Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2014, 10:17:49 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 [277] 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 ... 728
5521  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I was charged extra for using my credit card on: February 16, 2013, 12:35:59 AM
You would would be contractually prohibited from actually advertising the cash discount, but everyo

Not any more.  That was what the court case was about.  The courts agreed that the prohibition on cash discounts and the prohibition on charging consumer for using credit cards amounted to collusion between the major credit card networks.

Today merchants are free to offer any discount % for cash buyers.  Merchant can offer 50% off to cash buyers if they want.
Today merchants can charge consumers a surcharge on credit cards but not more than the actual interchange rate or 4% which ever is less.

The 7% in the OP was simply a merchant ripping a consumer off.  The court decision is relatively new most people don't know the details I expect a like of stuff like this going on for a while. 

5522  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin market cap exceeds 300 million on: February 15, 2013, 11:04:07 PM
Correction the BTC money supply valued in USD exceeded $300 million.

Also isn't Bitcoin larger than Linden Dollars?

Can't seem to find a stat later than this one but...

Would indicate the Linden Dollar money supply is valued on the order of ~$30 million USD.
5523  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-02-15 - Reddit News Site Now Accepts Bitcoin on: February 15, 2013, 10:56:04 PM
Muted is good unless you are just looking for a quick bubble hype mania to profit from noobs.  I see Bitcoin as a marathon not a sprint.   Time and steady growth (in features, adoption, security, clients, merchants, press) is all it needs. 
5524  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I was charged extra for using my credit card on: February 15, 2013, 07:47:24 PM
No 7% isn't on the high end 7% is just a way to the merchant to pad his pocket.

The court decision limits surcharges to actual costs or a max of 4%.  Any swiped merchant is going to pay <2% these days.  Hell Joe Blow with 0 days business experience can get an account with Square (or a host of other providers) and swipe cards at <3%. 
5525  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: From where does my Bitcoin client download the public keys of others? on: February 15, 2013, 07:19:10 PM
You have it right Walter.

Bitcoin uses three distinct elements:
* The Bitcoin Address (I sometimes use term public address) which is double hashed plus checksum of the public key.
* The public key which is created using ECC from the private key and represents a point (x,y) on the secp256k1 curve.
* The private key which is a random 256 bit number.
5526  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 15, 2013, 02:16:15 AM
Satoshi didn't expect GPUs to come on board for bitcoin, right?

Why would you think that?  Using more efficient technology is inevitable.  General purpose computing on GPU already existed prior to Bitcoin in the form of NVidia CUDA.   Even ASICs are possible on LTC and for a lot less than most people imagine.  Just reading the scrypt whitepaper one can figure that out.  Now LTC will warrant that kind of investment but it would only be for the same reason there are no SolidCoin ASICs not because it isn't possible.  The crippled parameters of LTC made sure of that.

Ultimately the FREE MARKET is what matters, not what DeathAndTaxes think. Keep this in mind guys.
I never said ban LTC.  I said it is nearly worthless, I stated my opinion and justification for those opinions.  Guess what the free market you love so much would seem to agree with me.
5527  Bitcoin / Technical Support / Re: Unconfirmed transactions from CoinAd - Causing A LOT of problems on: February 13, 2013, 09:57:18 PM
There is no time restriction on re-spending transaction inputs; the same transaction can immediately be double-spent - resent with less change and more fees. The unconfirmed transaction will be discarded from memory pools when a replacement transaction using the same inputs is included in a block.

I think you misunderstood any node following the reference client rules will drop and refuse to relay a double spend.  So if you have tx A and you wish to replace it with tx B, when your node broadcasts tx B to the 8 (or 50) immediate peers the most likely outcome is they all detect tx B is a double spend of tx A (because tx A is in their memory pool) and promptly drop it.  You can keep broadcasting tx B thousands or even millions of times and they will happily drop it each time. 

Now eventually nodes do "forget" about unconfirmed tx so after that you can broadcast tx B, and your peers not having a record of tx A relay the tx on to other nodes, who will relay it to other nodes, and eventually every node and miner will know about tx B.   There is one "gotcha" though. As long as your node knows about tx A (it is still in the wallet) your node will keep reminding other nodes about tx A (who will remind other nodes) this will ensure that nobody ever forgets about tx A preventing a spend of tx B.

