Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example.  I might not have a PhD in distributed systems design, but I'm pretty familiar with them, and at least at this point I think those pictures are fairly accurate representations. Although one could very well argue that bitcoin is more similar to the picture on the right as well with mining pools being the centralized authorities. No. You do not need to connect to mining pool servers directly, also miners have very high incentives to directly peer with at least 50% of the total hashing power of the network, ideally even more. It depends a lot though what you actually are representing with the stuff in the pictures - if it is miners connecting to pools, then it would be kinda ok I guess. Still not a very good way to explain things and still wrong with the examples. Well most altcoins are crap that don't solve the distribution problems of bitcoin, they specifically want to emulate it for a pump n dump. Ripple, on the other hand, made no secret that they would have control. And it's been what, 1.5+ years now and bitstamp is still really the only major gateway? I may be way off on this, I haven't kept up with Ripple. I would like to think that is because of the XRP distribution, but it's probably more because the world isn't really ready yet for it. There is still ample opportunity for a new contender that will obviate the need for RippleLabs. For the future of all forms of cryptocurrency, people really need to tell centralizing schemes to fuck off.
It's been 1 year and 1 1/2 months now, Bitstamp seems to still be a major player, other ones are SnapSwap, RippleCN, Peercover, RippleIsrael, JustCoin, TheRockTrading, WisePass, RippleUnion and DividendRippler. I would rather see for example Altcoins or native BTC implemented into Ripple as native asset in some way or another (yes, I know that this means tracking an external blockchain for validators) competing with XRP rather than having a mining fork, I am nevertheless still excited for Splash (if it ever materializes that is...). @TheWhale: Was that huge blockquote really necessary for that one-liner?  |
|
|
|
Although I've never seen any software that prunes the blockchain.
Bitcoind does that for example. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=229438.msg5061590#msg5061590One last thing: we are not impacted by the problem of Bitcoin withdrawals MtGox have. When a withdrawal seems to have failed, we use the bitcoin address to do a manual double check. So far this is not an issue. I hope he revisits the issue and also the solution MtGox proposed actually IS a reasonable one and would be nice to have (and more useful as an actual TransactionID rather than the current TXID), let's hope people stop the flaming and this stuff gets into bitcoind asap.
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for a little code that I can use to store transactions to a MySQL database for SQL analysis.
I'm sure this must already exist. Anyone can make a recommendation?
I believe you are searching for this: https://github.com/bitcoin-abe/bitcoin-abeHopefully you have a month or two to dump that data...  No, I'm not even joking! |
|
|
|
|
Raphael already said that they don't. They display it in their withdrawals overview though, depending on how they get that ID it might be the case that the TXID displayed there is wrong. I would expect them to check mined blocks though and only display TXIDs that show up in there. Safer that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you could withdraw them right now to Ripple, trade them for BTC.DividendRippler or BTC.Peercover and withdraw them to anywhere on the block chain within a few minutes max. You could also try if Bitstamp's Bitcoin bridge is still operational.
There is not much arbitrage opportunity to be made by withdrawing BTC from Bitstamp, if you really do need to withdraw for whatever reason, it is certainly possible though.
|
|
|
|
You could redistribute based on their BTC balance as a percent of the whole. No Sybil attack.
That's called Proof of Stake then again... |
|
|
|
uiui, do they also use this txid like gox?
