Bitcoin Forum
October 28, 2016, 04:39:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0  [Torrent].
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 458 »
1481  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: FinCEN addresses Bitcoin on: March 19, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
This is so full of loopholes.


So, looking at this:

In 2008, FinCEN issued guidance stating that as long as a broker or dealer in real currency or other commodities accepts and transmits funds solely for the purpose of effecting a bona fide purchase or sale of the real currency or other commodities for or with a customer, such person is not acting as a money transmitter under the regulations.

I interpret that to mean that if I buy your bitcoins and give you dollars, I am "effecting a bona fide sale of the real currency"  (I sold you dollars).    So to me that means I'm not a money transmitter.

1482  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: FinCEN addresses Bitcoin on: March 19, 2013, 05:27:19 AM
If you stick to selling under 1k a day

For clarity, that "$1K per-day" threshold is for use in determining if you would be considered a Money Service Business (MSB), and is not relevant in the discussion about whether or not an activity causes you to be considered a "money transmitter".

No activity threshold applies to the definition of money transmitter. Thus, a person who engages as a business in the transfer of funds is an MSB as a money transmitter, regardless of the amount of money transmission activity.

1483  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: FinCEN addresses Bitcoin on: March 19, 2013, 02:37:39 AM
The anonymous BTC<-->USD exchanges are going to go two ways: Those that comply with FinCen and ask customers for full information

Yup.  There's really no way the exchange could prove the withdrawal was not to a third party.
1484  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: FinCEN addresses Bitcoin on: March 19, 2013, 01:49:15 AM
Also an I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL) disclaimer.

I was trying to figure if this applies to a hosted (shared) EWallet provider who holds customer's bitcoins and broadcasts bitcoin transactions, but does not convert to fiat or any other type of currency.

Administrators and Exchangers of Virtual Currency

An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency [,,,] for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations,

Because the EWallet provider isn't providing exchange to fiat or other currency (or value that substitutes as currency) the service is not a money transmitter.

That's good.

An administrator or exchanger that [...] (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations,

a.   E-Currencies and E-Precious Metals

Examples include, in part, (1) the transfer of funds between a customer and a third party by permitting a third party to fund a customer's account;

One example of this is an exchange that lets a customer have cash deposited into the exchange's bank account.  There's no way to prove the funds were the customer's funds and not some third party that had deposited for credit to the customer's exchange account.  

Because of the difficulties exchanges have had in offering that service I've just assumed that was a gray area.  But what if these funds are bitcoins and not dollars?  Does this mean an EWallet provider [Edit: exchange] needs to know that the bitcoins received to my wallet account came from me, and were not the result of a transfer I received from someone else?  That's the whole point of an EWallet .   This is unclear to me if this "no third party payments" restriction applies to bitcoin transfers as well.

(2) the transfer of value from a customer's currency or commodity position to the account of another customer;

That's the end of redeemable codes and account-to-account (A2A) transfers (unless, of course, the service providing it is an exchange and money transmitter).  But again, is this just for fiat funds, or do BTC transfers apply as well?

or (3) the closing out of a customer's currency or commodity position, with a transfer of proceeds to a third party.

So the cash-out services where the withdrawal goes to whichever bank account you provide would make them a money transmitter.  Or the ones that will cash out coins and send a Western Union money transfer or make a cash deposit to my bank account at my bank -- those are money transmitters according to this.
1485  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: strange transaction on: March 18, 2013, 11:11:44 PM
background: the following transaction caused me to do a rescan (incorrectly). psy assisted me recover my client (detailed in tech support) and thought it would resolve this transaction. It did not! here it is:

 Status: 2130 confirmations
Date: 3/5/13 17:10
Debit: -0.04516 BTC
Debit: -0.00717549 BTC
Debit: -0.00716474 BTC
Net amount: -0.05950023 BTC
Transaction ID: e7fcb782ce3d36e5d33858ac112a1c29ce118f65a4f8ed25ee641e11050b6a8d

No send address for this amount was generated by me?. The "recent transactions box" shows an arrow both in and out? The transaction history shows just a debit for this in my client.

Would someone who is very very clever kindly have a look at this and offer an explanation as to how this occured?. If it can be recovered all the better but a rescan did not work? It is a small amount and if it is gone it is gone but if it happens again to a larger amount or to someone important it needs in principle to be understood!. regards reg.

This program uses Qt version 4.7.3.

v4.7.3 is so old.  I don't even remember what "arrow both in and out" would refer to. [Edit: That number of confirmations is what shows on your client, correct?  And that corresponds to the number of confirmations that show on, correct?

What is clear is that the blockchain shows those amounts spent and confirmed (in e7fcb782ce3d36e5d33858ac112a1c29ce118f65a4f8ed25ee641e11050b6a8d ), however the addresses those funds were spent from still have balances available for spending.

I'm not sure your familiarity with Bitcoin so let me describe something basic, in case you weren't aware.   You didn't have to spend 0.04516 anywhere for there to be a 0.04516 spend from your wallet.  The transaction in which those amounts were spent was for an amount of either 2.0 BTC or 0.01293025 BTC with the other one likely being change returned.