So simple version:
a) Bypass the peer network and get the replacement tx in a block.
OP can contact a mining pool and ask him for help (likely for a fee)


b) Allow the network to "forget" about the original tx and try again.
OP (or someone who in the future is in the same scenario and doesn't want to need to contact a miner) can remove the tx from the wallet file, wait long enough that the network forgets about it and create a replacement tx.
5528  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: From where does my Bitcoin client download the public keys of others? on: February 13, 2013, 05:52:06 PM
The public key is only needed to verify transactions. 
The public key is included in the transaction itself. 
This means until you spend from an address the public key is unknown.
5529  Bitcoin / Technical Support / Re: Unconfirmed transactions from CoinAd - Causing A LOT of problems on: February 13, 2013, 02:38:28 PM
afaik no miner software has that implemented.

It isn't part of memory pool selection rules in bitcoind.  Most (all?) major pools use custom software but AFAIK unless it has changed recently no pool does "forward looking of fees".  

The OP has two solutions:
The first solution is to delete the offending transactions locally (requires some wallet.dat surgery).  Other nodes including miners will "forget" about the unconfirmed transactions in time (I believe 24 hours?).  This would allow creating a replacement transaction with an appropriate fee to ensure timely inclusion.

The second solution is to contact a pool operator directly, provide them the transaction hash(es) and for a manually paid bounty (fee) they may be willing to manually add the offending transactions to the pool's next block.  IIRC Luke has done this in the past.

If both of those solutins sound like they suck, well that is the point.  The mandatory fee rules exist to protect the network from a denial of service attack.  If one could create 600 outputs using 22KB for a mere 0.0005 BTC (about 1.2 cents) then one could also create transactions totaling ~30,000 transactions and 1 MB for about $0.50.  For less than minimum wage an attacker could denial of service attack the largest computing network in the world and add roughly about 4GB of spam to the blockchain per month.

Simple version:  DON'T BYPASS MANDATORY ANTI-SPAM RULES.  They exist to protect the network.  When you bypass them the network teats the transaction like a threat and the "immune system" which consists of dropping and delaying high-cost low-value transactions kicks in.
5530  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 07:52:51 AM
Next franky1 will be attacking coblee for being a "bitcoin superfan".  Franky1 you can't fix stupid so I won't try.   It wasn't Luke Jr stating LiteCoin has GPU hostile it was essentially everyone. It is obvious if you read the actual launch thread.
5531  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 07:22:20 AM
Hey franky1 since you joined in Sept 2012 did you ever think that the forum existed prior to that date?  For most of 2011 Litecoin was touted by its supporters and developers as being "GPU hostile".  Most of it is still in the old threads.  You trying to rewrite history a year and a half later just makes you look like an idiot.
5532  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 13, 2013, 07:09:14 AM
If LTC offered better value to SR sellers (in terms of liquidity, stability, and security) they would switch to LTC.  The idea that someone the fact that there is no negative media attention is completley backwards.  There is NO media attention.  Note sure if you are aware but people bought and sold certain contraband online long before the SR.  It was was just more difficult.  Western Union, Liberty Reserve, etc.  The SR exploded in popularity because it used Bitcoin, not because the SR operators were trying to force Bitcoin adoption but .... because Bitcoin worked.  It provided value for users because it did what it was intended to.  If LTC did it as well or better the SR (and clones) would jump on that band wagon in a heartbeat.

"all i am saying is litecoin is a lot less of a headache swaying people away from the media propaganda."
So your have a long list of major businesses you were able to sway.... Of course not.  Nobody* has even heard of LiteCoin and likely never will.

*essentially nobody
5533  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-02-12 Could Amazons New Currency... on: February 13, 2013, 04:40:25 AM
I'm fine with a company emitting its own currency too, I call it an IPO.  But this Amazon thing IS NOT A CURRENCY!  It's one coin equals one penny.  It's a gift card program.

This.  It isn't fungible, isn't transferable, isn't exchangeable, doesn't float.  It isn't a currency. 

It is a gift card.  Nothing more except gift cards are "old" and virtual currency is new and cool. 
5534  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why doesn't Paypal shut down Virwox? on: February 13, 2013, 01:30:27 AM
Why doesn't Paypal shut down Virwox?

Simple answer.  $, $, and $$$$$$.

As long as they bring in the big money, keep the chagebacks low, and don't end up costing PayPal any big support dollars PayPal will just look the other way.   You as a small startup the first time you get two chargebacks in a short period of time, some low level offshore researcher will auto-freeze your account checking the "unauthorized currency exchange" box and call it a day.  You will never win an appeal, and if lucky will get your money back in 180 days.