Probably at least to display them in the payout overview... if you send BTC via the RPC command you get back the TXID. The fact that you are not supposed to log that at all since it is meaningless and NOT an "ID number" for a "transaction" but merely something that might reappear (or not) on the block chain at some point maybe eventually is not made very clear at the very least. Anyways, I bought some more cheap coins, happy to unload these suckers once people realize that this is just an annoyance but nothing more. At least it's Tuesday so no weekend shifts for the backend devs. |
|
|
|
Sukrim, Wait just a minute: I must trust BOTH Bitstamp and SnapSwap, for instance, to clear a trade from BTC to USD. So that equals 2, not merely one exchange. Thus doubling my risk, from my objective point of view. No, you do not have to trust both to trade, in fact you don't need to trust any of them if you only want to trade. Also you can choose to use a different issuer for BTC or USD (e.g. DividendRippler or SnapSwap for BTC or Bitstamp for USD and BTC if you just want to pay 0.2% on Bitstamp trades). Please outline what exactly you want to do - if you want to deposit BTC and withdraw USD, you once need to trust the gateway you deposit BTC at until you got the BTC on Ripple, then you need to make a trade for USD you think you can withdraw (no trust in Ripple needed for that and outside Ripple only due diligence needed and likely some AML documentation) and then you somehow need to withdraw the USD you got - however that gateway you chose handles this. It can be the same you used for BTC or something else. Fact is: I must trust in two gateways. No. I can buy for example LTC.DividendRippler for XRP right now without ever trusting anyone on Ripple for LTC. I can then withdraw these LTC to any LTC address that I enter in DividendRippler and will have them credited on the LTC block chain within the hour. All without ever trusting anyone. Before I dare to trust anyone for say 1 btc, who could then default on their IOU and then myself see my own btc taken from my gateway where I transfer it to later on, and then SURPRISE, because I trusted a friend, or whoever, for 1 btc, and they defaulted the rippling wave comes back to haunt me instead. Because I trusted another person. On one hand it's your own fault if you trust unreliable individuals (like the stunt TradeFortress pulled off), however nowadays trust lines are set to "NoRipple" by default, so this won't work any more. But the proof is in the very framework of Ripple, versus the traditional Broker/Exchange service "Traditional exchange": Deposit money, get IOU, sell IOU on internal market, get different IOU on internal market, withdraw different IOU, receive other money/asset in hand/wallet. Ripple gateway: Deposit money, get IOU on Ripple, sell IOU on global open Ripple market, get different IOU there (potentially from a different gateway), withdraw different IOU (potentially to the different gateway), receive other money/asset in hand/wallet. The only difference is that you can choose the issuers of your IOUs, they do not HAVE to be the same as on "traditional" exchanges so you have more freedom of choice there. If you want to reduce risk by e.g. only using Bitstamp IOUs like you would do if you would trade on Bitstamp internal anyways you can do that. In your example (trading BTCUSD) you can for example trust Bitstamp for BTC and USD (they issue both) and trade, or if you like SnapSwap they also issue BTC and USD, so you can use them for both sides as well. If you would like to use the XAU gateway in Singapore however because you are a gold bug and want to spend your BTC from Bitstamp there, you can do that too. Just because you CAN choose, does not mean you HAVE TO choose. What does that even mean??? So why even bother with 'rippling my btc's to Bitstamp if I already have a Bitstamp account? If you are happy to trade on Bitstamp feel free to do so by all means! Again, Ripple is closer to BitPay than Bitcoin, so if you would like to be pay stuff in BTC and be paid in BTC, Ripple will enable this. Once a gateway enables for example PayPal incoming and outgoing payments, you can pay any PayPal merchant using your BTC on Bitstamp. So far you can pay any BTC address. Not that interesting for Bitcoin bulls, if you however would like to keep USD on your account but buy something on bitcoinstore.com, you can do that. Maybe it would be best to sell some ripple so you could be more objective yourself. Or if your in Ripple's employ then maybe slow down and try to understand what and why others are stating what they are, and then go from there. I got my XRP for free in giveaways, so why should I sell them to be able to be more objective? Also I'm not employed by RippleLabs, if that's what you're hinting at and as I already wrote, I'm far more invested in BTC than XRP anyways (and again: I do not recommend or endorse anyone to buy XRP beyond a single USD). IF I understand correctly, and IF I had trusted them for whatever amounts, and then they IOU that amount elsewhere, and then don't pay that amount. Well at some point later, I may have to pay it for them, if they abuse that trust amount I extended to them. But if that isn't true, well it would be news to most that have spent a great deal of time trying to understand what many of us are now fed up to the max with. You seem to confuse Ripple with the