FYI - Cross-posting this for our shareholders... (from the SD developer) I would like to explain a recent bug that has been plaguing our system and how it was corrected.
In our system we have a database of all transactions that relate to Satoshidice. We also track their status (pending, confirmed, unknown). We get a handful of transactions that were broadcast but never end up confirming. After 24 to 48 hours we delete them from our system and move on. There was an issue where the status of the transactions was not being recorded correctly. So we would occasionally delete a transaction thinking it was hopeless when it actually confirmed some time ago. Then the outputs spend for that transaction would be marked available and used to pay other transactions. The more I ran the recovery process to clean things up, the more of these ended up getting created.
Now I have a separate safety check that checks an external repository of confirmed transactions before deleting anything. This has been running for about 3 days and seems to work very well.
The other thing that happened that led to a large amount of unconfirming transactions was around Sept 8th we ran out of confirmed funds. We try to always pay winners with confirmed outputs so there is no problem getting them confirmed and they are not dependent on anyone else's transactions. Well, we ran out of confirmed and started paying with pending funds. This of course didn't go well and a bunch of payment transactions had to be deleted and reprocessed.
We of course have alarms on confirmed funds and were notified as it was going down but Erik was traveling and I don't have access to the reserve funds so there was not much I could do, other than later run the recovery and cleanup tasks to get everyone paid.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I like your first idea - the competitive 1 on 1 gaming and betting.
If you'd like to create it, I might be willing to invest. Send me a PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Because "bitcoins" is a currency, it should all be lower-case (like "euros" and "dollars"). However, the network system known as "Bitcoin" should be capitalized.
"BTC" should typically be caps.
Examples:
- I use Bitcoin
- I own and spend bitcoins
- I'll send you 10 BTC
|
|
|
|
"Value" can really only be expressed as an exchange rate between one good and another. How much is a loaf of bread worth? Or a car, or a bottle of beer?
To answer that, you need to express it as an exchange rate. 1 loaf of bread might be worth 2 socks. Another person might value the loaf at 3 socks. Whomever brings the best exchange offer to the seller will get the trade so long as the exchange rate is acceptable to the seller. This is called a price. The price of a loaf of bread is 3 socks, at the point of the trade.
Bitcoin is no different. The value of a Bitcoin can only be expressed as an exchange rate with other objects. Originally, 10,000 bitcoins were exchanged for 2 pizzas, and thus an exchange rate - a market price - was established. That price has since changed, but in all cases the value of a Bitcoin is expressed in terms of other goods (usually, the other good is dollars, since dollars are the most commonly used barter asset, aka money).
So to answer the OP's question, how to determine the real value of a Bitcoin? Just look at what the prevailing exchange rate is. That's the answer, and it's no more complicated than that.
Some have suggested that Bitcoin should not be traded for fiat monies like dollars, and that they should have a value "of their own." This is impossible. It is impossible because if Bitcoin has its own value - let's say 1btc equals 20 loaves of bread - then we need merely ask what 20 loaves of bread equals in dollars, and we then reestablish an exchange rate between bitcoins and dollars.
tl;dr - the real value of 1 bitcoin is whatever you can exchange it for, and this will always be the case. No asset can be separated from its exchange rate with other assets.
good explanation, but what is then the value of ethics for example?  "Ethics" is not a good or service. My explanation of values applies only to goods/services. |
|
|
|
|
Small donation sent, keep up the great work!
|
|
|
|
What is a days work really worth?
It's worth whatever the worker can exchange it for. |
|
|
|
|
"Value" can really only be expressed as an exchange rate between one good and another. How much is a loaf of bread worth? Or a car, or a bottle of beer?
To answer that, you need to express it as an exchange rate. 1 loaf of bread might be worth 2 socks. Another person might value the loaf at 3 socks. Whomever brings the best exchange offer to the seller will get the trade so long as the exchange rate is acceptable to the seller. This is called a price. The price of a loaf of bread is 3 socks, at the point of the trade.
Bitcoin is no different. The value of a Bitcoin can only be expressed as an exchange rate with other objects. Originally, 10,000 bitcoins were exchanged for 2 pizzas, and thus an exchange rate - a market price - was established. That price has since changed, but in all cases the value of a Bitcoin is expressed in terms of other goods (usually, the other good is dollars, since dollars are the most commonly used barter asset, aka money).
So to answer the OP's question, how to determine the real value of a Bitcoin? Just look at what the prevailing exchange rate is. That's the answer, and it's no more complicated than that.
Some have suggested that Bitcoin should not be traded for fiat monies like dollars, and that they should have a value "of their own." This is impossible. It is impossible because if Bitcoin has its own value - let's say 1btc equals 20 loaves of bread - then we need merely ask what 20 loaves of bread equals in dollars, and we then reestablish an exchange rate between bitcoins and dollars.
tl;dr - the real value of 1 bitcoin is whatever you can exchange it for, and this will always be the case. No asset can be separated from its exchange rate with other assets.
|
|
|
|
So far this month, players have won more than the house  |
|
|
|
I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"
Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws. As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings. fi·at [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat. It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree. It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat." |
|
|
|
|
Welcome samhim.
