I tried this out, however it thrashes my drive constantly while download the blockchain. Is it trying to flush things every block or something? I would think since this data can just be refetched, it would make since to add buffering here. It would be nice to have the dns proxy pick up the currently in use servers, instead of defaulting to telling Google every name we look up. Does this fully implement the Proof of Stake coin mining of stake? Would be nice to see a single key import from vanitygen for example. Message signing would also be nice. How about a portable version, or at least let us place the data files elsewhere then %Appdata%. Also it would be nice to have the blockchain data in the Public area instead of the Users so it can be shared. Since it is commonly merge mined, ixcoin support would be nice. Ufasoft Coin every time gives unhandled exception error when closing Coin main window while downloading and synchronizing chains. I don't know is this caused by bug in program or weak hardware (Pentium4 2.8GHz 512RAM) that takes too long to close client because it trashes like mad due to 512 MB RAM.
It is a bug. Long time closing because slow Sqlite transaction commit. The next version will use another fast Database engine. For now I recommend to use the program with only single enabled currency. may work as a drop in replacement. |
|
|
|
If I had to guess, I'd say the switch from BDB in <= 0.7.x to leveldb in >=0.8
Once again I find myself waiting six hours so far for a block index. I really wish they had not put that message that an update to 0.8.1 was mandatory. While I proposed awhile back getting rid of bdb as a requirement for licensing reasons, taking it out as an option before the alternative was ready for prime time was a bad move. Should have been abstracted, so at least production wallets could be kept with on more stable code. Now I have to debate trying to downgrade or not. |
|
|
|
|
1MrnaXMPDzVvhF2bfcZMAmkBEcx85AqMaJ
|
|
|
|
|
Does it count if it links to my referal/room?
|
|
|
|
Interesting... the relevant part is: Why did this work? ECDSA requires a random number for each signature. If this random number is ever used twice with the same private key it can be recovered. This transaction was generated by a hardware bitcoin wallet using a pseudo-random number generator that was returning the same “random” number every time.
This is a known implementation issue, and why people make a big deal out of random sources and entropy. Seems there is a flawed implementation floating around? I wonder what this hardware wallet is exactly. |
|
|
|
I have been hanging out in the #devcoin irc at times. Saw coinchat and figured I would try it out and see if I can really get paid to chat. I made a devcoin room.... Come chat Coinchat.org and lets see if we really get paid to chat. I will be afk off and on, so very well won't respond right away. |
|
|
|
I cannot honestly say that I studied the fine print at the time I signed up. But I also don't give a shit. I've hardly put my financial statement at risk fucking around with what will very likely end up being a laughably overpriced trinket within a few months due to either a rise in BTC values or competition from more powerful devices. I stated '2.1-ish BTC' to allow for some flexibility.
Ha, on this I agree. I think it will be awhile, if ever till the device earns back the costs. I am mainly getting it as I have been doing some work with the merged mining clients on my laptop, and access to some hash power from my laptop would be a nice aid in testing. My main objection is it being called escrow, which gives a false sense of what is being provided. |
|
|
|
i am beginning to regret not thinking this all out more clearly (regarding escrow) from the get go... ugh.
also, i heard from one of the blade buyers. apparently there were no customs fees.
Customs is a weird thing. I have gotten many things with no fees. Seems at least one Chinese person in my household, gets a lot of 'gifts' from Hong Kong lately. These also have had no fees. I had one time they insisted on $30 for a $10 battery. A shipment of a single item gets a lot less attention then a bulk shipment does. I do hope we get no fees, but I would not count on it. So, fingers crossed but think about what to do if you do get hit with customs fees I guess? |
|
|
|
John K has put a huge amount of effort into this forum and has demonstrated good judgement. Also, he seems to have taken the job of cross-referencing the ~arklan seriously and done good work. 12 BTC is fine with me. I'm paying for his reputation more than anything.
If you are covering it for us, then great. I do think it should be clear to everyone that whatever the service is, it is not really escrowed in the traditional sense. Given some peoples replies to others questions, I am not sure all are clear on this. I'm covering my share. It was pretty clear how things worked when I signed up and I was happy enough with it. If the rules have changed on me and I didn't like it I'd just bail right now before forking over any funds. I think I noticed that John K is also participating in some of the tactical and communication issues (by his own graces?) and it has value to me to have someone who is fluent in Chinese helping out here. If you just meant your share I would have thought you would have said you have no issue with a 2% fee. You said you have no issue with 12 btc, so it seemed you would be fine covering that. I have household members who are fluent in a few Chinese dialects. I can not see any advantage to having access to this resource given the entire deal is being done in English. Why do you have to reach so far to try and justify an escrow fee that is not escrow. Also, it was clear when I signed up as well. At that time no escrow was mentioned in the OP. So the rules that different people consider the original seem to be different for different people. So yes, if they get changed back to the original offer and you don't like it you would bail. Got it. |
|
|
|
I am aware of the gap of escrow protection in this group buy, but am still fine with everything that has already been agreed on. I think it would be more of a negative impact if we started changing the agreement. I vote against changing the agreement in any way, I vote for keeping everything the same to keep things simple.
