Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2018, 11:57:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 ... 352 »
701  Economy / Auctions / Advertise on this forum - Round 166 on: March 02, 2016, 04:27:09 PM
The forum sells ad space in the area beneath the first post of every topic page. This income is used primarily to cover hosting costs and to pay moderators for their work (there are many moderators, so each moderator gets only a small amount -- moderators should be seen as volunteers, not employees). Any leftover amount is typically either saved for future expenses or otherwise reinvested into the forum or the ecosystem.

Ads are allowed to contain any non-annoying HTML/CSS style. No images, JavaScript, or animation. Ads must appear 3 or fewer lines tall in my browser (Firefox, 900px wide). Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

There are 10 total ad slots which are randomly rotated. So one ad slot has a one in ten chance of appearing. Nine of the slots are for sale here. Ads appear only on topic pages with more than one post, and only for people using the default theme.

The ad lasts at least 7 days starting from when I put it up. (However, if you look at the ad history you'll see that ads usually get at least 8 days, and sometimes as many as 12, but this is random and definitely not guaranteed.)


Exact historical impression counts per slot:

Info about the current ad slots:

Ad blocking

Hero/Legendary members, Donators, VIPs, and moderators have the ability to disable ads. I don't expect many people to use this option. These people don't increase the impression stats for your ads.

I try to bypass Adblock Plus filters as much as possible, though this is not guaranteed. It is difficult or impossible for ABP filters to block the ad space itself without blocking posts. However, filters can match against the URLs in your links, your CSS classes and style attributes, and the HTML structure of your ads.

To prevent matches against URLs: I have some JavaScript which fixes links blocked by ABP. You must tell me if you want this for your ads. When someone with ABP and JavaScript enabled views your ads, your links are changed to a special randomized URL which redirects to your site when visited. People without ABP are unaffected, even if they don't have JavaScript enabled. The downsides are:
- ABP users will see the redirection link when they hover over the link, even if they disable ABP for the forum.
- Getting referral stats might become even more difficult.
- Some users might get a warning when redirecting from https to http.

To prevent matching on CSS classes/styles: Don't use inline CSS. I can give your ad a CSS class that is randomized on each pageload, but you must request this.

To prevent matching against your HTML structure: Use only one <a> and no other tags if possible. If your ads get blocked because of matching done on something inside of your ad, you are responsible for noticing this and giving me new ad HTML.

Designing ads

Make sure that your ads look good when you download and edit this test page:
Also read the comments in that file.

Images are not allowed no matter how they are created (CSS, SVG, or data URI). Occasionally I will make an exception for small logos and such, but you must get pre-approval from me first.

The maximum size of any one ad is 51200 bytes.

I will send you more detailed styling rules if you win slots in this auction (or upon request).

Auction rules

You must be at least a Jr Member to bid. If you are not a Jr Member and you really want to bid, you should PM me first. Tell me in the PM what you're going to advertise. You might be required to pay some amount in advance. Everyone else: Please quickly PM newbies who try to bid here to warn them against impersonation scammers.

Post your bids in this thread. Prices must be stated in BTC per slot. You must state the maximum number of slots you want. When the auction ends, the highest bidders will have their slots filled until all nine slots are filled.

So if someone bids for 9 slots @ 5 BTC and this is the highest bid, then he'll get all 9 slots. If the two highest bids are 9 slots @ 4 BTC and 1 slot @ 5 BTC, then the first person will get 8 slots and the second person will get 1 slot.

The notation "2 @ 5" means 2 slots for 5 BTC each. Not 2 slots for 5 BTC total.

- When you post a bid, the bids in your previous posts are considered to be automatically canceled. You can put multiple bids in one post, however.
- All bid prices must be evenly divisible by 0.05.
- The bidding starts at 0.50.
- I will end the auction at an arbitrary time. Probably the end time will be 7-12 days from the time of this post, though it could be anywhere between 4 and 22 days from now. (I will probably end the auction 1-3 days before the ads are scheduled to go up.)
- If two people bid at the same price, the person who bid first will have his slots filled first.
- Bids are considered invalid and will be ignored if they do not specify both a price and a max quantity, or if they could not possibly win any slots

If these rules are confusing, look at some of the past forum ad auctions to see how it's done.

I reserve the right to reject bids, even days after the bid is made.

