts from being reposted over and over again. It also helps, in a small way, to prevent sockpuppets. People could more easily connect the dots between sockpuppet accounts, unless the sockpuppeteer works hard to make sure the two addresses never interact. But it also depends on what you want the forum to be. Should it be a place of higher-level discussion with less "noise"? That's what I heard it was supposed to be. Locking out people who are just finding out about Bitcoin is a good way to do that. They can go research elsewhere and discuss elsewhere until they have a greater understanding of Bitcoin, enough to keep down the noise and keep up the number of relevant and interesting conversations relative to noise posts. If the new forum is supposed to be friendly to all, then it'll just turn into the same cesspool we have here (IMO). Here's another rather radical idea: Bitcoin addresses as usernames.
In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC. You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address. In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC. Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).
This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration. It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses). It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place. But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.
So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520? Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course. The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak. And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much. What if someone wants to find out more about Bitcoin or is looking for investment but has no Bitcoin themselves? So for them, no matter how small the amount of Bitcoin, they would need to have a bank account (not everyone does), they would then need to transfer fees to an exchange, then buy some Bitcoin. Sounds like quite a barrier to entry. The minimum balance required to participate could be reduced then. Heck, make it 0.00005430 BTC, and tell them to get it from a faucet. Anyone can still participate for free, but they must at least prove that they know the basics of how to use Bitcoin. This wouldn't prevent sockpuppets at all, but it would at least prevent people who have no idea about Bitcoin from generating extra noise on the forum. EDIT: But if the idea is to promote higher-level discussions of Bitcoin, is such a barrier to entry a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Here's another rather radical idea: Bitcoin addresses as usernames.
In order to "sign up" for the forum, you must have a legitimate Bitcoin address with a balance greater than 0.1 BTC. You use this address to digitally sign a message verifying that you own the address. In order to trade on the forum, your Bitcoin address must have a balance greater than, say, 2 BTC. Usernames are simply full Bitcoin addresses (or firstbits, if you want to shorten them up a bit).
This would virtually eliminate forum spam, removing one major headache from administration. It would make sockpuppeting more expensive (would have to put 0.1 BTC "on hold" for every sockpuppet you wanted to create) and more difficult to conceal (any accidental link between Bitcoin addresses could be proven by anyone, not just the forum administration looking at IP addresses). It would also force people brand new to Bitcoin to actually acquire some before joining in on any discussions, bringing up the quality of the discussions that do take place. But it wouldn't actually cost the forum users anything.
So to participate at the peak, it could have cost $520? Numbers could be adjusted to whatever is deemed appropriate, of course. The balance required for participation that I suggested was only 0.1 BTC too - I was just suggesting a higher balance required to participate in trading, as it lends a bit more trust to that person if they have to hold that much of a balance in limbo, so to speak. And it doesn't actually cost anything - you just have to prove ownership of that much. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
