I haven't tried without SSL because the wiki says that for non-localhost connections ssl is the only option? the openssl s_client -connect localhost:8332 command outputs fine btw, again according to the wiki so it works locally, just for some reason can't get to it the allowed ip i checked like 10 times, and it's also for sure allowed in the firewall, together with both ports 8332 and 8333 just in case basically i'm out of ideas guys  what else might be wrong? p.s. has anyone made between server connections work without ssl? (not that i would like to run it like that) You need to do the check from the remote end, not localhost. Most likely your firewall isn't really open on that port, but possibly other things. Try using -bind=your_IP_address too. |
|
|
|
Well I am not 5y old so I think they can play it in two ways. Return the exact amount of $ to the people who payed in $ and return the exact amount BTC to the people who payed in BTC, which would be fair. -or- Return the exact amount of $ to the people who payed in $ end return the the amount in BTC to people who payed in BTC but according to today prices not the number of bitcoins they payed. Example: Back then the price was around 8$ per BTC. I payed 100BTC x 8$ =800$ so I gave them 800$, and now they return to me my 800$ / 12$ = 66.6BTC and they give me only 66.6BTC. Don't you people know how scams work?  Except that no one paid BFL using BTC, assuming that I remember this correctly. They used a payment service to convert BTC into USD, which was then paid to BFL. At any rate, because USD has legal tender status in the US, a refund can always be issued in dollars based on the dollar value at the time of payment. If you try to take it to court, the judge will be quite unhappy with you for wasting his time. |
|
|
|
Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth. Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential. It is pretty much the definition, actually. In the real world it is a crime as described above. Please, provide evidence to prove that in 'the real world it is a crime as described above'. The evidence will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but try these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_preferencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undervalue_transaction (tangential to this matter) http://www.google.com/search?q=preferential+paymentshttp://www.google.com/search?q=liquidationhttp://www.google.com/search?q=trustee+fraudAnd to pick one state at random, http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/BC/3If someone says that they repeatedly stabbed someone else with a knife until they stopped moving and breathing, it isn't an accusation to point out that their own description of their actions is the description of a crime. I have no knowledge of his real actions, I'm just going by what he has said he has done / is doing / will be doing. An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion. The exact same procedures are used for the dissolution of any legal entity. A bankruptcy is just one form of the general closure process, other examples exist, including trusts and estates. The same concepts apply in general, but there are a few exceptions in different branches. Common to all is that someone is managing, liquidating, and distributing assets that do not belong to them * , and that they have a fiduciary duty to treat all claimants equitably. The notion of equity shifts a bit in different types of cases too, for example, you can put somewhat arbitrary rules in your will, and the trustee is expected to follow them, and only genuine residue after the will is fully executed is requires an equitable distribution. If he personally declared bankruptcy, he would not be the trustee of his own liquidation, one would be appointed by a judge/magistrate, and I bet if that happened, the poor guy would have to take up drinking after sorting out this mess. I'm still going on the assumption that there is no official record of his ventures as registered legal entities, which strongly suggests that his "contracts" created an assumed trust, and that said trust is now under liquidation. Since an assumed trust exists because of the contract that spawned it, such a contract can specify peculiar rules for liquidation, and those rules should be followed (unless someone files for an injunction, or unless the rules are contrary to some other law). In all other cases, including, as far as I can tell, this case, the default rules should be followed, and if a court got involved (unlikely here, but still) they would appoint someone to do it pretty much like I described. * The person managing the assets is generally known generally as a trustee, but they also called a receiver in certain types of bankruptcy, etc. The assets themselves are still owned by the corporation, if properly incorporated, by the estate, or by "the trust" (which is the pseudo-entity that is assumed to exist whenever a contract requires such a thing) until liquidated/distributed. Note that the trustee may, in some cases, also be a claimant. For example, a child of the deceased in estate matters, or the managing partner in a partnership, or a shareholder/manager in a small company or corporation. Such people need to be very careful, because the burden of proof is surprisingly low in civil matters. For that reason, generally, no one will come after you with criminal charges unless you are a huge dick, but many breaches of fiduciary duty also meet the definitions of criminal fraud. |
|
|
|
were you able to connect without ssl?
