Can you seriously not see the foolishness of suggesting people, once they receive coins for which there was a mere accusation of theft made many transactions ago, that they'll turn around and tell the sender: "hey these coins were once accused of being stolen and I'm now going to keep/delete/return them, so if you still want to do this deal with me, you need to send me new coins.."
Are you really this thick to suggest something like that?
If you do try that then you are not an honest user. If you say "this item costs 3BTC from any address except 1blehkljf or 1crapjkfd or 1pointlessjkfs5lkj or 1lamejkeil3q or..." then you are nuts but not dishonest I guess. |
|
|
|
You introducing a system that imposes a form of taint does nothing to prevent theft but does make using Bitcoin a hassle for those who are innocent.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
Would you consider a proposal that involved no taint to be like it? Would you consider a proposal that does nothing to prevent theft but reduces the benefits to the thief (without taint) to be like it? I'm trying to develop a sense of the philosophy behind BC that you hold. It's nice that you guys back up Stephen's post. I suppose that by proposing something that alarms you, I get the cold shoulder? I'm hoping you just quoted his reply before you got to my questions... but I've seen lots of +1s for Stephen and no answers. I still have hope. That's because it's been done to death on this very forum. The perfect response is now two lines long and 20 posters quoting it. Since you missed the summary: Coins are coins. |
|
|
|
You introducing a system that imposes a form of taint does nothing to prevent theft but does make using Bitcoin a hassle for those who are innocent.
Therefore I do not support this and will vigorously reject any movement towards this initiative and any like it.
+another |
|
|
|
|
Noob question.
You cannot take an address and make a new address that the same private key can use, correct? But this is just because of the hashing going on, if we used pure public/private key pairs that would actually be possible?
Regarding identifying the sender generated keys. The sender could notify the receiver out of band, right?
I have a feeling like I'm missing something.
|
|
|
|
That way I could just tell someone, "send the BTC to ElwarFromUS" or some such name. Companies could say "send it to BitMint-Listing-Fee".
That works for things like donations where you don't need to know who sent the money, but that's a complete fail for the example you gave: "BitMint-Listing-Fee". I suppose you could set up an alias to have a receiving address per-customer, so at least you'ld know who the payment was from, if you wish. Yeah, I don't think name servers fit for that reason at least. Though you could have however many addresses you expect to ever have outstanding bills waiting on and reuse them. Maybe you could also register a bunch under one alias like bitMint.112, bitMint.113, etc |
|
|
|
Hey, Can I make a request? Make your freeroll tournaments be every 2-3 hours and to increase the blinds every 15 minutes instead? Have people start with a bigger chip stack? And increase the prize to 100-150 chips. Thanks! That would make these freeroll tournaments more competitive..... and well hate to say it but your freeroll tournaments are the only ones I can play legally.  The intention of the hourly freeroll is to have some activity always going on and to let newcomers try out the software. 100-150 chips isn't going to change the level of play very much, but we do sometimes have 1-10BTC freerolls. Where are you that you think playing poker for bitcoins is illegal? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's nearly-free transactions make it so that there is no exchanger too small. Instead of there being formal currency exchange booths, there is an exchanger that your coworker is related to, for instance. So you trade with the coworker (for a small fee) and the coworker does the trade with the relative that does perform exchange. You're essentially describing hawala. Where is the incentive to add the extra layer of using Bitcoins at both ends though? Why add extra, potentially traceable steps to the process - the reason it works is because it doesn't need to intersect with the conventional banking system and funds don't need to leave the country of origin. You can only compete with WU and hawala if you can offer the same ease of access - a dealer in virtually every neighbourhood. The families back home to whom people want to send funds are often nowhere near urban centres - you need to partner with existing businesses in the neighbourhood and have them adopt funds transmission as a side-line as a stand-alone money transmission service isn't going to be profitable in many regions. The difference is that you can settle immediately and thousands or millions of dollars of value debts don't pile up resulting in ostracism or murder when someone defaults. |
|
|
|
Is BitInstant ever planning on supporting PNC Bank (or other smaller banks)? I know they're mainly an east-coast bank, but for me (And I'd hope some others), there is a PNC within 5 minutes of work, home, AND school.