older "community credit" version from villages.cc or Ryan Fugger's initial ideas. The current implementation would allow for something like that if you jump through a few hoops. It would be easily detectable though and likely illegal to do that for the gateway in western jurisdictions. Definitely not worth it to pull that off after getting a MSP license... Also anyone you deposit BTC at could make a run - why do you act as if gateways would be suddenly trying to steal from you left and right who have to stay far more honest (as they can be audited via a public ledger) than any random Bitocin service out there? I can tell you down to the Satoshi how many BTC DividendRippler has to have. Do you know the total balance of all accounts at MtGox? Should you know that before doing business with them? Where as your not even warning anyone anywhere of the risks due to these finer points about the IOU trust model wrapped around Ripple's Network, and instead downplaying them, and here, in a fraudulent way by stating it's the same as anywhere else, when in fact the risks are higher. Not to mention telling me I am all wrong when in fact you and your pal were just rooted out as what is in the eye's of the beholder... Please tell me again that the "assets deposited" at whatever exchange reflink you were pushing are not the same thing as assets deposited at any Ripple gateway...  If that exchange were running on Ripple it would work completely the same, just with a cryptographically verifiable open order book that can't be manipulated at will by the exchange owner. |
|
|
|
Hello. I am new to Bitfinex. I am verified and have otp authentication. I wired money in and it was there in less than 24 hours. (which is awesome) I bought bitcoins this morning and transferred them to a wallet But, hours later it says "pending approval" I thought withdrawals of btc were instant. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? thanks
Maybe their hot wallet is empty, they are probably still working on replenishing it. Instant withdrawals are actually a security/convenience tradeoff. I would guess that it should be fixed until tomorrow, if not even tonight. |
|
|
|
|
Well, the obvious problem with distributing fees to all miners is a sybil attack - someone (secretly) controlling thousands of tiny miners. Also it might create a tragedy of the commons scenario where it is much cheaper to not mine at all but the influence on the total network security is tiny. A similar issue is with environmental pollution for example - there is a whole lot of air out there and you blowing a bit of smoke in it won't really change a thing. If everyone thinks that way though, you'll have a problem collectively.
|
|
|
|
You made a thread to promote something you are invested in, and offer NO convincing counterarguments to the problems with the NETWORK, all while attacking personally everyone who disagrees. To be fair, you wrote quite a few personal attacks too... Anyways, to your "question": You did not point out any single problem in this thread actually (as this is your second post here). The network related issues I saw so far in this thread are: Did not know who wrote it. The problems remain though, the currency is partly centralized with its central server use, i believe most servers are run by the company itself (there is no incentive to run a server too) and there is a very hefty, up to absurd, premine (25%) This is on one hand not true (most servers are ran by the community), on the other hand it still is true (most of these trust RippleLabs' validators to be honest and did not diversify their UNLs). Currently there are ongoing efforts to give server operators better tools to create proper UNLs. Ripple is centralised through few ledgers. Ledger owners can make a cartel and scam people. What the, I don't even... No. Just no. Moving on: I've tried my hardest to like Ripple, used it for 6 months. I have no issue with the distribution. The issue is the way it works. ITS A ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS. I still ahve coins in my wallet that I can't work out how to sell cause I have to set up a gateway with a specific trader. ITS AWFUL it drove me to tears. That's an actual problem, as the public servers are often crowded, overloaded or slow. I recommend anyone who is serious about trading on Ripple to take the time and set up a local rippled + client. It can be VERY fast, reliable and fun to trade there, or you might have to deal with websockets that silently seem to die out, clients showing up as offline or similar stuff. The issue with not knowing how the stuff works is also a milder issue, just like with Bitcoin documentation will be better over time I hope though. Citation needed. I have proof of ripple's centralized control as it is part of the architecture. It was designed that way. There still was no proof posted anywhere... moving on I have tried ripple and found it a huge pain in the ass. Uhm... moving on Nothing is changeable in ripple instantly. It only looks so because you're not actually trading anything but IOU, i.e. meaningless 'bank notes' that say that you own 1 BTC. However, you owning 1BTC is completely dependent on your trust network, and when shit will hit the fan, you'll lose everything you own, just like with our current banking system. Not only that, but you expose yourself to unnecessary risk just by using the ripple network.