So if you didn't make that spend transaction on March 5th, 2013 then somehow somewhere your private keys are being used to spend, which could possibly mean a compromised wallet.dat or computer system (or both).   I've no idea if that's what happened but if you are saying you didn't spend either 2.0 BTC or 0.01293025 BTC on March 5th, 2013 then you should presume your system is not secure at this point.   [And the response to that is to use a different system that is secure, generate a Bitcoin address .. like using, and from your suspect system send your remaining funds to that address until you can rule out any chance that you have a wallet and/or system that is not secure.]
1486  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Casascius coins illegal in the US? on: March 18, 2013, 10:45:50 PM
intended for use as current money

Since the value of a Casascius physical bitcoin is not in the metal but instead hidden under the (easy to counterfeit) hologram, I would make the argument that for that reason alone these are not intended for use as current money. A rational person wouldn't accept these in trade unless you trust the person with whon you are trading.   Therefore, these aren't are form of current money.
1487  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: VIRWOX down? on: March 18, 2013, 10:32:05 PM
anybody know why virwox is down?

I didn't try until just now, but I can access the site.

Generally, when verifying if a site is down, there are tools to confirm that it is not just you:
1488  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin Economy Value --> $519,555,304.09 on: March 18, 2013, 10:08:36 PM
I don't like using the word "market cap" because I believe it's somewhat irreverent.

And wrong, since bitcoin isn't "capital".

Total Dollar Valuation (TDV) would probably be the correct term.  It represents the purchasing power at the current market rate.

1489  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Paypal not reversible for Bitcoins on: March 18, 2013, 09:39:10 PM
I know this to be fact as I am being screwed by Paypal as we speak

You are not being screwed by PayPal, you bought something that wasn't delivered.  You made the assumption that you were protected by PayPal but they are avoiding that using technicality (by saying you bought a digital good).

How did you pay for your purchase, from a PayPal balance, or with credit card?   If you paid with credit card, you can charge back through your credit card issuer. 
1490  Economy / Web Wallets / Re: - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics on: March 18, 2013, 07:45:18 PM
I'm not sure why they are not confirming. I have rebroadcasted them several times but it doesn't seem to have helped,

That's probably something whose root cause should be understood (and not just overlooked).
1491  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: List of Major Bitcoin Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses on: March 18, 2013, 07:36:29 PM
There was a discussion on IRC and on these forums regarding if the fork made double spending possible and I was refuted and plainly lost the argument. No the fork did not enable the possibility of a double spend

It most certainly did.  The OKPay double spend was an intentional double spend (performed by manually constructing and broadcasting a transaction that re-spent previously spent funds) and was successful due to a combination of factors.

There still are even more double spends that can be performed (as they are still unconfirmed and not yet spent) but simply haven't (yet):

There are several transactions that were confirmed in the major fork a few days ago but have not confirmed in the new chain for some reason. Normally these transactions would be pruned however since they are already included in an orphaned block they cannot be removed, this is unusual and I'm not sure why they are not confirming. I have rebroadcasted them several times but it doesn't seem to have helped, the best course of action would be to double spend them with another client.
1492  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-03-18 Wired: Ring of Bitcoins: Why Your Digital Wallet Belongs ... on: March 18, 2013, 07:27:16 PM
Well, for all we know he's lying about what the trick actually was.  Wink

And if the ring is stolen the funds could be transferred (assuming he has a backup copy of the key) before any cracking attempt could solve it.

But yes, he might have said "there's only a few bitcoins, the metal is worth more than the bitcoins" or something like that so as to not incent those who might consider the possibilities.
1493  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: BTC Buy - mobile phone site on: March 18, 2013, 07:10:07 PM
There is an option at my provider to "load" the PIN directly to a device. That would eliminate a need for a higher security, but it would also bring up a privacy concern, 'cuz you will be disclosing your phone # to me. Given that, do you think you woulds still use that option?

You've had the ability to load directly to a mobile # (without the refill code method) and you've been holding out?

I personally tend to prefer the method that protects privacy but simplicity (load directly) trumps privacy concerns for most.

From a mobile, not having to go the refill code route would be preferable and easier for most.  If you can offer that, it probably should be the default even (and refill code as the optional method).
1494  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How to transfer USD to BTC-E? on: March 18, 2013, 05:09:29 AM
I'm trying to transfer money to my BTC-E account from my bank (checking) account or debit card.

There's a reason bitcoins exchange for a lower rate on BTC-e than elsewhere, and that difference is partly because of the difficulty in transferring funds there.

AurumXChange will let you transfer VouchX USD vouchers as well as a few other redeemable codes (including Mt. Gox USD codes) into BTC-e vouchers.
1495  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Wedding social prize donations help on: March 18, 2013, 04:33:15 AM
I would be looking for donations and hopefully get some companies some free advertising to promote bitcoins for one of the prizes that people have at socials.