Stop bitcoind
change rpcssl=1 to rpcssl=0
restart bitcoind and try to start.
If you can connect it is probably and issue with verify_peer in rpc.
I know user kjj is a pretty sharp programer. maybe you could ping him.
please keep us posted.
I do all of my stuff on the same server as bitcoind, so I've never needed SSL. I saw this thread and decided to try it out, but so far I have been too busy. I know that SSL problems can be painful to diagnose. Clients in particular are notoriously bad about reporting errors. Usually you don't get much more than "it didn't work". The good news is that you might not have a SSL problem at all. Timeout suggests a different problem. Double check that your -rpcallowip is right, then double check your firewall, and finally, use nmap and/or telnet to verify that the computers are able to connect. Also, as BCB suggested, try it without SSL. If I'm right about the connection problem, it won't work with -rpcssl=0 either. |
|
|
|
You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially. What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee".
No, I did not say that. I've said over and over that I am paying out claims as I have verified the status of the shareholders. You must have a problem understanding simple English. You keep babbling on about paying people preferentially. There is no preference. This single was sold to pay off a (one) person because it was convenient to do so. I am not going to sell it and disperse the bitcoins evenly among everyone. There is no reason to do that. it is not logical. It's like, if I have 50 shareholders, what is morelogical, give everyone 6 shares of BTC mining and 20 shares of BITCOINRS? Or give some people 12 shares of BTC-MINING and others 40 shares of BITCOINRS? (to make it very simplistic) -- it's easier to give chunks to people that to give everyone a few crumbs from the five pies you have. I'd rather give oe person one reasonable pie slice than fifty crumbs which, when bunched together, equals one pie slice. You also seem to be under the delusion that I have to pay everyone at exactly the same time. I don't have to do that because there are several lists of shareholders involved. Paying some people first is not giving preference you idiot.. there are no other verified shareholders right now. So sorry no, that is not a crime. Can you point out ONE... just ONE verified shareholder of BMF or CPA who has not been paid? Bingo. No victim. Can you show that I have taken more money than should be fairly allocated to me based on the number of shares I owned? No. I haven't even taken 10%. There is no crime here, just a handful of deluded individuals crying wolf.... again. As soon as the other lists are received I will send off what I can to those other people. No one will get any more or less than what they are owed. See? No preference. Claims get paid out as they come in. Stop being a retard. Do you get tired avoiding understanding what I'm saying? A contract of this sort creates a legal pseudo-entity, and there are things that must be done to dissolve such entities. The proper procedure is not "make it up as I go". Your documents might not constitute a proper and valid contract, but you have been operating in a way that shows your acceptance for quite a while now, meaning that you won't have an easy time arguing against the validity of the agreements, should you ever end up in court (which is admittedly unlikely). I never said that you have to pay everyone at the same time. I gave you a flow of operations that must be done, along with dependencies between the steps. As far as I can tell: 1. You don't know who your creditors are. 2. You don't know who your shareholders are. 3. You don't know how much value you can get from liquidation. Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth. Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential. It is pretty much the definition, actually. In the real world it is a crime as described above. Saying that you intend to pay everyone at some sort of face value is not a valid defense at this stage, because you don't know if you are capable of actually doing that or not. Good intentions, in the real world, might reduce your fine or jail time, but it won't prevent the conviction. P.S. You keep talking about distributing shares owned by the venture to shareholders. That is not a valid liquidation strategy, and your difficulties in doing so should be sufficient for you to understand why it is not allowed. As trustee, you have the option of auctioning assets and allowing creditors and shareholders to "pay" for them using their cut of the liquidation, but it has to be open to the public. |
|
|
|
Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).
