|
1103
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 291.2409 BTC for a 0.0001 BTC transaction .
|
on: April 26, 2016, 08:52:18 PM
|
Someone probably made a mistake again. let's see if anyone pops up requesting miners to return the fee...
Yes! It was me, I made a mistake. Please return the fee to a BTC address of mine   Sign a message of GTFO haha Someone probably made a mistake again. let's see if anyone pops up requesting miners to return the fee...
That's an insane mistake there. There's no chance that user would get the fee back, as pool users would never agree on such things. Can't even imagine what i would do if it happened to me. This is one of faults of bitcoin imho.. Pools have previously agreed in returning erroneously sent transactions with a huge fee. Mined by Bitclub network (haven't heard of them until now). https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/725042693500346368Hey @BitClub_Network. Will you do the right thing? The entire community is watching. Your chance to demonstrate your principles On the bright sight, TX got confirmed pretty quickly. A quick search on them makes them look like a ponzi scam. let's see what comes out of here... Someone probably made a mistake again. let's see if anyone pops up requesting miners to return the fee...
That's an insane mistake there. There's no chance that user would get the fee back, as pool users would never agree on such things. Can't even imagine what i would do if it happened to me. This is one of faults of bitcoin imho.. Wallets should have many failsafes to keep this from happening. Agreed. Manually adjusting fees should be on a separate screen from entering the transaction amount, with a confirm dialogue. Anything over a certain amount (such as 0.01 BTC) should receive multiple "Are you SURE???" warnings. Frankly, if I was authoring a wallet I'd simply disallow manual entry of fees that were above some level (such as 0.1 or 1.0 BTC) to prevent such a disaster. If someone actually had a need to send something with a huge fee let them seek out a special wallet/tool to do it, the rest of us should be immune to such catastrophic errors. Yes, it would be helpful to have failsafes, but this isn't an issue to most users sending a normal transaction (mainly because many people have their fee settings on default). These things are normally done with custom clients. |
|
|
|
|
1106
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Taavet Hinrikus or resident FUDster?
|
on: April 25, 2016, 07:57:07 PM
|
At least it offers a logical reason for these posts. I assumed that the FUDster lost his shirt in a scam and his anger drives him to post. But perhaps he is just doing a job. Trying to put downward pressure on peoples perception of BTC and earning a few Satoshi each post?
Maybe yes. I believe some might be like this. I guess that's one of the things in life we'll never know  |
|
|
|
|
1107
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitstamp Moves to Luxembourg, Becomes First Nationally-Licensed Exchange
|
on: April 25, 2016, 07:52:40 PM
|
What does this mean for endusers? They were already allowed to proceed with fiat cashouts, what does this regulation add? I don't see good things coming out of this, but I am likely misinformed... Good news there is they'll be creating a BTC/EUR pair Nejc told us that he and his company believes coming into regulatory compliance is one of the best ways to help Bitcoin go mainstream. He believes that by securing a direct line with regulators, rather than the indirect regulation imposed through banking partnerships, banks and other financial institutions will feel more comfortable dealing with Bitcoin. It probably is. But it's also the best way to get governments putting their nose in what addresses you withdraw to and where you send the funds, and how much you send. It means that bigger investors might dip a toe in.
That's good. But at what cost? At the moment they won't do it because of the risks (losing coins/hacking etc).
They face exactly the same risks of losing coins/hacking they did before. |
|
|
|
|
1109
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Taavet Hinrikus or resident FUDster?
|
on: April 25, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
|
I don't think FUDsters here are necessarily paid shills by a company like that... I imagine most of them are just trolls that have nothing more exciting to do than announce that doomsday is approaching and most of them likely do it for free. The sentences these people use are all very similar, the content is pretty much the same, there isn't much to add to their speech, so it will always be similar. It doesn't directly mean these are the same people, but I could be wrong |
|
|
|
|
1112
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Can we Manipulate Bitcoin price?
|
on: April 24, 2016, 10:09:58 PM
|
|
If you want to organize a group to do so and you have a carefully thought out plan of attack... yes, we can. But as said, better let the market be as it is and take whatever route it wants to.
|
|
|
|
|
1114
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Steam + Bitcoin = Confirmed !
|
on: April 24, 2016, 05:09:41 PM
|
Now, when will this be released? I hope soon... But by it's english dictionary definition, not by Valve Time definitions Maybe you should compare when will steam accept bitcoin with when will valve release HL3  That one's different and will take way longer than accepting Bitcoin, if it ever happens |
|
|
|
|
1115
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Steam + Bitcoin = Confirmed !
|
on: April 24, 2016, 02:11:39 PM
|
This is definitely great to hear. I did not expect it to happen so quickly though. Now, when will this be released? I hope soon... But by it's english dictionary definition, not by Valve Time definitions In the next update. It should be pretty soon as the last one was 25 days ago (31.03). Checking the link I posted, next update means: Too many updates to count since then. |
|
|
|
|
1116
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Steam + Bitcoin = Confirmed !
|
on: April 24, 2016, 02:02:24 PM
|
Really looking forward to this, I guess that with so many confirmations it is pretty impossible to deny this is going to happen I wasn't convinced before, but I'm starting to get convinced now... I'll definitely be spending Bitcoins there! Now, when will this be released? I hope soon... But by it's english dictionary definition, not by Valve Time definitions |
|
|
|
|
1117
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: SegWit is a waste of disk space?
|
on: April 24, 2016, 01:17:06 PM
|
|
We don't NEED SegWit, we need something that can make us scale properly.
SegWit is being proposed and supported because it is a conservative approach.
SegWit is not a waste of disk space, as far as I could see, it is instead a way of rearranging the "house", organising furniture in order to have more space, speaking figuratively.
As for the rest, gmaxwell said pretty much everything.
|
|
|
|
|
1118
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Mainstream In Venezuela Its Lying Of Whats Really Happening
|
on: April 23, 2016, 05:44:40 PM
|
I don't know who or what to believe anymore regarding news about Bitcoin, mining and Venezuela. There was a user on another thread in the mining section claiming more or less what you say (that news about Venezuela aren't necessarily all true). Theses things are bad for Venezuela and Bitcoin if what you are saying is the real truth... Im so upset about it, that cointelegraph asked me to do an interview, and i told them to get fuck, cos all the lies they post about Venezuela.
You missed a chance to make things right and to expose your point of view... I bet you this post will get much less visibility than a report on cointelegraph. |
|
|
|
|
1120
|
Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: Where is the BTC address in Bread Wallet
|
on: April 22, 2016, 11:02:20 PM
|
I Swipe and found the receive address. but when some amount is received in it, it gets changed every time.
It obviously does. Is there not only one address ?
No, because that's not how Bitcoin should be used. I'd advise you to read a bit on the issue |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
