|
An interesting thing would be a game where you mine on the side into a jackpot - limited to the slowest of the n players taking part in a game.
E.g. 50 MH/s can be sustained throughout the game by the slowest player, this gets paid into a shared pot (you're free to mine more for yourself on the side) by every player and then the winner(s) get the money in the end.
All you need is some slightly modified pool software and a way to influence matchmaking and get results (though this could even exist completely out of the game - however there are problems in determining winners then).
|
|
|
|
There are Open Source games out there - just fork one of them and add a Bitcoin module.  |
|
|
|
How many XRPs did Ripple bribe you to post such poor defense.
I have just over one million XRP. That question wasn't targeted at you. You are a staff of the company, they pay your salary. That's not a bribe. Well, my Ripple address is public in this very forum, just take a look yourself. As a hint - yes, I own some Ripples, but I didn't get a single XRP from anyone to post anything beyond my Ripple address. On the other hand, if you just look at signatures in this forum and offers by TradFortress, there are people who will pay BTC to discredit Ripple. Why do you even have to do that, if it is soooo obvious?!  The algorithm (think Bitcoin genesis block) is already explained by JoelKatz and what is open source at the moment can be seen from their github account. All other things (ledger etc.) can be extracted with the existing open source client. As nelisky said: Are you trying to get access to the source code, because you want to actually develop something or is it more just out of a principle of yours? There are proprietory Bitcoin miners (epecially hardware) out there, I don't see you calling them scam even though it is very easily possible that for example some ASICs have a built in expiration date, mine secretly for their manufacturers too or do other stuff... Oh, @TradeFortress, just repeat the question please - I also don't really recall you asking any relevant unanswered question that was really hard to answer but that doesn't mean you aren't right. After all it seems you and ShadowOfHarbringer have a quite poor grasp on how Ripple actually works (as demonstarted by your "21 Trillion BTC" screenshot or his question about an "algorithm to create XRP"), maybe you just misunderstood something. |
|
|
|
|
Open can mean many things. For example all transactions on ripple are publicly available. I'd call that open. You probably want a full open source stack including server software. This is announced, but wasting time of jk here on the forum won't help getting this published faster.
Ripple is already more open than any bank or bitcoin exchange I know of while still (depending on your gateway) being as safe. That alone is a great feature. I agree that an open source server would be great, I am willing to wait though and I trust JoelKatz more in that regard than you.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at this page and your "facts", this still seems like an elaborate joke to me that I just don't get (yet)...
On the other hand, maybe you are really convinced that if you spot a scam, you need to invest money to make people aware of it?
|
|
|
|
Was spamming me with an offer (and a bad one too!) via PM. I am not pleased!  If i want to be ripped off by users here, I am perfectly capable of doing that on my own, no need to spam me. To all the other sellers in this thread: seems like you have no idea what xrp are worth these days. |
|
|
|
|
There is a difference between allowing certain transactions - bitcoin has a similar change in 0.8.2 with tiny transactions becoming non standard - and creating new currency.
The solution to your threat would be to simply release the code and tell them to implement it themselves - while validators are popping up left and right.
|
|
|
|
Strongly agree with the title. Even if I have my Bitcoin address in my signature, you can't prove that I actually own it unless you hack into my computer.
True if you don't spend any. Once you do - out goes your identity. How do you infer from a transaction being made from an address in a signature that the transaction actually was done by this person?! If I would put there for example a MtGox address, it would be swiped but I'd never ever have owned the private key to it. You will be only deanonymized for the address(es) that you use to pay a merchant from - and these can be from a mixing/proxy service. |
|
|
|
Just clarify before betting what this "advertised performance" (e.g. on bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/) is in clear numbers, if they don't want to do that, well don't bet or prepare to fund the "option emporium" of our unfriendly neighbourhood romanian.
Also please be aware that "+/- 10%" also means that if suddenly performance is much BETTER than expected, you can still loose!