No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want. No, I'm not. Just because I sold a single that CPA owned does not mean I am giving preference to myself or to CPA. As soon as the other shareholder lists come in there will be PLENTY of bitcoins and shares to go around. It's like YARR. I will be paying out YARR before I pay out on NYAN or BMF. Do you know why? Hint: It's not because I am committing financial fraud (hint: I am not committing financial fraud). It is because I have proof of who owns those shares. get it? The thing I need most to move forward on a claim is to know who owns the shares, so that I may begin divvying up the money. Next time do yourself a favor and don't make baseless accusations or accuse someone of committing a crime without actually understanding what is going on. It makes you look like a retard. I've made no accusations. You said what you were doing, namely acting in your capacity of trustee to sell an asset held in trust by you, for the purpose of paying one beneficiary preferentially. What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is also an actionable civil matter commonly known as "breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee". |
|
|
|
Half of the problem here is that I am honest and I like to disclose information. Most people don't bother (and this is probably why).
No, the whole problem is that western jurisprudence has clearly decided how these things are to be done, a set of standards and practices refined over the last two thousand years, but you are ignoring your clearly defined fiduciary obligations and just doing whatever the fuck you want. +1 for honesty, but -9 for making it up as you go. |
|
|
|
Step 1, decide to shut down.
Step 2, freeze everything. And I do mean everything.
Step 3a, begin liquidation
Step 3b, have everyone that could possibly consider themselves a creditor to the company submit documentation of debt.
Step 3c, verify that your shareholder information is correct
Step 4b, verify debts, dispute and resolve if applicable
Step 4c, resolve any shareholder ownership issues
Step 5, Once enough assets have been liquidated from step 3a to cover all debts from step 4b, pay them all. If you run out of assets and still don't have enough, switch to seniority. Starting from the most senior debts, pay all or in proportion until you run out of money, advancing down the seniority levels. Example: If you owe $10 to 1 senior creditor and $10 each to 9 juniors, and you have $50, you pay the senior guy $10 and the juniors each get $4.44.
Guess who the senior creditor is, buddy? In that case, why don't you just produce the documentation? If you are, in fact, the most senior creditor, just show everyone the note. Also please include either the signed statements from all prior creditors, indicating that they agree to become junior creditors, or a notarized document sworn by an officer of the company attesting that there are no other creditors. You do have those documents, right? I mean, a mighty titan of industry like yourself surely knows that properly establishing debt seniority isn't merely a matter of claiming it after the liquidation starts... Let me say this part very clearly so that you understand it. Your plan to preferentially offset one shareholder, at assumed face value, is active outright fraud. You need to stop what you are doing right now and start taking this seriously, go back to step 1 and work through the process the right way.
No, you're a clueless jerk. It's not preferentially affecting anyone. I have around 300 bitcoins worth of shares I'm working on dispersing right now. Paying those 300 bitcoins out to the remaining shareholders would mean they already got a bigger share than we did based on ownership. Stop being a fucktard. I can make no sense of this statement. Who is "we"? If "we" is "you", and you are a shareholder, you must treat your own shares identically to all other shares. Let me reiterate that there are people sitting in prison right now for doing the stuff that you are proposing. |
|
|
|
3. (Assuming no anonymity-targeted coin selection): The change must be lower in value than all inputs (otherwise that input would not have been selected). This is especially useful for transactions where multiple coins are combined.
This is a decent assumption most of the time, but once every few weeks, someone pops on IRC complaining that the coin selector overselected. Most recent was, if I recall, something like 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.3 + 0.01 -> 1.0 + 0.01 On the topic of tracking in general, I would just say, "Welcome to the arms race". The raw transaction API lets crazy people like me do silly things like create all transactions with 2 to 5 outputs of nearly equal size. The next step will be a public mix-sender. |
|
|
|
You failed to understand the assumption in his hypothetical. I've bolded it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise Maybe that will help you expand your vocabulary? Or perhaps you are only capable of analyzing one premise at a time, as you did in the previous post. We are not looking for an n-entity system, no matter the value of n. Even when Satoshi started out, and n was 1, we did not have and did not want a n-entity system.
Yes, your motivation is faith-based: "We are not looking for an n-entity system, no matter the value of n." I pointed that out in the previous post. You've been straining to avoid understanding this simple point for about as long as you've been posting here. How long can you keep it up?