If you vote against changing it that would be a vote against the escrow right? As that was a change from when many of us first posted in. Now that this group buy has reached >300 : I think it would be wise to set a hard stop date. For example, We will allow orders to continue until XX/XX/XXX @ XX:XXam/pm. After this, no more orders will be accepted for this group buy. If there is no stop date, there will be orders coming in forever. How to determine that stop date? I have no idea.
Also need to set a hard stop date on when funds should be cleared to escrow, anything after shall be refunded and kicked out of this group buy.
Also to consider - Must get certain % over 300 to account for anybody that is unable or chooses not to send funds to escrow in time.
Are they even taking orders yet for these? Guess the stop date should be as soon as we can place the actual order and get in the queue for these. |
|
|
|
John K has put a huge amount of effort into this forum and has demonstrated good judgement. Also, he seems to have taken the job of cross-referencing the ~arklan seriously and done good work. 12 BTC is fine with me. I'm paying for his reputation more than anything.
If you are covering it for us, then great. I do think it should be clear to everyone that whatever the service is, it is not really escrowed in the traditional sense. Given some peoples replies to others questions, I am not sure all are clear on this. ~arklan has been active and professional so far. $700-ish for all this work and the shipping hassles and all that seem like, if anything, to little to me. If ~arklan wishes to somehow discount bulk shipments for those who ordered multiple pieces, that seem fair.
I actually agree with you. My issue is more that the way it came about was a fee to insure delivery. It does no such thing, and this should be made a bit clearer. |
|
|
|
usps works for me
i would recommend not changing terms as well and just retaining the escrow as it was laid out.
The change to escrow was a change in terms at least from when the first of us bid in. |
|
|
|
Especially since it really prevents none of the risk. I propose we skip this escrow. John is holding arklan's verified identity in escrow. That has value if the fan muck spreads. I couldn't guess as to how much John should be paid for that kind of service, but I think it is needed regardless. He had already offered to give this out to those who asked. It would be worth even more to me if I had it as well. The escrow has zero value in ensuring us we get the item vs not having it, if the OP had the intent to not deliver. |
|
|
|
OK,
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket or anything. I'm just trying to get it straight.
John gets 12 BTC for "assuming the risk of holding the escrowed Bitcoins".
(Seems like a lot)
Especially since it really prevents none of the risk. I propose we skip this escrow. Arklan gets 6 BTC (in kind) for assembling and posting something like 50 packages.
(Seems like a hell of an hourly wage)
Funny things was the person who proposed this, proposed it to be given after the units got shipped. I already posted how that fails. Now it is even odder, that a payment that was supposed to be given after proof of shipping of the individual units, somehow is able to be used ahead of time to take the payment in units of the device? There is a fee of .05 BTC each to cover shipping.
(Seems low to me, but ...)
Again, nothing personal against anybody.
Yep... and packaging. Also, I am not sure anyone has mentioned the elephants in the room. Firstly I am guessing there is going to be customs fees charged on these. Those are going to need to be added in or the OP is going to take a loss on those. Secondly, I am guessing these devices are not fcc certificated or anything else. This gives us a risk of seizure. Given that we still have these very real risks, I propose that we drop the meaningless escrow and the fees it adds, and have a plan to deal with the other contingencies in place as well. |
|
|
|
How do you actually buy shares? I've tried pulling up orderbooks for BTC/TRL on ripple using dividendrippler as the issuer, and it's blank.
Sure: advanced -> trade. TBL/BTC Base (TBL, not TRL) is rNF5qUPCcge7uSStj6oKuoQs38BaM8362s, and the counter (BTC) is from dividendrippler (rfYv1TXnwgDDK4WQNbFALykYuEBnrR4pDX) So shares are bought and priced in BTC? |
|
|
|
What the heck am I missing here? Is there a "Sorrry lolz we were just kidding about those ASICs lolz" update I haven't seen somewhere?
Profit taking after a run up is not unusual. |
|
|
|
Hence the questions aimed at discovering what network it is connecting to.
Are people losing the coins they thought they had mined, as would happen if for example it managed to connect to the Novacoin net and realise everything it thought it had mined was on an orphan chain?
-MarkM-
It's not novacoin network. It is its own network. They create a new network by only changing the irc channel ... all miners clients connect to it and know each other that way. Quite easy to create a scam money from nowhere. Grab the source code, rename all "*coin" to "yourcoin". Recompile. Done. New network, new blockchain, enjoy.  If that is all that was done, it won't work. At some point you are all in for a surprise if this is true as to all that was changed. |
|
|
|
you should start your own alt and call it BrewCoin or BeerCoin, would be at least as popular BBQCoin, right?
Actually BeerCoin already was created. It was one of the very early alts and was created before an alt forum existed. |
|
|
|
has anyone proposed this to friedcat? that they mine on bitparking some of their hashing power... are they? bitparking saw mass increase not to long ago...from 1TH to like 4-5 now?
People have posted suggesting mm in their thread. They are also starting to mine on bitminter now, so presumably getting nmc. Personally I am glad that I can still mine some of the other coins and they are not yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