Actually, plenty of people have asked, plenty of people have been told exactly what it means. (This is how everyone* knows that the +-10% A. is only there to match the - at the time - official BFL release and B. is construed in favor of BFL, which is to say no more wattage, no less hashing. You couldn't lose the bet if they made a chip that's less energy intensive, faster or both). *everyone who bothered to ask, of course. The I'd recommend to put the exact numbers (and a link to the announcement that is referenced for the "advertised performance") in the bet description or at least having a way to clarify arising issues like this directly in the bet's description (e.g. "Editor's note: To clarify, performance means X GH/s per Y Watts, the advertised products when opening this bet were Product 1: ... Product 2: ... and Product 3: ...").
Neither bet was ambiguous at the time it was allowed. The only thing that changed is that BFL found yet another way to scam. Betsofbitco.in empowered this scam (which comes as little surprise, they were in BFL's pocket anyway, as detailed other places on this forum). BitBet did not.
If tomorrow somebody makes a bet saying "Ford will deliver most 2014 Ford Fiesta preorders during 2014. Product must meet advertised performance to qualify as delivered." it will be accepted, as it's not ambiguous. In sane everyday reality Ford will do exactly that, or else issue a statement explaining they've canceled the series/failed delivery/production/whatever. If Ford were to come up with an announcement saying the 2014 Ford Fiesta is now a Husqvarna lawnmower from 2007, refurbished, then we'd be in BFL scamland.
The reason Ford doesn't do this sort of crap is simply that Ford is a company, not a scam. The reason BFL does do this sort of crap is simply that BFL is a scam, not a company. It is impractical to go around specifying everything a scammer may in time change. For instance, no delivery bet contains a rider saying that "should the product delivered have a long rubber hose affixed transforming it into a YoYo then delivery is invalid". This does not make the bet ambiguous, and even should BFL add rubberbands to their products and try to foist them from the customers' hands later the bet still wouldn't be "ambiguous". BFL would be scammy. That is all.
This isn't how it works, scam makes statements that contradict previous statements and everyone downstream suddenly scrambles to modify, clarify and so forth. Onus is on BFL. That aside, next time someone makes a bet with BFL crap yes they'll have to specify all this. ^^^ That's the answer I got 2 weeks ago on that exact topic... see page 4 |
|
|
|
|
Probably countries cut off from the international banking system (North Korea, Iran...) as well as countries that nobody really trusts (Nigeria...).
|
|
|
|
|
...then you're in exactly the SAME situation as if MtGox (or BTC24, or BTC-e, or...) gets their wallets/accounts seized, hacked or anything else. This has happened multiple times and continues to happen.
Bitcoin is a system where you can store something that has 0 value and that is given any value beyond that by trading and user trust.
Ripple is a system where you can trade tokens of any value BUT you need to trust others with that. That's the same as with sending BTC to any other address that you don't have the private key to, for example an exchange, Satoshi's Dice, BitPay...
|
|
|
|
Well, trust someone else for even just 1000 BTC from Bitstamp, I dare you! Creating own IOUs is just like creating your own Bitcoin block chain - as long as nobody else uses it, you can just enjoy your numbers. |
|
|
|
Nodes would have more room for specialization. I think there will be always "librarian nodes" ala block explorer. distributing the whole history. But I think their lack is what worries @Sukrim.
