 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
Thanks for the help. So in the future, what's a guy gotta do to secure a modest transaction and not have it take forever? It seems like my transaction with a fee is significantly lower priority than a lot of transactions without a fee, even ones which are 10 times more bytes than mine and about the same age
|
|
|
|
|
My coins haven't been touched for a very long time. Do older coins = lower priority? That wouldn't make much sense
|
|
|
|
|
For example, I get a 258 byte "low priority" transaction when paying .0005 as a fee, even though another transaction which is also 258 bytes and also pays .0005 as a fee, is not "low priority". What could be the reason? (These measurements based on the Bitcoin Charts)
|
|
|
|
After this idiotic claim they told me they could offer free trading for a month and a free yubi-key, under the following conditions:
- File a police report.
- Submit my pc's for digital investigation by police.
- Send both the report and a copy of my passport to Japan. Hah, that's adding insult to injury. MtGox is a troll! |
|
|
|
Elections on 2012.
...
I just wish people would realize that presidents, whether republican or democrat, really DO NOT have control of the economy. They're not like pilots in a plane. At most they're just stewardesses, with no real control over things like unemployment, markets, etc. The Fed and Congress have way more sway in it, but presidents always take credit for when economy improved (Clinton taking credit for Internet and globalization), or get blamed when the economy tanks (Bush and Obama being blamed for things caused by Congress and banks) Well, for starts, he could nominate some people who AREN'T wealthy banksters into his cabinet and government. Replace Bernanke. Veto anything bad Congress attempts to do. But of course a president would never do any of those things, so in practice, yes, you are right. |
|
|
|
|
Also, you should never bother washing your clothes because you might get hit by a planecrash tomorrow in which case the effort would be wasted (this is RE: forgotten password paranoia)
|
|
|
|
This is the logic of all the hardcore anti-encryption people in this thread: Durrr, public-private key encryption is useless because integer factorization is Turing computable! Therefore all secure communication should be carried out via hand-passed notes! Good thing JoelKatz wasn't the one running MtGox or he would've stored all the passwords in outright cleartext ("no point hashing the passwords, an attacker who obtains the database can just brute force them all anyway") |
|
|
|
|
If you use a password manager to generate a secure new password, you should copy it into notepad until you've confirmed that the manager has actually saved the password. I can hardly believe LastPass is so badly designed, it can sometimes forget the passwords it generates, leaving you locked out of your own accounts. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
|
Tradehill seems to have their "market data" page set to auto-refresh.
Not very wise O_O
Are they really hosted on hostgator?
|
|
|
|
This hack was inevitable. Mt Gox deals with millions of dollars per month and was ripe for the picking. I bet there's a million dollars stored in accounts on the site right now, and millions more in BTC. The withdrawl limit saved Mt Gox, this time, but next time they won't be so lucky.
I am unlikely to use Mt Gox ever again after this. It's the equivalent of the NYSE or FTSE being hacked and all shares sold. If we're to treat BTC seriously we need serious security and service. This hacking shows just how flaky bitcoin can be and despite the claims of P2P, security, etc, it's almost totally reliant on a few nodes for trading and bitcoin creation.
We know very little as of yet. I think you may be overreacting. At worst someone stole tons of coins, at best they got 1000 USD from a site that makes tons and tons each day. One is a huge deal, the other is a minor annoyance. There is no overeacting here. Mt Gox had no automatic safeguards and logic checks to ensure the market could not be compromised. Gox is no longer a Magic The Gathering trading site. They are dealing with serious amounts of money with no auditing or regulation. How was taking a BTC's value down 99.95% within minutes not stopped by the exchange? I know the rabid libetarians will say it was the will of the market, and if it needs to fall to zero and back again then so be it. Witness the sheer unbridled greed of some posters on this forum who managed to snag BTCs at 99% off, and now whining that the trades will be rolled back. We truly don't know the extent of this attack yet. If it was done properly, the script should have transferred out as many BTCs as possible before the market was shut. Those cannot be retrieved. Pardon me for being a newb, but can't we just look at the block chain to determine an upper bound on how much was withdrawn from MtGox today? |
|
|
|
|
Speaking of block chain bloat: the existing state of affairs actually incentivizes the practice of "bitcoin change": If a merchant wants to sell something for 1 Satoshi, he can make a deal with his customer: the customer sends the merchant 1BTC and the merchant sends the customer back 0.99999999BTC. This way, no transaction fee is required. However, it clogs up the block chain more than if the customer simply sent the Satoshi directly.