If you want to withdraw BTC from the ripple network to your computer wallet in which you OWN ACTUAL BTC, it will still take you 1 hour because you'll have to take someone's BTC and send them to your wallet through the BTC network (and thus wait 60 minutes for ~6 comfirmations). Not only that but the 60 minutes you wait is a proof of security. Faster transaction times are only marginally more secure, because the network is backed by the amount of computer time that passed in order to grow the blockchain to the size it has.
While the second paragraph is not really a good or correct description of Bitcoin and other PoW coins, it is sufficiently correct. The first paragraph is also technically correct (you don't trade assets, you trade ownership of an asset). If you actually want to trade though, you will have to give up ownership of BTC before being allowed to trade them to a neutral trusted third party. This is necessary risk. I wouldn't recommend using Ripple gateways to store your pension fund either but as with any exchange or webwallet/hot wallet to just keep enough there that you can do smaller transactions for convenience items. Unlike banks, dedicated Ripple gateways likely have to follow e-money issuer licensing which mandates that a full reserve has to be kept at all times amongst other things. Anyways, yes - there are counterparty risks with Ripple and while you reduce some other risks (e.g. trading engines - the reason for at least 2 BTCUSD crashes so far or exchanges going offline or halting trading for some time as well as opaque order books) you add risks in different areas (Ripple as software, HFT not really possible, markets not that developed atm). The difference between bitcoin and ripple.  Ripple is the PRISM of Cryptos. Ripple can easily be easily subjugated by the NSA since it is a corporation and has to abide by National laws, homeland security. Ah, the picture that confuses the masses. The main thing that's wrong about this: Bitcoin is not decentralized as suggested by that picture, it has a central block chain that records global state and everyone has to have this exact database, otherwise it woudn't work. BitTorrent is similar with trackers/swarms as is Skype with their centralized account infrastructure. Ripple too has a central database (called ledger), all rippled servers have to keep in sync with it, or they are not actually running "Ripple", just like Bitcoin servers on a different genesis block are not actually running Bitcoin but a fork of it. Also PayPal or Amazon are definitely not working as you see in this picture, since the servers there need to be aware of other servers too, or they risk double spending or inconsistent state. OpenTransactions actually tries to apply partly such a structure as seen on the right in this picture and it is a VERY interesting approach! Anyways, that picture does not mean what you think it means, it is incorrect in nearly everything that's written on or below it and even though a lot of people suddenly seem to act as if they got a PhD in distributed systems design just by looking at this, they did not. Sorry. It's very nice to look at and apparently easy to understand though, so it might have some value as example. slingshot's rambling I think I answered this already before. The ripple concept is a brilliant one. The part of the main arguments against it being an IOU system are weak (it's not real money!--except this is a construct that is millennia old). Its execution leaves a lot to be desired, though. There is no advantage to anyone using the ripple system vs. a more open competitor. This is one of the more interesting ones - the thing is that with payment networks like Ripple and also Bitcoin it depends a lot on network effects and adoption rates. There is little reason to use MasterCard if you can use Visa everywhere it is accepted. Starting your own competing credit card however is going to be really hard, if not impossible unless you can beat MC/V on nearly every battlefield that exists - and even then, there is a good chance that they will adapt and absorb your innovations. Just like people predict Bitcoin will act in the Altcoin scene. Yes, this. So it will be forked, the good stuff used and the bad stuff left behind.
Splash looks nice but there is no news as of late.