Might want to describe the problem you are solving.  For instance, I wasn't aware of the term "wedding social".  In some cultures, these either go by other names or are not necessarily fundraisers but instead are just for the purpose of entertainment.
1496  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: BTC Buy - mobile phone site on: March 18, 2013, 04:24:15 AM
Are you seriously going to be pasting PGP key from your mobile phone,

Or if you too a GPG fingerprint I'ld do that instead.   But now that you offer GPG encryption, that's how I prefer to receive my mobile wireless refill code.  And sometimes I will be placing that order from my mobile.   I might not redeem (after decrypting the message) from my mobile, but I'll likely be placing the order using it.
1497  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Buying 100-200 Bitcoins from Europe on: March 18, 2013, 04:18:03 AM
I am considering a buy of 100-200 BTCs from Denmark. How do I minimize my transaction fees in this purchase? I have previously used Mt. Gox. but I was wondering if other ways were cheaper.

In denmark you can do a domestic DKK transfer through Bitcoin Nordic:
 - sells bitcoins and accepts DKK:

There might be other methods that work for you.  For instance, if you can send SEPA (EUR), then BITSTAMP is one of a half dozen exchanges that you can send SEPA payments to:

You could even try CurrencyFair where you transfer DKK by bank to them, then convert there to different funds and wire from there.  That's another method to go from DKK to EUR to send to BITSTAMP:

1498  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: ICBIT Derivatives Market (USD/BTC futures trading) - LIVE on: March 18, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
The contract was settled at 20:01 UTC, just like the contract says.

I didn't have any BUH3 myself so I don't have a log entry.   At a minimum it settled before 20:29 UTC when the Tweet was sent.  And before 20:39 UTC which is the timestamp when Fireball's forum was posted here.

I did personally see open buys and sells for it right up before 20:00.

So I don't know how externally one could verify the exact millisecond the settlement numbers were reported.  The settlement price though is as-of exactly 20:00 UTC.   There is evidence that this settlement price was obtained between 20:00 UTC (when trading for it was no longer possible) and 20:29 UTC (the time of the tweet), and other traders have reported this timestamp in their logs:

I did and here's the log entry:

2013-03-15 20:00:01   332   Variation margin, last = 47.0764

as well as mutliple traders confirming that at the time of settlement (or minutes after) the 24 hour VWAP price from Mt. Gox was at that 47.0764 level, including:

I can also confirm that I looked at MtGox at the time of settlement, and the price was correct at least to four digits (two decimals after the point).  

[Edit:  OK, maybe I'm overlooking something basic and am missing your point entirely.  Are you instead asking for the link that shows when settlement happens?

Trading sessions
Clearing happens at 20:00 GMT, clearing duration is flexible.
-  ]
1499  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Anonymity vs Trust on: March 18, 2013, 03:14:45 AM
I keep trying to mull this over in my head. The internet thrives on anonymity, and in general, everyone hates filling out their information, especially if they don't know where it's going. I think this lends to the 'try it and see' part of BTC. But in terms of giving/trading with coins, the anonymity has everyone on edge. Sure you have an account here and an account there and reputation gets built on each of these forums separately. But how would one know, say, that when you're dealing with someone who wants you to go first, say, that just because they have a good rep on webby A, they might not on webby B? And what sort of recourse is there? The apparent lack of recourse is what has me wary.

A pattern that repeats is for a person to build up trust and then once enough trust has been reached use that to scam and then abandon that profile.  Anonymity makes that cheap and easy to do.

Even knowing the person's real-life identity isn't protection -- as we know from pirateat40's ponzi scam.

The Bitcoin-OTC Web of Trust (WoT) is also vulnerable to that however it can be longer in duration and can span communities.

When dealing with non-reversible forms of payment, essentially there are no guarantees and limited recourse.  That's the nature of these instruments.

Some effort can be made to make it clear your counterparty is not in it to cut and run.  Here's an article that explains how this is nothing new:

And here are some resources:
1500  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Three months old un-confirmed transaction on: March 18, 2013, 02:55:21 AM
How is that possible?

You are probably describing how in your Bitcoin-Qt client is a spend transaction that still shows 0/unconfirmed.

If so, then what most likely is the situation is that the transaction uses funds that you had received and spent.   The stock Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client doesn't let you spend any funds until they have at least one confirmation.   So what can happen is that payment you received showed a confirmation, you spent it, and then it reverted back to having no confirmations.

Looking at it now then, your client has an invalid transaction -- it wants to spend funds that you never really had and don't have today.  You have a transaction that is no longer valid.  Worse, if your transaction also attempted to spend any other funds which were valid, it will reserve those for this transaction which will never confirm.

The Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client doesn't handle these outgoing double spends nicely.    In fact, unless you are technical they become quite a pain.

The easiest resolution for some is to import their wallet into another client that can handle this scenario better, or to export your private keys from your Bitcon-Qt, create a new, empty wallet and import the private keys so that you end up with exactly what you just had, less the offending transaction.

The easiest way for some is to import the wallet.dat to a new and spend the funds from there.

Otherwise, the Bitcoin-Qt client has a Debug console in which you can export your private keys.  The:
command will give you all the addresses in your wallet, and from there you can do a:
 dumpprivkey [BitcoinAddress]
on  each address. 

Then if you are creating a new wallet, then to import the keys:
 importprivkey [PrivateKey]

For more info on importing:
Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 458 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!