I have a few noob questions.
I have my clams in my wallet, they are staking but even though I have quite a few, it is only expected to stake every 49710 days! how can that be?
I moved them to my wallet on Saturday, but the age hasn't increased. They are still staking at 1 per CLAM, does the age only increase when I have the client open? Can they only stake when it is open?
Does it matter that I use 1.4.3.0? The new ones want to re-index, so I am not in a hurry to update!
I'm pretty sure that in all of the POS coins you can only stake when your wallet is open. If you're not connected, you're not in the race. I'm not an expert (and many others in this thread actually are experts) but if I understand correctly, POS is a lot like POW in that you are racing against others to find a hash that fulfills certain criteria. |
|
|
|
|
I've never used windows. But on GNU/Linux those access denied messages usually have to do with file permissions (because nonexistence usually says "no such file or directory"). The most typical case that I've seen is that you usually run this program as root and now you started it in normal user mode. (Note, I'm not suggesting that you ought to run bitcoin as root). Does windows have some analog of "root"? Or "file permissions"?
|
|
|
|
|
When I've compiled C programs written for glibc for android there was a lot of tinkering with the android libc in order to add missing symbols and stuff just so that the compiler wouldn't complain.
I'd say that if you guys can compile bitcoind for android that's be medium to high-cool and I'd love to see the step-by-step. If you guys can compile qt then I'm super impressed (arent' you going to have to compile an X server or something).
Maybe easier is to compile bitcoin for debian on arm architechture then use debdroid in chroot to run it.
|
|
|
|
I agree with the OP . Vod is here just for leaving negative trusts as far as I have observed . He takes action very rapidly . Ofcourse one negative trust is not going to affect a person having so mmuch positive trusts, but the fact is you have no right to spoil someones profile without a logical reason.
How swiftly should action be taken with potential/very probable scammers? Rapid is usually needed to stop them from scamming, as if you delay that's when people get scammed. I often delay in leaving feedback and/or prefer to give users the benefit of the doubt or wait till I'm 100%, but me not immediately leaving negative when I probably should have has lead to one person getting scammed recently and a few others before that. Vod or QS or whoever may get the occasional feedback wrong from time to time but 99% of the time they're on point and stop a lot of people getting scammed. People who do receive negative feedback they believe in error or without merit can make their case in Meta and if they can show that they're unwarranted the people who left them will often remove them but we really shouldn't be demonizing scam-busters unless their success rate seriously drops off. What about demonizing retired scambusters? As far as I know, Vod quit the forum almost two months ago and is off sailing around now. Some people who are posting here about his "rapid fire" action certainly have a different definition than me of "rapid fire". W.r.t. getting scammed and quick feedback, I have to admit, I've only heard the self-congratulatory claims that QS saves lives by this quick feedback, but I've never actually seen that story, please send me links. On the other hand, I was the victim of a personal smear attack he perpetrated on me, and he ran ndnhc through the mud unneccesarily for almost a week. Ie, I've seen him wrong again and again and I can't really think of a time when he backed down and apologized. I'm just saying Vod is inactive. QS is (thankfully, for the moment) removed from default trust, but he's still out there doing his power-hungry thingy. From my observations, the "default trust" scheme currently going on really causes more harm than good. It creates and unnecessary and unreliable sense of security for newbies who need to take the time to investigate before trading. It creates a privileged class of people who can lord their feedback over others---whether or not they've traded with them. It goes against the bitcoin ethos of being your own bank, making decisions for yourself, etc. The only arguments for keeping it in place (which I've heard) come from those who are on default trust or are clearly working hard to get there and they say "but default trust helps newbies". But these claims are not supported by evidence (that I've seen). |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious if it's actually going to go down. By this time last week the test was already backing up the mempool. BCI shows 1400 unconfirmed tx at the moment, last time the "partial" test sent the backlock to over 8000K. I wonder if this week's test is cancelled.
|
|
|
|
He took $1100+ from one of my best customers, burned him after he gave Maidak tens of thousands of dollars of business. No respect or integrity.