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the update, devs  You guys rock Happy the mandatory fee was lowered, disappointed it is still undisableable without recompiling the sourcecode. (Just tried sending myself .00001BTC as a test, and it refused to send it without a .0005BTC fee). Any fixed-size hardcoded minimum transaction fee in the original client is an example of centralized authority controlling bitcoin: by hardcoding 0.0005 as the minimum, Bitcoin.org is signaling that they do not expect 0.0005BTC to become particularly burdensome in the foreseeable future. Granted, such an assumption is quite probably true, but I still feel it ought to be the market who decides such things, not Bitcoin.org. In particular, bitcoin granularity is effectively capped now at .0001BTC (for original client users). For example, many people have talked about Satoshi (units equal to 0.00000001BTC), but if an original client user wants to actually spend a Satoshi, they will be charged a 5,000,000% fee. So it is tantamount to false advertising to casually discuss these units as if they are already usable. Proposed Guiding Principle: To the extent it is possible without unduly inconveniencing the developers, the main client should be designed in such a way that if all further client development were halted due to unforeseen catastrophe, freezing the client at the current version, this version should scale arbitrarily. The present client does not scale. Assuming 21million BTC, a .0005BTC transaction fee is 2.38*10^-9 percent of the ENTIRE bitcoin economy [1]. This might intuitively seem tiny, but bear in mind that 2.38*10^-9 percent of the current USD economy is [2] around $20 (assuming 829billion USD in circulation [3]). [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+percent+of+21000000+is+.0005[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.38*10^{-9}+%25+of+829000000000[3] http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html |
|
|
|
Thanks Jeff. Just sent you a small tip. We really do appreciate you guys' work, even if we seem like whiners sometimes  You said you welcome suggestions, so here goes. * Go back to the optional fees in the earlier client. If they enter 0 for fee and try to make a low priority transaction, pop up the following message: "You are about to send a low priority transaction with no transaction fee. Please be aware that this transaction will take a very long time to go through, and cannot be cancelled. The transaction is considered low priority because it is such a small amount. [Button: Cancel Transaction] [Button: Enter Transaction Anyway] [Checkbox: Never Show This Message Again]" (If they check the box, then, of course, stop popping up the message and henceforth allow feeless transactions without complaint) As a blogger, I'm eager to welcome micro-donations. Tiny tips (in the ~1cent range, or even smaller!) would absolutely revolutionize blogging. Now, as such, I am willing to accept very long confirmation times as a necessary evil. I think I speak for a lot of bloggers when I say this, and probably many merchants too. I would even accept confirmation times of an entire year! Just let my readers send the tiny tips with no fee  One other thing. I currently have a 1BTC transaction in my history (first withdrawal from MtGox, for testing) and it has over 700 confirmations and visibly growing. It was made days ago. I'm not advocating total communism, but I think at least *some* of that work could have gone toward fee-less transactions... RE microtransactions: this is a FAQ. It is even in satoshi's original paper and crypto postings. Bitcoin was never intended to be a useful microtransaction network. Bitcoin is not optimal for microtransactions, and probably never will be. RE fees: the rapid increase in value caught everyone by surprise. Months ago, we were dealing with "penny flooding" on the network. Now, 0.01 BTC is a non-trivial amount. Right now we are releasing new versions of the software as fast as possible, trying to fight the biggest fires ("triage") impacting users on the network. We know fees need work, and there are already pull requests trying to deal with this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/289Longer term, we want the community to participate in a discussion about how to best balance (a) rapidly changing bitcoin value with (b) protecting the network. Right now most transactions do not require a fee, but the default client requires a fee in a few situations: 1. Transactions smaller than 0.01 BTC 2. Transactions whose byte size larger than the 27k free transaction area (very rare) So, to answer the question "why not make it easy to ignore fees?" is really unspending is very difficult. If it's just a checkbox for users, a lot of users will uncheck it, their transactions will not get relayed or confirmed, and their coins are simply lost in limbo: never confirming, and no way[1] to recover. Losing coins is a horrible user experience, far worse than having to pay 0.0005 BTC. But we are open to all suggestions about transaction fees. You just have to understand the "unspend" problem in its entirety, and the support nightmare that goes along with it. Jeff [1] Technically, this is not really true. You can "unspend" by restoring a wallet backup or some other esoteric means, but this is not something within the reach of your average user. |
|
|
|
I may be alone in this, but anybody upset about a 20 cent fee on a transaction doesn't interest me in the slightest, either buying from or selling to, with bitcoins.
So I guess that's it for microtransactions? You're right, though. Imagine what a failure bittorrent would have been if they hadn't required 20 cent transaction fees for every download. They're not required. I haven't used them but once since I started mining, and it was to get coins out quicker. If they're unable to change the text in the box on the standard bitcoin client (as I was) from "0.01" to "0.00" for the transaction fee, they're idiots. We have no shortage of idiots in here already. If they can't do the above, what are they doing getting involved with an electronic cryptocurrency for micro-transactions? I know you're passionate about this belief of yours that it's mandatory, but it's simply not true. To re-pose your torrent question, imagine how the music industry would be doing if they had caught on to $0.99 per song instead of $20 for a shitty album with one good song on it 10 years ago... Ahh, I see, it is a friendly misunderstanding. In the latest version of the standard Bitcoin client (currently downloadable from the frontpage of bitcoin.org), there is no way to disable the transaction fees. (They apparently only pop up, though, for microtransactions. Maybe that is why you did not see them) Now you know. I hope you will join me in asking the developers to get rid of this mandatory fee. As a miner, you'll benefit by Bitcoin catching on for more merchants. It'll catch on for more merchants if there isn't a mandatory fee. That's most of the appeal of Bitcoin for merchants: escape from credit card/PayPal fees! |
|
|
|
I may be alone in this, but anybody upset about a 20 cent fee on a transaction doesn't interest me in the slightest, either buying from or selling to, with bitcoins.