You must pay for your slots within 24 hours of receiving the payment address. Otherwise your slots may be sold to someone else, and I might even give you a negative trust rating. I will send you the payment information via forum PM from this account ("theymos", user ID 35) after announcing the auction results in this thread. You might receive false payment information from scammers pretending to be me. They might even have somewhat similar usernames. Be careful.
702  Economy / Auctions / Re: Advertise on this forum - Round 165 on: March 02, 2016, 04:15:31 PM
Auction ended. Final result:

Slots BTC/Slot Person
1 3.00 bit_kevin
1 2.60 SDice_CTO
1 2.50 playtodos
2 2.45 ibsb2b
3 2.45 FortuneJack
1 2.40 victorhing
703  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is Consensus? on: March 01, 2016, 02:50:57 AM
Do you think real consensus is just the mining majority or holder's majority as well ? What is your opinion about proposals like this - ?

Quote from: satoshi
Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty, not rule by a majority of miners, nodes, users, bitcoins, or whatever. If you use a full node, then you will absolutely reject no matter what any blocks or transactions that create too many bitcoins, or spend bitcoins without a valid signature, or double-spend outputs, or exceed the limits. This extreme resistance to change within the core rules is Bitcoin's primary advantage over all other money, and the only reason bitcoins have any value at all is because people can rely on these core rules not to be changeable by some external force.

If you want a currency backed by democracy, there are a number of democratic countries with currencies you can use.

A hardfork should proceed only if there is no significant opposition. In a contentious hardfork:

 - Bitcoin is split into two pieces, which is extremely damaging to Bitcoin.
 - There is an attempt to coerce people who want to stick with the core consensus rules they originally agreed to into abandoning these rules.

If a sufficient degree of agreement can be had, then I'm fine with hardforks otherwise. The hardfork proposal that BlueMatt et al. will present later this year as a result of their Hong Kong agreement might be uncontroversial enough to get sufficient agreement.

In any case, however, almost all hardforks can be done as softforks instead. SegWit is one example of increasing capacity without a hardfork, and in a very non-disruptive way. A hardfork would in many cases be cleaner, but if it ends up being the case that sufficient consensus is basically impossible to achieve in most cases, the prospect of relying entirely on softforks doesn't worry me at all. Possibly, hardfork-type changes in Bitcoin will almost always be done first as a softfork, and then the softfork will be made simpler and more efficient in an uncontroversial hardfork later. (Sidechains would allow for doing this in a particularly clean way.)
704  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Invalid IP addresses on "receive version message" on debug.log on: February 29, 2016, 03:22:23 PM
I think that BitcoinJ-based wallets (ie. most lightweight wallets) always send us= Probably most of them are real users.
705  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: Bitcoin Classic Roadmap annonced on: February 25, 2016, 11:26:28 PM
This topic has been moved to Altcoin Discussion.
706  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Do you need to manually reset the nodes every week? on: February 24, 2016, 03:13:23 AM
I've personally never run anything more complicated than an SPV wallet. When MIT came aboard I had this I guess naive idea that soon enough every research University in the world would be running full nodes and that that would be more than enough. How wrong was I? Am I a part of the problem? Are SPV nodes a drag on the system, in that they make it that much more convenient to not run a full one?

If not enough of the economy is backed by full nodes, then Bitcoin is totally insecure. See here and here.

Lightweight nodes are also a slight drain on the network's capacity, but that's a much less pressing and serious problem than the economic issue.
707  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Do you need to manually reset the nodes every week? on: February 24, 2016, 02:00:07 AM
I was occasionally having problems with this on one of my nodes, but 0.12.0's mempool limiter totally fixes it.
708  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.12 release on: February 24, 2016, 01:01:51 AM
Well this is odd.  I just updated from 11.2 and now I have a 'Pending' amount in my wallet that was not there before and there are no transactions for that amount that show in my wallet or blockchain for my address.

Not sure what would cause that, but a rescan might fix it.
709  Other / Meta / Re: Suggest To Add The latest Version Of BitcoinCore To News on: February 24, 2016, 12:48:11 AM
If theymos were to follow the same rules regarding allowing the discussion of XT/classic-like proposals in the Bitcoin section as he does these kinds of features, then discussion about 0.12 should belong in the altcoin section and 0.12 should not be advertised/announced by the forum. 

If RBF was a hardfork, there probably wouldn't be sufficient consensus, and 0.12.0 would not be Bitcoin. But RBF and the new mempool policy aren't changes to the consensus rules at all, not even a softfork. The utilitarian reason for the hardfork policy is not because I think that somewhat-controversial changes are inappropriate in general, but because in the specific case of contentious hardforks (and soft-hardforks):
 - Bitcoin is split into two pieces, which is extremely damaging to Bitcoin.
 - There is an attempt to coerce people who agreed to a certain set of "immutable" core consensus rules into abandoning these rules.
These two problems don't exist for softforks or network policy changes. Old nodes continue to follow the rules they agreed to, but they will still be on the same network/currency as new nodes. Likewise, for non-contentious hardforks, Bitcoin is not split, and very few people are disenfranchised.