Appears Maidak's exit scam far exceeds $10,000.
At this point it would greatly benefit the community if everyone who has info on him shares it and gets the dox underway. Otherwise he is going to keep preying on the innocent.
His dox are quite public already. You can just look him up on facebook. That's one of the main reasons why I'm not so convinced that this was a planned "exit scam". From what I've seen---hospitalization, etc---he may have fallen on extremely hard times and is making wrong decisions based on aversity. I don't know for sure, but I think it's better to consider things slowly rather than jumping to conclusions. |
|
|
|
I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.
I don't think this is necessary. The number of transactions per hour that the Bitcoin network will process is not going to vary widely on a hour to hour basis, it will also not change very much on a day to day basis, and probably not even on a week to week basis. The reason why the Bitcoin network will process roughly the same number of transactions per hour throughout the day is because of it's global nature - a peak spending period in one part of the world is going to be a period when most people are asleep (and otherwise spending very few transactions) in another part of the world. Economies of scale are not going to change very much on a short term basis. People are not going to wake up one day en masse and decide to start using bitcoin for everything they do. People will start to learn about the benefits of using Bitcoin, will use it for a very small number of purchases, tell their friend about it, and over time use it for a greater percentage of their overall spending. The time from when someone does not own any bitcoin to when they spend it whenever they can will be, on average several months, if not longer. Sure the Bitcoin network will have spikes in transactions for a variety of reasons, although such spikes are, IMO, unlikely to cause great delays in having transactions confirmed, especially delays of more then 6 or 7 blocks. I would argue that a better solution would be to have a client's default fee policy to be changed (if necessary) each time a new version is released. But, Quickseller, your argument is clearly incorrect given the recent stress test. It was very clear that the number of backlogged transactions increased drammatically during a short period of time and if clients took the backlog into account when suggesting a fee, how could that be anything but an improvement? All clients should allow their users to set their own fee at the end of the day, but suggesting a fee based on more information (rather than less) when that information is freely available to any bitcoin node is clearly a good idea. Sure it is possible for the mempool (aka the backlog of transactions) to grow dramatically in a short period of time. However the latest instance of this happening was not the result of anyone making a rational economic decision. The backlog of transactions was artificial and over the long run it is unlikely that these kind of blimps will show up, nor will be sustained over more then several blocks. You can call it "artificial" or "irrational" but its occurrance was an empirical fact. To suggest that something which just, in fact, happened, doesn't happen is like covering your eyes and saying 'see no evil'.
The devs of the various clients have limited resources and I don't think this is an overall good think to invest limited resources into. If you want to invest your own money/resources into creating such a client, then you are free to do so.
Of course I am free, and I thank you for reminding me of it. I guess. Anyway, what we're talking about here is essentially a one-liner in code. And yes, I may indeed fork the wallets I use in order to implement it. I can't see any rational reason not to.
Even if you were to ignore my conclusion that the number of transactions per hour does not vary widely over short periods of time, it would really not be a viable feature to have your client estimate the required fee to get a transaction confirmed quickly for a number of reasons.
1 - The various pools, and miners (when solo mining) ultimately create their own policy as to which transactions they confirm when they find a block. This policy could be to include no transactions, only transactions that have been propagated and meet certain criteria, transactions originated by themselves that have not been previously propagated, transactions provided to them by entities that have pre-existing arrangements with them that may or may not have been previously propagated, among a wide range of other potential criteria.
I would not at all be surprised if a number of entities that push a large number of transactions to the network have agreements with various pools that guarantee their transactions be confirmed in blocks found by those pools if they are not already confirmed.
The policy of each pool has the potential to be, and likely is different from other pools.