Must be a walmart, CVS or 7-11 nearby too right? |
|
|
|
There is no perfect way. As soon as you make one someone else wind find a way to break it or work around it. If its accessible in any form. Someone can break in.
Give up human! |
|
|
|
Monday might be the day of the rocket. We've just experienced the first stage, getting money to the exchanges was delayed thanks to the weekend. I will be genuinely surprised if Monday/Tuesday isn't very bullish.
Me too, but I've been genuinely surprised almost constantly for about a year now. |
|
|
|
|
Mmmm, I could really go for a 2bit burger.
Someone still thinks bitcoin is a scam, how cute.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a 'satellite' to the Sunday 60BTC guarantee up. It is 5 players, 400 to enter, one winner gets 2000. That's the perfect amount for buying in to the 60BTC game.
|
|
|
|
@GoomBoo: regarding any attempt to calculate volatility of BTC/USD pricing I simply refer you to the monthly chart view on our home page: https://bitcoinopx.com/?v=mTake a look at that for a second. For the approximate 1 year from April 2011 to April 2012 bitcoin price was around $5 before exploding to almost $32 (500% increase!), and then lowering to around $15 (still about 200%), before settling back down around $5. Now, I've been following bitcoin for quite a while, and that was no fluke. A good number of "bitcoiners" fully expect another explosive price jump in time, and 1 year away is not infeasible. The formula used takes this into account. - regarding our trade fee, again, it's not the impediment to offering 1 BTC. Even ignoring any trade fee, do you really think it makes sense to open and close a trade with an expected return of $.05 cents? As for a comparison to Mt.Gox there is little comparison. They are a currency exchange, which is like a utility. On the other hand we offer both a financial product and service. - regarding option pricing, yes, the highest bid and lowest ask are shown on the option chain chart. Edit: regarding "nibbling" off an option, you are correct, it can't be done. This is similar to traditional options. One option contract for GOOGLE represents 100 shares of GOOG, and traders can't "nibble" 10 of those shares away.  I'm about to just let this go, but here's one more shot. A 1BTC (or better, no min) lot size is not to make an expected return of 5 USD cents. It is to make some amount of bitcoins which many of us expect will be very valuable in the future. Low minimums also allow users to get familiar with options and your site without large risk or a large amount of funds tied up. Reducing to 1BTC min also enables 9BTC and 15BTC. I expect it will be quite some time before that amount of liquidity will not be of any use to you. |
|
|
|
|
The title needs to be changed imo.
|
|
|
|
How many of those users had bitcoinica accounts?
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm very sorry. Firstbits.com had some upper/lower case mistakes recently. It works correctly now. If something still seems wrong please let me know. Our lookups are often slow also, I suggest you use blockchain.info. For my specific instance, I still am seeing the same problem. Does firstbits.com consider the order of a sendmany transaction? Also, as one who has implemented the firstbits functionality, how hard to you think it would be to build into the satoshi client, and do you think that would be a good idea? I actually have no technical skill at all. I just had the idea and got SgtSpike to implement it. The blockchain.info implementation was done separately. I'll find out about sendmany and let people know. I do not think integration into the main client is a good idea. Firstbits is risky, a typo costs real money. Satoshi integration is too much of an endorsement for new users to start using it without really thinking about it. |
|
|
|
- The biggest reason to not offer a 1 BTC lot size is simplicity, not our trade fee. It's important to me to keep things from being too complex. Not everyone has the obvious depth of trading knowledge and experience you do. This exchange has to accommodate all types.
It accommodates all types by not offering 1BTC lot? You've got a bootstrapping problem. Few people are going to jump in first for a larger amount. |
|
|
|
Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.
Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?
The oldest address in the blockchain that starts with those firstbits is the one that'll be used. Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info. EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807Yes, I'm very sorry. Firstbits.com had some upper/lower case mistakes recently. It works correctly now. If something still seems wrong please let me know. Our lookups are often slow also, I suggest you use blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