I agree splash sounds nice, most people seem to focus on XRP as "bad stuff" though, not so much else. The problem with Ripple and most fiat systems is that an intermediary determines the value of the fiat apart from the value of the original asset. No. Markets made against XRP are not a requirement at all to use Ripple. The network is subject to the whims of the ripple creators when ever they change the protocol of the role network. Not only can they increase distribution but they can also increase total ripples changing the value of ripples reason to other crypto currencies. Again anything can be done with a software update. So yes Ripple adds additional, unnecessary risk.
This is wrong as well, anderl just needs to read the source code of rippled for that. The chance that additional XRP are created is about as high as additional BTC being created beyond 21 millions. Surely possible (and even easier in Bitcoin by changing a single line) BUT definitely not going to be accepted by the network. So... enough answered for now or do you have some actual real questions/concerns beyond pointing out who is an imbecile? |
|
|
|
So why not using the decentralized systems?
Any thoughts? Decentralized systems are by design not suitable for High Frequency Trading for example (as a global consensus needs to be reached on the order book if someone in Australia and Europe wants to buy the same order). e.g. Ripple has a granularity of ~10 seconds, which is an eternity for a lot of traders. Also there is still the "problem" of trust - decentralized order book or not, someone needs to hold the assets traded. This is no different in NXT, Ripple, Mastercoin... (ProtoShares seems to want to do some kind of derivative that magically will materialize somehow in your bank account, I haven't looked too much into them) decentralized TRADING does not mean that there is no need for trusted entities that HOLD the underlying assets. No matter how you call these entities (gateway, exchange, escrower...), in the end there is no way to digitally send a USD note over the internet. This can be circumvented if you only trade digital assets (such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, ...coin), then again this gets a bit circle-jerky and while there might be some use in that, still a lot of people see big value in being able to somehow get USD for BTC and vice versa. All in all decentralized exchanges take it one step further (there is only the need for a trusted escrower, not a trusted escrower + exchange engine/order book), a lot of people here seem to expect something different though which is hard, if not impossible to do with current (reversible) money systems. After all, this is one big reason why Bitcoin exists in the first place! |
|
|
|
|
The real danger anyways seem to be cascading effects (sells for margin calls triggering more margin calls). Maybe it would be possible to calculate the price point where this happens in advance and display it too, so bears can place their buy orders slightly above that value. That way there is more depth anyways ("I wanted to buy back in at 350" is a nice statement AFTER the fact, if there was no buy order at the time and just someone hovering over the buy button with the mouse pointer...) which would drive that price point down over time and also would ensure bears don't get screwed in such events, as they know the market will only be emergency-stopped AFTER they bought back in and their short is realized.
|
|
|
|
XRP are ~7.5% distributed amongst users, RippleLabs doesn't issue any IOU, so these are 100% not under their control. Also anderl did not post proof of Ripple's alledged centralization by the way.
These charts are so wrong, it is hard to find a starting point. For one thing 1 Bitcoin address != 1 Bitcoin user. These stats are based on address balances, not users. XRP can NOT be controlled by their creators, since it in fact is an open source and distributed system (just like Bitcoin too - the Satoshi block chain acts as central authority there) and most people would likely disagree with them issuing more XRP to themselves.
It is really frustrating to take time to post educated opinions by the way if the other party is just copy-pasting big red text instead of answering in a meaningful way. If you want to have the same experience (without the big red text, as this is disabled there) please go e.g. to the battle.net forums and open a thread there convincing people that it would be a great thing for Blizzard to accept BTC for WoW subscriptions.