Apparently, quite a long time. Confronting faith with satire, logic, and empiricism is something I enjoy. I understand that it is usually ineffective. Thanks for reminding me why I have you on ignore. Not really sure why I clicked show on that post. Probably curiosity. Apparently, in your mind, it is "faith" when someone wants something other than what you want. Bitcoin mining is decentralized in the sense that you don't need permission from anyone to become a miner yourself. It may not make sense for you to do so, but no one can stop you. Even if we end up in a world where there are only 10 miners, that system is still less centralized, in principle, than a system with 1000 miners in a cabal, or a million. No one gives a shit what your "satire, logic and empiricism" confronts about something that we don't want. I had assumed you were designing a product to help people make payments. Thus, the argument should be about how one can do this most effectively (low fees, secure, etc.) As you say, you are pursuing personal objectives instead. Sorry for misunderstanding. Bitcoin is an attempt to more closely approach the platonic ideal of money. Part of that is payment processing, but there are other parts, such as store-of-value and unit-of-account. If you only see one part in isolation, you might think that it is a "product to help people make payments" and start thinking that you need to wring every last bit of efficiency out of that one part. |
|
|
|
You failed to understand the assumption in his hypothetical. I've bolded it for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise Maybe that will help you expand your vocabulary? Or perhaps you are only capable of analyzing one premise at a time, as you did in the previous post. We are not looking for an n-entity system, no matter the value of n. Even when Satoshi started out, and n was 1, we did not have and did not want a n-entity system.
Yes, your motivation is faith-based: "We are not looking for an n-entity system, no matter the value of n." I pointed that out in the previous post. You've been straining to avoid understanding this simple point for about as long as you've been posting here. How long can you keep it up?
Apparently, quite a long time. Confronting faith with satire, logic, and empiricism is something I enjoy. I understand that it is usually ineffective. Thanks for reminding me why I have you on ignore. Not really sure why I clicked show on that post. Probably curiosity. Apparently, in your mind, it is "faith" when someone wants something other than what you want. Bitcoin mining is decentralized in the sense that you don't need permission from anyone to become a miner yourself. It may not make sense for you to do so, but no one can stop you. Even if we end up in a world where there are only 10 miners, that system is still less centralized, in principle, than a system with 1000 miners in a cabal, or a million. No one gives a shit what your "satire, logic and empiricism" confronts about something that we don't want. |
|
|
|
From a technical perspective: If you were only to have 1000 entities the Bitcoin consensus algorithm is fundamentally wrong: The stochastic POW chain consensus provides slow and unpredictable eventual consensus. A consensus of 1000 entities can be accomplished far more inexpensively, rapidly, and reliably by identify them and using a majority vote with digital signatures. There are places for systems with this kind of security property, and they are the sorts of things OpenTransactions seek to create (potentially ones with much better scalability than the broadcast based Bitcoin system).
Gmaxwell's premise: With small numbers of voters, majority voting via signatures is much cheaper, faster, and more secure ("reliable") than mining. Combining these two premises yields a conclusion. -> Ditch Mining, Adopt Majority Voting via Signatures. Now, instead of coming to a conclusion, they turn to a faith-based approach. Axiom: Majority voting via Signatures is wrong. Jointly, Gmaxwell's premise and Mike's premise imply that Majority voting via Signatures is right. This contradicts the axiom that majority voting is wrong. Therefore, either Mike's premise or Gmaxewll's premise is incorrect. You failed to understand the assumption in his hypothetical. I've bolded it for you. We are not looking for an n-entity system, no matter the value of n. Even when Satoshi started out, and n was 1, we did not have and did not want a n-entity system. What we want, and what we have, is a system where anyone can join. It may not make economical sense for them to do so, so the system may, from time to time, have a small n value, but anyone can still join. You've been straining to avoid understanding this simple point for about as long as you've been posting here. How long can you keep it up? |
|
|
|
|
Right now, there are at least 6 threads in tech support about blockchain.info, and that is just based on the titles.