Is it fair? No but the real world rarely is.  If Virwox ever becomes a "pain" (revenue goes down and chargebacks go up) PayPal will terminate that "friendly" relationship so far it will cause whiplash.  Until they do though they have a defacto exception, fair or not.
5535  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: FastCash4Bitcoins (Update: PayPal funds available) on: February 12, 2013, 11:57:51 PM
Request: make it more obvious why "place order" doesn't work. Highlight "out of funds" in red or something"

New version with simplified and improved sales page coming out late tonight or maybe tomorrow.
5536  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: What exactly is wrong with LTC? on: February 12, 2013, 11:29:14 PM
Why hasn't anyone used scrypt with more the kind of parameters it was intended for instead of perverting / crippling it to make it fit in GPUs? Everyone owns GPUs so doesn't really want to make CPUs competitive?


So that those "in the know" could mine with GPU before the secret got out.  The whole design choice was deception.  The default scrypt parameters (1048567, 8, 1) is essentially a GPU killer, even the authors recommended "lite" option is (16384, 8, 1).    It would have made GPU non-economical (i.e. they could run but at higher cost and energy requirements than virtually any CPU).  The parameters had to be accidentally changed to far extreme to make LTC GPU capable (1024, 8, 1).   A circa 2008 CPU (running single threaded) could verify the "lite" option hash in about 100ms and that time would only decrease with Moore's law.  There was no reason to "cripple" LTC memory hard attribute except that (16384,8,1) couldn't be secretly mined on a GPU.

"Look here GPU resistant cryptocoin.  It is fair for everyone because with only CPU it levels the playing field"
<pay no attention to the guy behind the curtain mining the shit out of LTC with a hundred GPUs>

..... some months later ....
oh look you can GPU mine LTC!
"Look here ASIC resistant cryptocoin.  It is fair for everyone because with only GPU it levels the playing field"

What I did was modify multicoin to make replacing the block PoW hashing function easier, then plugged in scrypt ( with parameters of N=1024, p=1, r=1, feeding in the block header as password and salt, output size of 32 bytes.

While those parameters would be way too low for a good password hashing/key derivation function (you want lots of margin for the future there), my initial educated guess and further experiments suggest they're still enough to "pessimize" current GPUs and FPGAs to a point where CPUs will easily be competitive... GPUs growing several MB of fast random access on-chip memory in the future might change that.

And yes, choosing such "unusual" parameters is skirting the rule, but in this case imo acceptable risk. Worst case... someone manages to make a "efficient enough" GPU/FPGA/... implementation or a new gen of GPUs comes out, scheduled chain fork switching to higher N and p. Up to N=4096,p=8,r=1 or so time to verify the PoW hash on a CPU shouldn't be an issue, beyond that you'd have to add some measures to prevent "junk block spam" DoS.

Strangely no explanation on why to change it.  The default values work fine as a POW on a CPU.   Also GPU never did get that "MB of fast random access on-chip memory" they still have roughly the same 32KB on chip low latency cache that they did four years ago.  Then again that is more than enough to allow a GPU to compete, it always was.
5537  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Should bitcoin lower the transaction fee? on: February 12, 2013, 03:39:07 PM
We should lower fee for normal transactions but increase fee for spams like Satoshi Dice

There is no mandatory fee for normal transactions.  If the network requires a fee it is because your transaction looks "spammy" (low priority).

A transaction will be sent without fees if these conditions are met:
It is smaller than 10 thousand bytes.
All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)

5538  Economy / Lending / Re: [USD always needed]People are ready to pay high to trade. Take advantage of it! on: February 12, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
How are interest calculations handled on a daily basis?  I put in a small amount as a test and the interest amount I received doesn't match the interest amount I selected to lend.  My assumption is that you actually charge interest on an hourly basis (i.e. 25% of a day earns 25% of daily rate) but I want to make sure this is correct.

About security.  Thanks for implementing 2FA.  Can 2FA be limited to just withdrawals?
Here is why ...
Also please provide more information on the security precautions you have taken to protect USD balances.  2FA on your MtGox account?  MtGox verification (to avoid potential AML freezes)?

Lastly a couple usability/reporting improvements.
On the lending history page can you show some more details (i.e. balance, weighted interest average (in both APY and bpd (basis points per day), and interest paid)?