They're also very good features. The mempool policy is especially useful. I had one node on a somewhat low-memory system that would often crash due to an overly-large mempool, and 0.12.0 fixes that. And RBF will allow for solving the "stuck transaction" problem in future releases. (If I thought that some changes were especially bad/damaging, I'd probably point to some consensus-compatible fork of Core like LJR instead.)
710  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.12 release on: February 22, 2016, 03:53:12 PM
It's supposed to be released today or maybe tomorrow.
711  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is Consensus? on: February 21, 2016, 11:59:53 PM
p.s. If we agree to, we did not reach any consensus yesterday.

Right. Despite the hype, yesterday's meeting definitely doesn't constitute the widespread consensus required to do a hardfork. That sort of consensus doesn't occur in meeting rooms. However, the meeting was a constructive step toward a hardfork. A few notable experts and Core devs put forward a plan which I agree should be sufficiently non-controversial to actually get consensus once they write the code for it and present it to the community. (Note that they will not be releasing binary implementations of their changes prior to real consensus.)

Core has to provide a HF proposal for a block size increase between April and July.

The people at the meeting pledged as individuals to write code for this and present it to Core and the community for consideration. They were not speaking for the other Core devs.
712  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: RBF transactions to be enabled at the next core update on: February 19, 2016, 08:26:51 PM
Does this mean that transactions that need to change nSequence so they can use CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY will be forced to enable RBF?

No, the special sequence value UINT_MAX-1 disables RBF but also allows CLTV. UINT_MAX disables both.
713  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: RBF transactions to be enabled at the next core update on: February 19, 2016, 05:01:49 PM
Another nice thing about 0.12 in this area is that mempool transactions will by default expire after 72 hours. Previously they'd stick around until the node was restarted, which made it difficult to predict when the network had forgotten about the unconfirmed transaction and it was time to resend it or create a conflicting one with a higher fee.
714  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.12 release on: February 19, 2016, 03:53:41 PM
But I will wait until its listed here just in case:

So please someone update the website soon. will probably update sometime between today and Monday - I'm not sure when.

If you're really itching to try 0.12.0, I uploaded the binaries here:!Q9MUgQZD!Wq44qDAtHzGEvifAxQIZbA

Verify them against the available gitian sigs. (Ie. look at the out_manifest section of the assert files in the gitian.sigs repo, compare those hashes to the files you download, and also gpg-verify the signatures on the assert files.)
715  Other / Meta / Re: Boards that don't contribute to activity on: February 19, 2016, 12:32:21 AM

Why? I don't read that section, but I feel like most of the posts there should be fairly substantial and contribute to a person's "record".
716  Other / Meta / Boards that don't contribute to activity on: February 19, 2016, 12:23:45 AM
I'm thinking of making Games & Rounds not count toward posts or activity. What other boards would be good candidates for this? Maybe Off-topic, though some decent discussions occur there, so I'm not sure about that.
717  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are you going to run a lite node when 0.12 comes out or you will remain full? on: February 18, 2016, 02:40:18 PM
Pruned nodes are still full nodes. They have all of the same security, and they provide most of the same benefits to the Bitcoin network. Full nodes without pruning are called "archive nodes".

I will probably mostly not enable pruning because I find that I need to rescan pretty frequently, and you can't do that with pruning.
718  Other / Meta / Re: Forum Ad Breaking out of Ad Space on: February 18, 2016, 02:27:46 PM
Fixed, thanks.
719  Other / Meta / Re: SMF was unable to connect to database ? on: February 17, 2016, 03:43:10 PM
Hopefully everything will go back to normal once maintenance is finished and hopefully theymos will explain to us what's going on Smiley

Actually it went quicker than expected, only 10 minutes.

I think that the previous problem should be much less common now.
720  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Would a fork to SHA-3 be usefull because of the destroyed mining market? on: February 16, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
I don't think that the security impact would be catastrophic. All we need is for the hashrate of legitimate miners to be greater than any likely attacker, and I think that this would become the case only a day or two after the PoW change, as soon as ordinary people start mining again in decent numbers.

But I don't think that there's any actual value in switching the PoW algorithm right now. It's likely that any new algorithm will get ASICs again in less than 6 months. (And if ASICs can be avoided - a very difficult task -, then the network will instead probably become dominated by botnets, and I don't know that it's good to rely on botnet operators for security. Though perhaps botnets would tend to be less centralized than ASICs, at least.) IMO it's better to stick with "the devil you know" unless the current miners actually abuse their position. But if the majority of current miners do abuse their position, then a PoW change is immediately warranted.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 ... 352 »
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!