Maybe we could spin off some of the more popular clients/services into sub-boards. I read the tech support board mostly to answer questions about the satoshi client or technical questions about the network/protocol itself, and having to wade through all of the other stuff sorta puts me off doing it. I might be the only one, but I'm probably not.
|
|
|
|
preferential shares == owned by CPA
That.
I'm assuming that is what you are referring to since it's bolded. As I said you're mistaken. Here, I'll walk you through it. It begins with the odd shareholder problem. In the odd shareholder problem, case one assumes an even number of shares (say, 2,000 shares) and an odd number of investors. No matter how you divide the shares some investors will get more shares than others. Normally it's not a problem however because there are many different assets in a portfolio and you can use smaller per-share-value assets to "make change" if you will. Now there's 2 basic ways to do this: 1. Give each of the investors an even share of each company, more or less, or 2. Give each shareholder the bulk (or entirety of) one or more companies and then fill in with what's left over (use the smallest value company to make change). It might not matter to you much when there are only seven investors but when there are seventy or seven hundred things begin to look different. In the case we are discussing the ownership looks like this: (of BMF): Me and/or CPA: 70% 50-100 other people: 30% The assets in question look like this: A single worth ~60 bitcoins 300 shares of X worth 1 bitcoin each, 2000 shares of Y worth 0.05 bitcoins each 5000 shares of whatever else worth maybe 0.1 bitcoins each (for example). Now, do I want to make your life difficult and transfer your 2,000 shares 50 different ways? No. That would be stupid, and a nightmare for both parties. Why would I do that? No, I will do something like: a) Give the single and the 5000 shares to CPA/me b) Give 1000 of the Y to a big investor c) give chunks of shares to other big investors d) liquidate smaller positions and give value in bitcoins to the dozen or more remaining small investors Doing something along these lines makes sense, and is easy. The second issue you seem to have is that I am paying off CPA's debts before I pay off someone else's. Well thank you Dr. Obvious, what do you expect me to do, wait 6 months before I start paying out claims? I can easily prove my claim on CPA and BMF assets, but random joe on the street cannot do that until I receive the lists from nefario. Handling 2 or 3% of what CPA is owed is no big deal. Otherwise another issue you will have is YARR, which was created by CPA. Any assets that CPA owned, INCLUDING SHARES OF BMF, will pass to YARR holders as well. This is normal and natural. What do you expect, I put off paying out 5 or 6 bitcoins to YARR shareholders just because I didn't get the CPA shareholders list? That's insane. What you are witnessing is this: 1. CPA owned shares of BMF. 2. Rather than sell the single and split up the 60 bitcoins in 60 different ways, I just gave it to someone who we owe the almost exact amount of a single +shipping (~65 bitcoins). 3. You will see me do the same in the future. I am trying to find a shareholder I can just give all 2,000 shares of BITCOINRS to, for example. I am not interested in splitting up BITCOINRS 50 different ways and I doubt you would enjoy wading through 50 different GPG signed documents either. I can't imagine you've thought this though and realize you are asking me to split up BITCOINRS 50 different ways. It just doesn't make sense. WTF? Why do you insist on making everything up as you go along? There is actually a correct way to do this. Step 1, decide to shut down. Step 2, freeze everything. And I do mean everything. Step 3a, begin liquidation Step 3b, have everyone that could possibly consider themselves a creditor to the company submit documentation of debt. Step 3c, verify that your shareholder information is correct Step 4b, verify debts, dispute and resolve if applicable Step 4c, resolve any shareholder ownership issues Step 5, Once enough assets have been liquidated from step 3a to cover all debts from step 4b, pay them all. If you run out of assets and still don't have enough, switch to seniority. Starting from the most senior debts, pay all or in proportion until you run out of money, advancing down the seniority levels. Example: If you owe $10 to 1 senior creditor and $10 each to 9 juniors, and you have $50, you pay the senior guy $10 and the juniors each get $4.44.Step 6, Divide whatever remains among shareholders by shares. There may be seniority issues here too, if so, handle them just like debt seniority in step 5. Under rare circumstances, seniority rules may be spelled out by contract, in which case, follow the contracts. Note that a contract between the company and shareholder A cannot deprive shareholder B of his equity rights unless shareholder B is also a signatory on the contract. People do end up in prison for this. This is a parallel plan. Step 3 breaks into 3 parts that can run concurrently. 