Each policy can be different but they all follow the rule of preferring transactions with greater fees. You seem to be forgetting the fact that you don't need to offer any certainty here. It's quite simple and clear that when the mempool is backed up and you offer a greater fee then you are gaining likelihood of a faster confirmation. No one is saying you have to estimate to the minute when it would be confirmed. 2 - Blocks are found, on average, once every 10 minutes, but are often found less frequently. It would only take seconds for the mempool (and thus the likely required fee to have your transaction quickly confirmed) to have grown in size dramatically (someone could potentially push several thousand valid transactions to the network all at once). This means that someone could push a transaction with a fee that their client claims will cause it to be quickly confirmed at time n, then at time n+1, someone pushes 10,000 transactions to the network, many with "better" fees, and before the next block is confirmed after time n. This would create a false sense of a guarantee to the end user. No one should be offering a guarantee, as that would indeed be misleading. Your argument here seems to fall into the fallacy of the perfect being the enemy of the good. If I send a transaction at one moment there's clearly nothing I can do about any number of transactions which are sent after me with greater fees. But if I decide to ignore facts about transactions which have been sent before mine, then that's information which is available to me which I am choosing to ignore. And your arguments that it's somehow better to ignore this information simply aren't strong ones.
3 - Over the long run, the majority of end users are not going to run clients that are full nodes to spend their bitcoin. This means that they will need to place a certain level of trust in other full nodes when deciding what level of fees to include. This is trust that probably shouldn't be given. Today, if full nodes give incomplete information about unconfirmed transactions or about the blockchain, then any node that it connected it to will get that information from someone else. If that full node gives information about invalid transactions, then such invalid transactions will be ignored by everyone else.
Here you say end users are going to trust nodes but they probably shouldn't be doing that? I just don't follow or I'm missing how this is relevant. I apologize. No node is going to have complete information. Especially if we're talking about the future. But anyone with access to a network connection can use information available at the moment in which they send their transaction. The utility of this was demonstrated to me quite empirically when I sent a transaction last monday and waited 11 hours for confirmation. If I had merely recevied some warning about the mempool status I would have sent with a higher fee or waited to send the next day. Not having that information presented to me was clearly not as nice as if I had been presented that information. Knowledge is power and wallets that present information about the current state of affairs to their users are clearly superior to ones that don't.
As it is today, the mempool of every full node is potentially different, and often is going to be different from many other full nodes. The node that your client gets the size of it's mempool from may not be an accurate reflection of the network. It is also possible that a pool could have a large number of nodes that artificially increase the reported size of their mempool in order to encourage people to include larger tx fees then is necessary in an effort to increase the overall tx fees they receive. Requiring a node to prove the size of their mempool would open up a whole new can of worms that would simply not be worth it
Again, no one is suggesting that you need to prove the unprovable. You seem to be going off a deep end here. The idea, as I understood it, was merely to present better information to the user at the moment when a transaction is being sent. Despite all your typing, I still can't see that this would be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
I think the fee should be a function of the number of unconfirmed tx at the time of sending. Would this work? Clients need to be more intelligent.
I don't think this is necessary. The number of transactions per hour that the Bitcoin network will process is not going to vary widely on a hour to hour basis, it will also not change very much on a day to day basis, and probably not even on a week to week basis. The reason why the Bitcoin network will process roughly the same number of transactions per hour throughout the day is because of it's global nature - a peak spending period in one part of the world is going to be a period when most people are asleep (and otherwise spending very few transactions) in another part of the world. Economies of scale are not going to change very much on a short term basis. People are not going to wake up one day en masse and decide to start using bitcoin for everything they do. People will start to learn about the benefits of using Bitcoin, will use it for a very small number of purchases, tell their friend about it, and over time use it for a greater percentage of their overall spending. The time from when someone does not own any bitcoin to when they spend it whenever they can will be, on average several months, if not longer. Sure the Bitcoin network will have spikes in transactions for a variety of reasons, although such spikes are, IMO, unlikely to cause great delays in having transactions confirmed, especially delays of more then 6 or 7 blocks. I would argue that a better solution would be to have a client's default fee policy to be changed (if necessary) each time a new version is released. But, Quickseller, your argument is clearly incorrect given the recent stress test. It was very clear that the number of backlogged transactions increased drammatically during a short period of time and if clients took the backlog into account when suggesting a fee, how could that be anything but an improvement? All clients should allow their users to set their own fee at the end of the day, but suggesting a fee based on more information (rather than less) when that information is freely available to any bitcoin node is clearly a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
I just want to add a big second to JerryCurlzzz's opinions here. Having done absolutely no trading here I still ended up on the receiving end of just one of the personal vendettas he's talking about. And it just happened to be perpetrated by a person who was struggling to get onto the default trust list (and who was on it for a time when he pulled the vendetta), and the person happens to be one who maintains anonymity. I basically have lived the experiences he warns against. I also think there's a growing concensus that the trust sytem as it stands (with default trust lists) causes more problems than it prevents. What's more, expressing that opinion in public got me even more negative trust from an alt account of that special someone who was going after me for a while.
