Currently token sale for Cosmos is not available, it completed in April. https://fundraiser.cosmos.network/

Also if anyone is interested there are new forums for cosmos specific discussion starting up. I'm interested in checking it out:

http://cosmostalk.boards.net/

This story is confirmed by inside source. Look for news very shortly on the matter.

This is a consequence of a fundamental problem with current Bitcoin wallet management system: The centralized storage of keys creates a bank, and banks cannot survive in a sound currency environment.

Thanks to Scott for organizing the Silicon Valley Meetup group.

This is going to be a top notch program and having it focused specifically on Bitcoin is exciting.

Looking forward to seeing the success of this program and its participants!

Blockchain.info's JSON api returns a transaction in a different encoding than the HTML version.

https://blockchain.info/unspent?active=1L1HUjdZjueR4mmcRNWkGp9rKLBCYWfkZn&format=html

The html formatted api returns a transaction id of: 7e5bdbc38649b967c415b4ab4d2d8a2096290f9ddec543c52ce780d0fe1b1002


https://blockchain.info/unspent?active=1L1HUjdZjueR4mmcRNWkGp9rKLBCYWfkZn&format=json

The json formatted response returns a transaction hash of: 02101bfed080e72cc543c5de9d0f2996208a2d4dabb415c467b94986c3db5b7e

What encoding is blockchain.info using in the HTML formatted list of unspent outputs?
What encoding is returned in the JSON formatted response?
What is the easiest way to convert between the two?

I would like to be able to convert the unspent hash returned by the JSON API into the same encoding used to search the blockchain.info HTML for a transaction.

Much thanks in advance to anyone who can help!

This is well beyond the realm of my knowledge but somebody I know has a bunch of hardware sitting around, including:

http://www.vistek.ca/store/ProVideoEditingSoftware/234663/blackmagic-design-intensity-pro-pcie-1-lane.aspx

He wants to know if these are of any value for mining anything (bitcoin/litecoin/whatevercoin).

Unfortunately google didn't turn up anything on these cards so I'm guessing they aren't that useful.

But one never knows...

Thank you Mike, I had read that and there were a couple of things I found undesirable about the method mentioned in the wiki, hence my attempt.

First, requiring payment after the registration has been made is a potential solution, but is not as desirable an arrangement as merely paying straight up front for the registration.

Secondly keeping funds in deposit as collateral is an interesting way of addressing the issue of doing the initial registration, however again it is not a desirable arrangement financially or economically. It is economically inefficient as the cost of registering a domain far outweighs the reward to those providing the service. Of course the values could be swapped but lowering the deposit amount creates different problems (one I can think of would be easier domain registration DOS attacks).

Also any sidechain using this method of adding incentive to registration and processing of that sidechain would be essentially taking money out of circulation of the economy. Theoretically services using this method could potentially put all bitcoin out of circulation, especially if it were deemed more valuable at the time to do so. In addition, generally the amount of economic activity facilitated by a given amount of currency is usually many multiples of the base value of the currency in even just a year. So removing this currency would have a magnified effect on the wider economy. Simply put, this is truly deflationary.

I am attempting to bring the data transaction (in this case registration of a domain name) as close as possible to a real world exchange.You simply pay in bitcoin to the miner to have your sidechain transaction processed.

I am also thankful for getting such great feedback in this thread! I work toward solving the flaws in this design. I was trying to think of a way of making a bitcoin transaction "unsharable" or local only. Some way to make all other miners reject the transaction but it still be valid for the local node to process it...

Great ideas Ichthyo !

I was beginning to think along your lines as well, that an administrative layer is needed.

Some people found the idea interesting and bitcoin 2012, so I will continue to think of ways to improve the design!

at command line:

did senrawtransaction with existing tx and got error "already in block...."

sent my signed tx and got:

error: {"code":-22,"message":"TX rejected"}

so I guess something is wrong..... everything seems ok?

for reference here is the final signed tx which can be decoded using decoderawtransaction and everything looks ok?


Also decoding existing transaction and compare with my transaction at command line, seems ok.

using print_r however:

existing transaction has element [hex] at the beginning of the array, this is the hex of the signed transaction it appears, whereas my tx starts with [txid] (no this is just the [verbose=1] returns the object, with its own reference in the first array element).

did send $origrawtx where outputs are from, no response from API, no error.

Should at least get an error no?

After further testing:
my $signedHEX returns fine from decoderawtransaction

possible bug?

will try sending already confirmed transactions so see if I can at least get an error.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks to for all the help, been fun learning the API

only 1 problem remains, I can't get sendrawtransaction to work.  I can get raw hex (as ouputed from signrawtransaction) as follows:
Outputs

After some trouble I even dump into non array...
however still no luck with:

var dumps show both the array and the var both string(518)

all my other code runs, just this one line...

Thanks! am dl'ing now.

While I'm waiting (re dl'ing the blockchain, was having problems with dbase errors) I am wondering exactly how bitcoin transactions are formatted.

Does the entire output of a transaction have to be spent when using it as an input for a new transaction? If so can the address of that original output be an output on the subsequent transaction ie. returning the change to the original address?

Working with offline wallet concept so will be generating and signing raw transactions through the API.

Yeah so clearly obviously I need version 7..... bitcoin.org is 6.3 so i guess its compiling time??

Working on a little PHP project I got going here. As a hobbyist I'm not a pro by any means, and I was unable to find specific information on this.

Starting with the example code from the Wiki:

Obviously works as does, for example:


However this doesnt work?:

JSON is new for me so is it something about the formatting of the parameters being passed to the API?
But getrawmempool needs no other paramaters just as getinfo doesn't... or does it? Maybe its my client?

Also other API calls seem to be hit and miss, so clearly I'm missing something important and probably obvious... would love a little help

Client Info:

I am pleased to announce our next meetup is going to be in the launchacademy.ca space. Anyone in the area is more than welcome to join us!

http://meetu.ps/fDJyg

I thank you very much for your suggestions and I will indeed continue to seek out solutions to the problems.

The goal is to be diversified in developing the framework. As it stands currently this framework cannot be implemented as I stated in OP.

I guess mostly I was wanting to see if people thought this was barking up the wrong tree or if there was something to it. To this point it seems like mostly positive feedback which I am very grateful for!

You are comparing apples and oranges by comparing GDP to total bitcoins.  GDP has very little to do directly with how much currency is in existence.

Also this question inspired the publishing of an article I had been working on for my blog:

http://abitcoinblog.com

If you were looking for a killer app, here are some things that could be done with a framework like this:

DDNS
Corporate registry
OTC corporate shares exchange (subchain of corp chain)
Voter registry
Land registry
Corporate Bonds/Debt (repayment unenforceble?)
Local voting (out of the box independant and verifiable etc.)
Payment Reciepts (?)
Insurance (?)

Thats what comes to mind, any other ideas?

That is a good way of putting it.
Also this framework if used for a DDNS would not create a seperate currency or require a sudechain block for every bitcoin block as Namecoin currently does.

The example used is a Distrubted DNS, it could be used for that, or any time you wanted to register any other type of data in exchange for bitcoin.

It is ideally suited to the registration of publicly verifiable, yet still private/anonymous ownership of, any data you wanted.