4b comes after 3b, and 4c comes after 3c. Step 5 requires that step 4b be completed, and step 3a either finish, or run far enough to cover all debts before paying any of them. Step 6 requires that step 3a be completed entirely. It is permissible to use a contract for sale with a creditor or a shareholder to transfer assets to them, if and only if the sale price is at or above market value. Such a contract can offset/replace a payout. Note that I said "can offset/replace a payout", which is not the same thing as offsetting debt or equity. This is a very important point, and one that you are specifically planning to get wrong. This plan works for liquidating a corporation, personal bankruptcy, closing an estate, etc. Pretty much every time you find yourself distributing assets of a former entity (or soon to be former entity), you'll follow essentially this plan. If you don't follow this plan in the real world, you end up in court, usually jail. Oh, if the assets are encumbered in some way, for example, a shareholder agreement, and that agreement interferes in this process, usually a judge will just strike the whole agreement down. Plenty of closely-held companies have unintentionally ended up as public companies because of poorly written shareholder agreements. Let me say this part very clearly so that you understand it. Your plan to preferentially offset one shareholder, at assumed face value, is active outright fraud. You need to stop what you are doing right now and start taking this seriously, go back to step 1 and work through the process the right way. |
|
|
|
Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)
LOL. Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle. Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended. Trolls have spent months trying to defame, demean and demonize almost everything I do here. For example I just recently announced that I am working on flashcard software to help people learn languages -- software very similar to anki, stackz, and iKnow. I was immediately attacked over having poor Japanese regardless of the fact that nobody could criticize the actual Japanese samples I published, AND that my knowledge of japanese is not relevant to how well I can code a general purpose flashcard language learning program. This is what I have to put up with on here. If I was going to get a scammer tag because you don't understand how to value stocks it would have happened six months ago. Here, let me reccomend a book: The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham. Here's another, One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch. Oh and another, common stocks and uncommon profits. Hey here's another, Rich Dad poor Dad, by Kiyosaki. Let's not forget that rare gem Margin of Safety by seth klarman. What do all these books have in common besides the obvious? For one I've read them, often twice or more; they're all sitting on my bookshelf right now. May I suggest you read a few books on securities analysis before you start flapping your lips about it? Valuing a company, specifically the term NAV, has ZERO to do with the stock price at the moment. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is why you and other's accusations sound so STUPID, and yet so PLAUSABLE to the uneducated. NAV, net asset value, is something more akin to BOOK VALUE. Especially in the case of a MINING COMPANY where the entire basket of assets is MINING HARDWARE with a KNOWN PRICE. So you can just fuck off right there. You are DEAD WRONG about how I valued stocks. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a scammer tag for how I valued stocks. GO AWAY. Congratulations on your pop-finance book collection. Personally, I prefer textbooks over pulp. For pricing, I tend to prefer Hull's Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. Despite the silly name, it actually covers bond (and other asset) valuation pretty well. Spoiler alert: every method known to man, other than mark-to-market, is based on statistical models that assume that the next X years will be similar to the previous Y years.Do you remember 2008-2009? That was a magical time in the real world, when thousands of people learned that their fantasy models were wrong, and things really were worth what the market was willing to pay for them. The exception being like 7 people that were liquid, solvent, unleveraged and holders of their assets in fee simple. Those guys got to keep valuing their stuff in whatever way they wanted to. (You were not in this group.) Everyone else learned that the present and future are not the same as the past. At risk of wasting my time with these other guys, I'll say it for the hundredth time, in futile hopes that you'll actually read and understand. Mining hardware is worth either what it will produce before it wears out, or what you can sell it for, not what you paid for it. Including shipping costs in the value is extra-LOL. I have this image in my head of you as a 14 year old kid, sitting in mom's basement, cursing at the internet and frothing at the mouth. You just can't figure out why yelling isn't working, so you keep yelling louder. Despite all of your yelling, your valuations were/are bullshit. This isn't some big conspiracy against you, you were just wrong/inexperienced/irrational/exuberant/whatever, and rather than fess up to it, you go absolutely batshit crazy whenever anyone points out your shortcomings. P.S. Try reading some of my posts. I'm one of the very, very few people left here that doesn't think you should have a scammer tag. P.P.S. You have done a much better job defaming, demeaning and demonizing yourself than the "trolls" ever could have done. |
|
|
|
Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)
LOL. Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle. Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended. |
|
|
|
1) No idea. I've never felt like it was "missing" as such, and I've done quite a bit with raw transactions. It is trivial to figure out the address, when one exists. A normal sendtoaddress transaction will start with 76a914 and end with 88ac * (both in hex), with the pubkey in between, and from there it is just a matter of hashing and base58check encoding. A P2SH address will have a different scheme, as will a generate transaction.