Dumb as read Wikipedia. I did provide proof and you quoted it but you are so wrapped up in spreading propaganda that you didn't see it in front of your face. I know you and the whale came here with an agenda to push Ripple on people here trying to fill them into thinking is an investment without telling them that Ripple is a derivative. You and him use dishonest debate tactics like deflection of topic and attacks on the debater. Again the proof that Ripple is centralized.... As of November 30, 2012, 7.2 billion XRP have been distributed.[19] As of January 20, 2014, the World Community Grid (through ComputingForGood) gives away 1.5 million XRP per day to individuals who donate spare processor time to analyze aspects of the human genome, HIV, dengue fever, muscular dystrophy, cancer, influenza, rice crop yields and clean energy. [22] The amount of XRP distributed can be found on the Ripple website and their movement tracked through the Ripple Live Network. [23] That is centralized control. Bitcoin is distributed by a computer algorithm. Ripple is distributed by people. They can decide to dump them all at once. They can just increase the size of the available ripples when ever they feel like. Ripple is like a central bank. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol) You seem to constantly confuse "Ripple" (the decentralized payment protocol/network) with "XRP" (aka. "ripples", the native unbacked asset on Ripple, centrally issued and owned by RippleLabs and the founders of Ripple). This seems to be a constant error people around here make, as they are used to single-asset networks (e.g. Bitcoin, Litecoin, ___coin). I would not recommend anyone to "invest" into XRP or buy any more than what they are needing to use the system "Ripple" (which is less than 1 USD worth at current rates) and while there are certainly people who are hyping XRP as being the next, better Bitcoin, I am definitely not one of them (I own far more BTC than XRP, at current rates). I actually prefer to hold Bitcoins by the way as a store of value and have been doing so since 2010. I can understand people not being fond of XRP and I also have plans to deal with this issue of having only a single native asset on Ripple, I have other things to do though as well and my solution would only benefit the community, not me as developer, so I'd need funding for that. Anyways, until then please specify if you mean "Ripple (payment protocol)" or "ripple (currency, aka. XRP)" when you claim centralization. One is (openly!) centralized, the other one isn't. Both for good reasons. |
|
|
|
From this crap, you taught all the lenders a thing. Never pay the protection fee since they are protected from default anyway with your arbitrary halt, this is why those lenders get 200% per year, risk/return factor.
And you told the SHORTers here that there will never be cheap shit to be bought since you will protect the LONG guys and the lenders anyway.
Well, go ultra-long then, buy up the order book up to a few 1000 USD and see what happens when shorts get eliminated and called! |
|
|
|
Exchanges hold the REAL ASSETS, of their clients. Let their clients trade them. Then later distribute them back to their clients. Only one entity must be trusted in this case; the Exchange.
Where as on Ripple there are at a minimum of two Gateways that must be trusted, and that's at a minimum, to get the real underlying asset cleared and home. And that's in the best case situation. If one extends any trust elsewhere on the Ripple Network then suddenly one can be held fully liable for any of those trusted and their failure to own up to those IOU's.
Nope, this is plainly wrong - there are gateways (like Bitstamp) that issue several currencies e.g. USD and BTC. Also you are NOT going to be out of money if some other gateway you don't have anything to do with fails. You probably misunderstood how Ripple works, if you trust a gateway that has no trust lines to ripple to other gateways (and why should they?!) this is a closed ecosystem to trade. The advantage of Ripple is that you are free to open it for you, e.g. you can easily trade for other balances and you are not locked in to the one you first used. Gateways also hold the REAL ASSETS of their clients, that's all they do - they let them use these assets (to be traded or transacted) on Ripple instead of forcing them to use their own (mostly) closed source opaque trading engine, that's the only difference to a Bitcoin exchange and that does not have to do anything with how the assets are represented. Ripple can be maybe more easily understood as a competitor to BitPay: You trust a gateway (e.g. BitPaygateway) in a single currency (e.g. USD) and set up a way to deposit/withdraw this (e.g. you tell them your bank account). If someone wants to pay you, you will receive USD by BitPaygateway, not the BTC (or EUR or LTC or...) the person used to pay you. To pay you, in BitPay the payer has to trust BitPay with her BTC ("Pay 0.01 BTC to this addresss to send x USD to $Merchant: 1asdfg...") and also accept their market rates. In Ripple she only needs to own a balance that can somehow be traded for BitPaygateway USD and can optionally set trading offers herself if she doesn't like the current market situaion and thinks someone might rather take her offer. To make this trade you don't need to trust BitPaygateway for USD by the way... Anyways, as I said, Ripple is not that easy to understand and there is a lot of misinformation around. Your understanding is simply wrong (or only partially correct, to put it in kinder words). If you want to talk about facts, the ones you stated above are simply not true. You do not have to trust any gateway to trade on Ripple. You do not have to trsut more than one gateway to deposit/withdraw anything on Ripple. You cannot be defrauded for more than you trusted a fraudilent entity (in Bitcoin terms: Even though pirateat40 had probably a debt of several million BTC but only a few 10k in "real" BTC, this did not affect the amount of BTC people had displayed at MtGox at that time) and Bitcoin exchanges do trade, transfer (in some cases), issue and redeem IOUs. Ripple gateways only issue and redeem them, they are traded and transferred on Ripple. |
|
|
|
Unless you work for Forbes magazine you run the risk of losing money as customer service and the community really don't care until you make a public spectacle of the lost transactions.