So I guess that's it for microtransactions? Right now U.S. legislation is on the verge of capping credit card transactions fees at an amount effectively lower than 20 cents. Imagine my face when bitcoin = more expensive than VISA. You're right, though. Imagine what a failure bittorrent would have been if they hadn't required 20 cent transaction fees for every download. |
|
|
|
|
This is probably a pipe dream, but I think it would be cosmically wonderful if a side effect of Bitcoin were the creation of a new generation of billionaires and trillionaires, created not by greed or by inheritance, but by idealism. I would prefer Satoshi over a lot of the current multi-billionaires we have! Imagine, Bitcoin a deus ex machina for the miserable state of affairs around the world.
Yeah, probably a pipe dream.
There are absolute limits to wealth. At the absolute upper max, you could be the "boss" of every person on earth. There is no way to be wealthier than that, since money is merely a means of compelling others to do things for you. Now, already, almost all of us are "servants" of, probably, the top 1% or 2% of the world. And that 1% or 2% got there by bleeding us dry! I'd rather be Satoshi's servant, if that's what it comes to.
|
|
|
|
This is true, but some of the expected fees are 'soft', and should not force the sender to include them. If the fee is not paid on a low priority transaction, then the transaction is simply ignored by the miners until it's old enough that it's priority is above the minimum. I've done this many times when not under time pressure. This fee must be required by his client for some reason.
Again, the main bitcoin.org client imposes a transaction fee (currently 0.0005 BTC) based on the type of transaction (see above). You can recompile the code to make your version of the client have zero fee, if you choose (your milage may vary). Change, in main.h: static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = 50000; To: static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = 0; The reason is improved acceptance of the client / concept of Bitcoins, not because it's required. If you don't want to include a fee on a transaction and you're willing to wait, then use a client that doesn't enforce a fee. My current version of the official client (under OSX) will allow me to set the transaction fee to 0.00. However, I believe if I tried to turn-around and send coins I had just received, and was sending a sufficiently small amount, it would deny the transaction without the fee (though I haven't tested this). Another client may accept it. I want to point out that by having this option available through re-compiling, but not through an options menu, we are effectively placing an unfair tax on users who do not have the skill (or desire) to mess with source code. If we want Bitcoin to catch on, we can't afford something like this. |
|
|
|
* Fees do not prevent an attacker from spamming. A determined attacker will simply use a different client. By putting this ineffective measure in the official client, we only punish legitimate users.
Please direct me to this other client that can cause other nodes on the network to accept and relay my fee-less spam transactions. That is not the issue. The issue is that a determined attacker can broadcast transactions arbitrarily fast. You are right that other nodes can choose to ignore them, but that's not the issue. And anyway, that just furthers the case for removing fees as an anti-spam measure. |
|
|
|
|
One thing's for sure. I am not going to begin offering anything for bitcoin until the fees are fixed. It would discredit me because the way it is set up right now is so unprofessional. I have written before about fees and I'll recap real quick:
* The previous system was awesome, where users could optionally add a fee, and there was a notice about how if you don't pay the fee, you'll have low priority.
* Fees do not prevent an attacker from spamming. A determined attacker will simply use a different client. By putting this ineffective measure in the official client, we only punish legitimate users.
* Fees of any size are extremely chilling to micro-transactions. This defeats one of the huge selling points of bitcoin. Changing from .01 to .005 or .0001 is just a bandaid fix and doesn't truly address this issue.
* Fees act as an unfair tax on people who use the default client. We are essentially punishing people for using the frontpage client from bitcoin.org!
* Fees prevent people from "test driving" bitcoins when they first get them. Many users' very first experience with a real live bitcoin is a scary popup message with a draconian fee rule.
I strongly urge the developers to release an emergency update to the client to remove fees and return to the old optional fee input box.
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, the whole ordeal of getting money from a bank to MtGox only serves to hammer home the virtues of bitcoin-- which might have otherwise been missed.
Consider: when you pay college tuition with a wire transfer, you simply forget about it. You probably imagine the money went through instantly. You don't realize it takes days and days, because you don't have to do anything with it once it's transferred.
Most people would not believe how slow bank transfers are. There is no real reason they should be so slow, and so most people would just assume they are fast. Putting money in MtGox is very educational.
Better to suffer and learn today, than have to someday be in a position where you really NEED to move money fast (loved one in the hospital, etc.) and suddenly be rudely awakened then.
Banks: holding your money and treating you like shit, since forever!
|
|
|
|
|