Sounds like you are a lot more familiar with the inner workings of Bitcoin than me - but how exactly (say from a bash shell) do I get the hash of the public key and base58 encode it (which is why I thought bitcoind should do this for me)? Well, I do most of my stuff in PHP. Here is some code, intended more as an example than as something to use. You'll need some support functions to use it, etc, etc. <?php
// takes $pubkey as a hex string, returns an address
function gen_addr($pubkey){
$h=hash("sha256",hex2bin($pubkey),TRUE);
$h2=hash("ripemd160",$h,TRUE);
$h3="\x00".$h2;
$h4=hash("sha256",$h3,TRUE);
$h5=hash("sha256",$h4,TRUE);
$chk=substr($h5,0,4);
$addr_bin=$h3.$chk;
$addr=encodeBase58($addr_bin);
return $addr;
}
?>
|
|
|
|
Robustness is not what my block parser is about, speed is.
As a matter of fact, robustness is the very least of my concerns.
Read the reference loadblocks function anyway. Robust vs. Fast isn't always a trade-off. Whoever did this code did it right and got both. From my read of the function, it can find valid blocks buried under anything, even if an attacker managed to feed you a bogus file (for some strange reason), the worst it would do is waste a little of your time, and the parser is optimized to waste as little as possible. At the end of the file you should see some zeroes, or other cruft, but there shouldn't be any in between the actual blocks. In fact, contrary to the old code, even when there's a crash in the middle of writing a block, there shouldn't ever be cruft except at the end of file (it remembers hoz much useful data is in each file, and starts appending/overwriting at that point).
Agreed. I couldn't find even a single byte out of place when I was parsing my block files, which were started with version 0.3.something and living on a computer that seems to crash every month or two. But writing the parser well didn't seem any harder than writing it poorly, and no slower in operation. |
|
|
|
I have just started playing the the listunspent/createrawtransaction/signrawtransaction/sendrawtransaction RPC commands which work great, however, there are a couple of things I am wondering about.
1) Why doesn't the listunspent include a bitcoin "address" as well as the public key in the JSON output (as I can't easily tell what is what when I'm looking at that without jumping into blockchain.info to look up the tx)?
2) If I want to send to more than one output address with createrawtransaction what is the exact syntax (an example somewhere in the docco would be nice)?
1) No idea. I've never felt like it was "missing" as such, and I've done quite a bit with raw transactions. It is trivial to figure out the address, when one exists. A normal sendtoaddress transaction will start with 76a914 and end with 88ac * (both in hex), with the pubkey in between, and from there it is just a matter of hashing and base58check encoding. A P2SH address will have a different scheme, as will a generate transaction. 2) the output section of createrawtransaction is a list, {"address1":"amount1","address2":"amount2","address3":"amount3"...}. * In case anyone was wondering, 76a914 is OP_DUP OP_HASH160 PUSH_20BYTES and 88ac is OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG. |
|
|
|
|
If you have a successful detach, and your node is still ignoring the files, you don't have them in the right place. Double check that your blk*.dat and blkindex.dat files are where they are supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