Read the update in the article, this was a f*ckup of SnapSwap, a gateway. This would be like people hating on Bitcoin because MtGox is currenctly screwing up big time. He actually did not really deal with XRP at all and would have avoided these issues if he did. |
|
|
|
|
Bei Mining gibt es keinen "Fortschritt", jedes Mal wo ein Hash berechnet und verglichen wird steht für sich, daher ist der Ausfall eben nur soweit begrenzt, wie der reboot + aktuelle Arbeit anfordern dauert.
Je nach Hardware kann es auch sein, dass man ein paar Sekundenbruchteile für irgedwelche Initialisierung oder so verbraucht, ich glaube aber kaum, dass sowas in's Gewicht fallen dürfte - immerhin muss ja ca. alle 10 Minuten sowieso spätestens ein komplett neuer Header bearbeitet werden, daher kann man sich eh nicht allzuviel Zeit für's Initialisieren von irgendwelchen Sachen lassen. Außerdem gibt es auch wenig was man tun kann um Berechnungen zu sparen...
|
|
|
|
That said your not stating that in your 1st statement in this thread (That their merely IOU's). That's a form of either fraud, or gross misrepresentation. A criminal offense if I recall correctly concerning financial instruments  But then you just merely overlooked that correct??? And you didn't mean to misrepresent correct? *rant* I only chimed in here because someone wasn't representing what is merely IOU's. And not the real underlining assets. Leaving that part out of the equation is absolutely unforgivable. Uhm, any Bitcoin exchange listed on http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/ (except direct face 2 face transactions for cash on localbitcoins) in fact do NEVER deal with pure BTC trades, ONLY with IOUs. Did you post there too, that these are not in fact BTC and they are fraudilent or grossly misrepresenting facts on their website? BTC IOU volume is orders of magnitudes larger in amount of currency and amount of transactions than volume on Bitcoin (the block chain) itself and has been for years now. This is true for Altcoins too by the way, any account balance you do not have in your wallet but on a website like Cryptsy or Bitstamp is an "IOU", not connected in any way to what you understand as "Bitcoin", "Litecoin" or "USD" other than your trust to be able to redeem this value some time in the future. Go on and tell me how you purchased ALL of your *coins only via mining or cash transactions, because anything else did involve IOUs (of your bank, of your exchange, of your escrow agent...). Edit: e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=453295.msg4994968#msg4994968 - you do NOT state that the BTC and all other currencies deposited there are in fact IOUs. Are you a fraud?! To quote you again, because it perfectly fits: That said your not stating that in your 1st statement in this thread (That their merely IOU's). That's a form of either fraud, or gross misrepresentation. A criminal offense if I recall correctly concerning financial instruments But then you just merely overlooked that correct??? And you didn't mean to misrepresent correct? *rant* I only chimed in here because someone wasn't representing what is merely IOU's. And not the real underlining assets. Leaving that part out of the equation is absolutely unforgivable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