May the spirit of Satoshi ever enlighten you.
|
|
|
|
ok, that makes a lot less risk then how people were making it look in chat.
So if a business wanted to take bitcoin; they could simply have a computer screen up and watch blockchain.info as soon as a transaction shows as pending they are fairly safe to let the costumer walk out?
So a POS could just be a tablet set to blockchain.info to watch a singular address. QR code printed and on the counter. A merchant account just be a MT gox account set to sell as soon as BTC hits the account?
Correct. You can really feel "good to go" about a transaction after you see it show up. Waiting for confirmations is unnecessary. And yes a POS could be just as you describe, though more elegant and even easier solutions will surely be built. |
|
|
|
That example should illustrate how any change in the minting rate however slight will cause a loss of confidence in Bitcoin. If it can be changed once, it will be changed over and over. The end state is a a "fed" like board will set itself up and attempt via a cartel of miners to optimally balance the economy via manipulation of the minting (or deminting rate). Sound familiar?
Now that "may" (I seriously doubt it) happen anyways even if the minting rate isn't changed in the near future but for me any change in the "rules" violates the social contract under which I chose to participate. I am dumping my coins @ market and looking to see if some alt-coin can be devised which makes such changes impossible (or at least more difficult). I doubt I would be the only one.
A claim that "this one change is the only one" is going to lack credibility.
Hell, u r right! Now I'm not so confident that we need to change anything in the plan... DeathAndTaxes nailed it! Well said. And come-from-beyond, I'm glad you're reasonable enough to understand it now  |
|
|
|
|
Super awesome for Ogrr and Bitcoin!!
Spekulatius, thanks for posting those stats. That forum is roughly the same size as BitcoinTalk.org!
|
|
|
|
How would it ever be Practical for business to accept bitcoin if they need to the customer to wait for 6 confirmations?
Is there any way speed this up?
I've been using bitcoin for awhile but never realized it was that easy to stop a transactions without confirmations if the attacker happens to be a miner.
The few bitcoin businesses I'm part of accept payments at zero confirmations. Meaning, payments are instantaneous. Never have we had a problem with this policy - not once. If you're selling a house, wait for a few confirmations. If you're selling a car, wait for two. For anything else, 0-1 confirmations is absolutely fine. The notion that you need to wait for 6 for the payment to be "safe" is utterly false. |
|
|
|
I don't know why Satoshi decided to limit total qty of bitcoins to 21'000'000 coins. I suspect he made it to tempt early adopters with possibility to become very rich ppl. Now Bitcoin doesn't need such a trick and WE could change the plan. Bitcoin network exists due to hard work of miners and I dislike the idea to halve their reward in the nearest future. Of coz a lot of ppl will be against keeping the reward unchanged. But if these ppl r NOT miners then miners don't need to pay much attention to them. Miners r those who rule Bitcoin.
I suggest other plan. We'll know how many ppl support the idea to keep 50 BTC forever. We'll change the algo in the bitcoin client. When the time for 25 BTC reward comes we'll see which part of the network becomes the winner.
It's time for 1st Bitcoin Revolution...
 To remove the 21m cap on Bitcoin would destroy the entire project. I wonder how happy the miners would be, if they can earn 50btc on every block forever, but the coins are worth zero. To not undersatnd this concept is to be so ignorant of the economics behind Bitcoin that one should just slap oneself in the face. Mining Bitcoins is only valuable to the extent those coins are useful and scarce. Make them less scarce and they will be worth less in direct propotion. There is ZERO benefit to miners of removing the cap, or releasing more coins somehow. It does not create more wealth, it merely creates more money units that will reprice themselves in the market given the new number of units. |
|
|
|
It is just me that thinks that most of the bitcoin related websites look like they were all done by the same designers - the overall feel of a lot of them is very similar...
why is that?
Coz most of them r made by tech-geeks without artistic design skills. This ^ All graphic designers know they can't program. But most programmers don't know they can't design. I will say though that Bitcoin websites have slowly been getting better. The average design today is significantly better than a year ago. Some day, all this stuff might start looking professional! |
|
|
|
how long ago did you send your e-mail?
I think the first e-mail was sent on the 25th of August. The forum PM was sent on the 2nd of September. Ya, that's way too long to go without a reply. You may try Erik Voorhees directly with a PM: - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=12149Hey, just saw this. Will get it taken care of asap. Please sit tight |
|
|
|
OMG WHAT IS HAPPENING  I LOL'd... this is awesome. |
|
|
|
The master stunt prankster of Romney tax returns fame and chief blockchain-bloater is disappointed in a known troll ex-scammer of several years. This is so much fucking LOL. You can’t write comedy this good. It has to be lived.
There are trolls and there are liars. I knew Matthew was the former, and now I know he's the latter. In this, I'm disappointed. Interesting rhetorical use of "blockchain-bloater"... perhaps Bitcoin would be better served if I worked to reduce the number of transactions, instead of built things people found valuable? I'll get to work right away, and hopefully by this time next year, there won't be a transaction to be found! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