Default trust is a broken way to:
1) provide newbies with a false sense of security
2) allow vendettas and personal issues to cloud the reputations of people who actually just want trade information
3) under/overvaluation of bitcointalk accounts and account trading based on market manipulation of the trust ratings by those who are both on default trust and who buy/sell/escrow account trades.
Many good ideas have been put forward for improving the system from where it stands currently, but none have been implemented. One, tiny, incremental improvement which would help a lot would be to change the warning text from the inflammatory "TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION" to the more descriptive "this person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list". Making this simple change would encourage people to say, "huh, my trust list? I have a trust list?" and to start figuring out who they want to be on that list and who they don't.
|
|
|
|
bitcoin unless you want to chance selling your sha 2 hash at nicehash
Wondering what sha256 coin is worth mining right now.  220euros... for one of them at least Obviously bitcoin is the only sha256 coin that matters. FWIW, I sorta think it's the only coin that matters period. But the deal for me is that I have an old antminer u2 and mining bitcoin on it returns about 0.01BTC every 3 months. Not really that exciting. Sure, I could be wasting my electricity if I choose a stoopid altcoin that goes nowhere, but since altcoins are a circus, I guess I was just thinking there's always the gamble that I mine a sha256 altcoin that skyrockets in price for a week or two and I trade it for more btc than I would have made all year by mining bitcoin directly. It's a kind of gamble, sure. But with just a single usb miner to play with it's a low-stakes gamble. |
|
|
|
Sawdice seems to be having continuous problems dropping huge posters in their promotion thread which have typos that just a simple spell check would fix. After having warned them about it more than once, and watching them do this again and again, I ended up leaving a sarcastic post intended to satirize the situation and hopefully add some humor too. But, alas, the forum mods don't have a sense or sarcasm, or maybe don't have a sense of humor, or maybe it's something else, but I'm not into censorship of relevant ideas so I have to make a new thread for this relevant post deleted from the sawdice thread. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. OH jeez ! that is horrible embarrassment, well that is "enough" mistakes for now, and we will be extra careful before posting anything.
... but then ... i think you guys might need someone fluent in english to double check all your stuff before you post them... these typos make me cringe Maybe it's time for me to launch Interents Tpyo Dice! It will be a themed sight based on bitcointalk posters' style. HODL, of course, but the main point is to ROLLIN all nigth long! Do you guys think I can be a success? Now soliticing invetsors PM me! |
|
|
|
Coincidence he got things taken care of in time for WSOP dealers choice event yesterday?  Conspicuously not wearing a sealswithclubs hat, ha! Good to know that the terms of his probation don't prevent him from playing poker! |
|
|
|
R.I.P. fools :p
i told you from start that you are mismanageded and weak,
you tried to contertalk me and said much shit;
now you are deep in shit and dead, rest in peace, motherfuckers!
i dance on your grave, lol! [not that i am happy about what i just said...]
Meanwhile, now that you are banned EVERYWHERE, you have nothing better to do than troll around in places where you are not welcome. How pathetic. Bitcoinpoker.gg is a good site ... there is just a lack of players and it is tough getting a foothold. They've done better than many. Every success is built on the lessons of several setbacks ... I know myself and many other players would play here in a heartbeat if we were somehow able to gather a critical mass. This place will survive/come back in some form, I have no doubt. Indeed bitcoinpoker.gg has solid fundamentals. You can play in the browser without a problem. You can access from anywhere. You can be sure about deposits and withdrawals (all working great). The site has been demoed and we are all confident. Next step is a big introductory event. Plan a weekend to take the site from "beta" to "fully open" with a major promotion. This site will be like a snowball. Just need to get the initial seed rolling. Looking foward to what they come up with next! |
|
|
|
|
I'm not very good with linker errors but perhaps if the "wrong" libraries are missing routines that are in the ones you just built and put into /usr/local/share/ then you could move the "wrong" libraries out of the way and put a symlink there which points to the "right" ones.