Keep improving. I put a token amount in and doing things to improve transparency and security (like form that business entity and get MtGox to convert your account into the name of the business entity) and I might increase it.
5539  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Legal Tender Laws & Bitcoin on: February 12, 2013, 04:38:06 AM
the OP scenario never mentioned damages.
but as a few people including me have said .. if you go to court seeking damages all you will get back is fiat money.

so try going to court in pursuit of the return of goods/property. dont use the word damages if you dont want fiat

That will not always work.  The counterparty can claim he no longer has the BTC (or other property) at which point your recourse is limited to damages (in legal tender) or nothing.  No court is going to force someone to go out and buy property (including BTC) in order to it to you.  The court will want proof of the value of the property and then award damages.

If one party is unwilling to repay property owed it is very likely that damages are your only option.  Even under a scenario where ownership of the property can't be hidden, say a boat which is registered, if the counterparty wants to be vindictive they could simply sell it (or destroy it).  The counterparty now honestly no longer has the property.  The court can't force the return of property which is no longer owned by the counterparty.  Of course this doesn't make the liability go away you can still seek damages (in this example the fair market value of the boat).

It doesn't matter if it is your intent to seek damages or not.  The only guaranteed recourse you have is damages awarded in legal tender.  That is the whole point of legal tender.
5540  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Legal Tender Laws & Bitcoin on: February 12, 2013, 04:15:05 AM
In this case, the court should enforce the contract on the USD with reasonable exchange rate or enforce the contract as it is (pay and only pay by bitcoin)?

There is no "should" about it.  The court can ONLY award damages in legal tender.  The court isn't going to try an enforce a contract.  If one parties breaks the contract then the other party sues for DAMAGES (in legal tender).  That is the whole definition of legal tender.  When the contract is broken and you sue in court the court can award you damages as compensation for your loss.  The requirement that creditors must accept payment for debts in legal tender comes from this basis.  If a debtor doesn't pay a creditor what can the creditor do? Take the debtor to court right?  If the court agrees with the creditor what are they going to do?  Award damages right?  What form will those damages be in ... legal tender.  The requirement for a creditor to accept payment in legal tender simply shortcuts you right to the forgone conclusion (and hopefully avoid a lot of court cases).

For example, lets say I loan you 100 bitcoins and in exchange you sign an agreement to pay me 105 bitcoins one year from now. Next year rolls around, and you won't give me any bitcoins but you do offer me USD, which I refuse.

You have no legal right to refuse legal tender for a debt owed.  Your doing so would be looked upon dimly by the court.  Even if the court awarded damages expect an ass chewing by the court (potentially even a reduction in the damages awarded).  The only thing the court will do is award you damages in legal tender.  So for you to refuse legal tender and seek recourse in the court is a colossal waste of time for both parties and the court.

You prove to the court that you are owed x BTC (i.e. contract is valid), and you prove to the court that the value of a "BTC" is y USD and the court would award you damages in the amount x * y USD.

Now just because the court awards damages in US dollars (legal tender) doesn't mean that you and the counterparty can't reach an agreement out of court.  If the other party has the BTC and now having lost in court decides to pay up it in BTC that is fine.  It may be more economical for him to just give you the BTC directly (rather than sell it for USD, pay you the USD and then you use the USD to buy back the BTC). There is nothing which prevents settling a judgement by other than legal tender if both parties agree to it.  You would just draw up an agreement stating the transfer of X BTC satifies the judgement owed, conduct the transfer (possibly with escrow), sign the agreement and the counterparty could present it to the court to have the judgement satisfied.  So legal tender doesn't prevent conducting business using another asset.  However if one party doesn't agree then repayment will be in legal tender.

You can't write a contract which guarantees repayment in anything but legal tender.
If you lend me 100 oz of gold and I go into default, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.
If you give me 100 BTC for secure storage and I report it has been stolen, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.
If you lend me your priceless one of a kind antique vehicle and I destroy it, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.

The court can't force me to return the gold I spent on hookers and blow, the stolen BTC, or the one of kind antique which no longer exists.  The court can however find me liable and award you damages to compensate you for your loss.

You can write a contract involving any asset.  You could write a contract which contracts for difference on the value of oil measured in silver, with settlement in metric tons of potatoes.
The courts can ONLY award damages in legal tender.  A creditor MUST accept payment for a debt in legal tender.

Pages: 1 ... 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 [277] 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 ... 728
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!