|
Isn't this taken care of by glbse.com?
|
|
|
|
|
If you dont go for a ups, at least get a good .... extension, plug to prevent power spikes from killing your machines. Shouldn't be expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
The payout functionality is there but not tested (I would seriously recommend not using it, do so at the peril of your own soul).
We've had a breakthrough on the web client so we'll have one to use in about 1-2 weeks.
Sorry for the lack of other updates, this is what has been keeping me busy.
|
|
|
|
Would it not be better to make the transaction fee user-setable instead of "programmatically" set? Have we not already established that these transactions are perfectly valid without a fee, they just may take longer to get processed.
This way the price discovery of the transaction fee is moved into the app developers instead of the Bitcoin source code.
Yes you're right, but at the moment, right now, I would just like a simple way to to what the fee is before it's taken out. |
|
|
|
The code to calculate the tx fee is already present in bitcoin (obviously) so wrapping an RPC call around it should be quite simple.
+1 |
|
|
|
Just for giggles, I put up this page: http://jere.us/rsa_test.htmlIt has two forms on it that both submit to dev glbse account balance. The first one submits the data you provided in your first post. The second one calculates the form data. To use the top form: 1. Click the top "Submit" button 2. Notice error page To use the bottom form: 1. Enter a nonce or click the "Create Nonce" button 2. Click the "Calculate Data and Sig" button 3. Notice that the data and sig are available for inspection 4. Click the bottom "Submit" 5. Notice error page For my tests the error pages are the same. Line 58 of base64.rb calls an unknown method. You have to fix that before I can continue. Is my page doing anything it should not? I know the second form submits some stuff it doesn't have to, but that should be ignored anyway so it shouldn't cause a problem. Or at least, not the problem I'm seeing. Jere Hey Jere, the error you were getting is because you were submitting the data wrong. There are only 2 post fields data, signature data is the base encoded json string containing all the data elements (nonce, use_id etc.) while signature is the base64 encoded signature. The reason you were getting that error was because the app was looking for the post field "signature" and that was nil, so of course you can't base64 decode nil can you. Ah, these errors are much nicer in a browser than on the command line. |
|
|
|
|
It's not just one minister, the entire system is corrupt (I'm not just talking about India, it's everywhere, you should come to China), and it has nothing to do with education level. Plenty of very well educated people from good backgrounds are doing the same thing all over the world.
Trying to kill competition, raise prices, and protect "friendly" industries. Of course they all get a cut out of doing this.
This is why bitcoin was made, this is what Second Realm is about, a place without any of this political interventionalist rubbish. We can make and live by our own rules. We're at the forefront.
|
|
|
|
|
Its clear that the problem is government preventing people doing what they should not people leaving. People leave because its a shitty situation. If you ban them from leaving you turn them into slaves.
|
|
|
|
Market depth SIN:
bids --:-- [[6, 50000000], [10, 1]]
asks --:-- [[12, 84500000], [144, 84500000], [5, 99999998], [1, 99999999], [6, 99999999], [3533, 100000000], [2, 100000000], [1, 490000000], [3, 2000000000]]
^^^^
And should you want to buy, there are quite a lot of shares for less than 1 BTC available too!
Bids is what people wanting to buy shares are offering to pay for 1 share (in Satoshis, so 100000000 = 1 BTC), asks is what shareholders want to have for their shares.
The bid [6, 50000000] would mean for example that someone would pay 50 bitcents each for up to 6 shares.
wrong, thats 50 bitcents per share, and the order is for 6 |
|
|
|
|
Markets back up, upgrade complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Might happen, or he might deliver.
Either way it would be nice to tone down the calls of scam until after the fact. Yes you've had your say and anyone reading this thread has been warned. It's now their choice what to do. Endlessly wailing "scammer" from the sidelines doesn't help and makes you look less than civilised.
So buyers, beware. The dangers of buying this stock have been pointed out. Buy at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
I'll pledge 50btc, not specifically for getting tahoe working with bitcoin, but that you can account with it(i.e. measure each users contribution and usage etc.) which would work with anything not just bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I've been watching this project for a long time. I was very excited to see that there were downloads available a few days ago. Of course I had compiling problems.  My problem is you not getting to work on bitdrop, pm me your irc nick if it's different from your forum one, and then let me know when your online. We've got to get this done, we've got a whole world to change you know. |
|
|
|
|
Bringing the market down to make some upgrades, will be down for a couple of hours.
|
|
|
|
Lucky you. I have had no success in finding an invite so far.  Want to use it to integrate loom into glbse |
|
|
|
|
Ill have to wait until tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
problem probably isnt the userid(will check later, busy for the next couple of hours), as it would throw up a wrong userid error(normally it would).
So I checked the data and signature that was sent to the server (using the updated lib), and then manually (using irb)checked what the signature would should have been for that private key signing the same data, and compared the results, and indeed the signatures are not the same. This is the result when we run the sendData function to account/balance on the server(that is the signature fails the verification because its not what it should be).
Unless someone else has some other ideas?
The best example to see how this should work is to have a look at te source of the glbse client bmc.py
|
|
|
|
... and here I kinda liked the "shitassfuck" API  That was to solve the problem of why was my script not posting to the server, turned out to be the no-cross domain posting in javascript for ajax. Jere.Jones, manual check confirms the output isn't correct. graingert, yeah that will happen but how long's that going to take, I need this fixed now, and am willing to pay. The fixer can then contact the stanford boys, and get their fix in (and get the credit for doing so). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