Maybe another option would be to look in the Makefile generated by configure to see if the -l statements look right and if they don't edit them by hand.
|
|
|
|
|
I love how Stunna keeps teasing us and teasing us with revealing what happened with Hufflepuff. I have to admit, I probably wouldn't have cared but now that he's flirted with me about telling the story like once per months for the last 5 months, I'm freaking chomping at the bit. Stunna, tell us or quit teasin!
|
|
|
|
I had an account at crypto-trade few months ago and few months ago it was saying that it will temporary shut down for 3 months. However when I check out it today, it don't even show up a page showing it is shutting down for 3 months... However at the same time I found this exchange on Google: http://cryptotrade.exchange. They have almost the same name, is this the rebranding of them, or just another site copying their name? Thanks. If it is the same, I'd like to know too. They stole a handful of money from me when they did their shutdown scheme in December. I didn't lose much, but on principle they owe it to me if they ever rear their heads again. That said, I've seen nothing but speculation about these guys since December. I know of no concrete information and I can't imagine we'll ever see any refunds from them. |
|
|
|
If you can't understand what they are saying, then most likely they are off topic, no?
I report the posts that make completely NO SENSE whatsoever to me.
you're right, of course. it's just that I understand broken English very well. (I've been there)  It's sad but true that if you have a signature advert, you basically get held to a different standard. If someone posts unintelligible pseudo-english in a thread I'm reading and has no signature advert, I'm probably just going to read it twice to see if there's anything I can glean and if not, pass it by. Depending on whether or not I have some inkling of what they're trying to say, I may ask for clarification. But the same action on an account without much history and a signature advert and I go straight to the report button. |
|
|
|
could they at least give him his microphone back? i miss donkdown.... and then he could go on the air and criticize the NGC like Ace Rothstein in Casino. Yes, this! We may have to wait until his probation is finished but hopefully after that the man can at least get back to free-speechifying. It's such a shame that he is being punished for being brave enough to put his face and name behind what he does. But as long as powerful governments are willing to punish people for such bravery, Micon has taught us a lesson that anonymity and encryption are required for freedom. Nevertheless, having taught us this lesson, Micon will hopefully be able to have an even larger platform for discussion of ideas---although, I think he'd better stay away from actual businesses from now on. |
|
|
|
"James1999" and "sawdice" has the same typos and ortography. I have analysed all of your posts and compared them, I have seen many similarities that can lead to think that you are the same person trying to promote this website.
If that's the case, he's using a very strange strategy because only a few days ago James was in here complaining like crazy at the lack of professionalism from sawdice for not paying out his winnings in a timely manner. Now he's showing up complaining about being locked out. It's hard to understand what kind of promotional strategy you think this is. Also, James1999 has a total of 25 posts. I'm thinking you weren't making a predicitve hidden markov model with standard stochastic tools and measuring perplexity of your language model against the sawdice's posts because, erm, there's not anywhere near enough data to do that. So, that makes me think that your "analysis" was reading the 25 posts by hand, but if you did that, surely you would have seen James in here complaing about the lack of professionalism. So, what kind of analysis *did* you do? |
|
|
|
my account is locked and op said he is investigating it, cant access my money
This is standard, don't stress about it, you will get your money. They are a new site and need to be sure everything going on is legit. They have more than 80btc in their bankroll, I'm pretty confident they can handle any of your wins  James1999 is the guy who got the big win on here right after yours. It took them a day but they paid him. He asked upthread how/why he couldn't log into his other account "defeat" but didn't (that I saw) make any claim of more winnings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