True, also there is no incentive to actually operate such a node and if they get rarer, they actually have to serve even more data which puts a stronger pressure to shut them down. In the OP however there is also some BitTorrent distribution mechanism mentioned... even though torrent files (actually info hashes) for a given file are not 100% deterministic, they can be made deterministic, if there is an agreement on block size. My suggestion would be to include the info hash of a bootstrap.dat file that contains all blocks from (#currentblock-120-#currentblock mod 2016) - meaning that120 blocks after every difficulty change a new info hash gets posted to the UTXO chain. That way the torrent file stays static enough to be properly seeded but changes quickly enough for new clients to catch up. As BitTorrent downloads are properly hashed, checked etc. and the blockchain can also be verified again upon importing, this should be safe enough, if one also trusts this UTXO chain. That way full archival nodes would not be queried for older blocks that much, as the bootstrap procedure for a "Ultimate compression" client would be: * Get current block height * Get block height of the highest UTXO block X blocks below current height (I would stay with 120 as this is the magic number for spending coinbase transactions, not over 1000... but this canbe even user configurable) * Download this UTXO block and all UTXO blocks after it, as well as all mainline blocks since then * Verify that following UTXO blocks were correctly created and also that mainline blocks are OK. * Get all mainline block headers since genesis (probably a big art of this data can be already come with the installer) and verify that the recent mainline blocks are part of this chain. ### Here you can already start mining your own blocks ### * Get the full block torrent info hash from the header (?) of the UTXO block(s) * Download the torrent via a magnet link over DHT (all you need is the info hash after all) * Verify all full blocks since genesis ### Now you are at the same stage as current bitcoin-qt ### Now you can either continue to seed the torrent (and maybe even do this on a dedicated machine!) or be happy that the UTXO chain was actually not lying to you, discard most older block contents (maybe here it might make sense to keep the most recent 1000 or so in case there are longer reorgs somewhere in the future?) and just work on UTXO/mainline chains. With BitTorrent it would be possible to help distributing the block chain without running bitcoind, a downside is that any client that does not have the info hash of the most current check point will seed a relatively dead torrent... |
|
|
|
I think this is one of the best and yet unknown investments available. I agree, mining bonds wise this so far has been one of the most silent ones - because it simply just works! If it is a good (in the sense of profitable) investment is up to debate (ask EskimoBob... ), but it definitely is a well executed asset. |
|
|
|
It costs me money
Do you have a US Embassy close by? ~2.5 to 3h train ride one way that costs ~20 USD converted (again one way) if I get a cheap ticket. Depending on definiton of "close" that might be closer than for others but still quite far. I pay about the same if not more than I'd get in BTC
This is quite a shortsighted view, especially if you believe in bitcoin and its potential. I could get more BTC than I'd get from your contract if I invest the train ticket/gas money, notary costs + time invested directly into BTC than getting the ones back you hold. Investing into mining actually means shorting BTC, there is a good explanation on this forum somewhere. If I get reimbursed for the costs that I have to bear to have YOU continue legally what you are doing and if I get better information where my personal information ends up, that might change.
I have spent close to $20k to make sure we ALL can continue. So the ~100 USD it would cost per share holder to reimburse them is too much? Also so far there is no "we" as my funds are still held hostage even though you know exactly where to send them. |
|
|
|
|
It costs me money, not time to claim shares which is the real issue here - I pay about the same if not more than I'd get in BTC from the shares but bear a serious risk of having my identity stolen by some shady US law firm/"lawyer" that is not even listed on the page and that still hasn't givben any proof of even being licensed or to exist other than a mail address.
If I get reimbursed for the costs that I have to bear to have YOU continue legally what you are doing and if I get better information where my personal information ends up, that might change.
Edit:
I'm sure there is NO real "law" regarding this that is 100% definitive how to handle this situation, only the interpretation/advice of your lawyer. Others (including judges) might have other interpretations.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if internal is only ~20-25% of all exchange volume on Bitfinex, they still would be volume wise already quite high up in bitcoincharts' roster. I see quite some potential in being an exchange platform while volatility is low and more of a speculation platform during higher volatility times.
Anyways, the situation with USD lending starts to get annoying... maybe higher leverages like 1:5 and 1:7.5 or even 1:10 can be considered?!
|
|
|
|
As far as I understand it, it might not be possible to do complete block chain analysis after implementing this change, so there might be some reservations from bitcoin-qt developers to this (as you delete parts of history). Maybe consider a full fork of Bitcoin-qt ("Bitcoinquick-qt"?) in case this doesn't get accepted to the main bitcoin-qt client. Other than that congratulations on reaching your funding goal so quickly and looking forward to first updates regarding implementation! |
|
|
|
I might start mining again if this gets implemented! Also as long as there is a UTXO block merge mined every few hours or even days this is still much better/faster than the current situation with checkpoints + the bootstrap.dat torrent. By the way, thanks for not rushing this and debating about proper solutions longer as this is in my opinion one thing that can drive forward bitcoin adoption a LOT more than another porn site accepting them! The frustration and confusion when starting a full client for the first time for sure is one of the major reasons why this is still seen as a "geek tool". It is important to get this right on the first try. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
