|
61
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Use Devcoin Client or Devda Web Wallet for Receiving Generation Devcoins
|
on: March 21, 2013, 02:43:56 AM
|
..
Generated transactions don't show up with an address they were generated to, while sent transactions show which address they were sent to.
That's the main reason why they don't get picked up.
The only exchange I know of that can pick up generated transactions is MtGox, but they don't do DVC.
-- Smoov
Looking in a block explorer, for example: http://glari.ch:2750/block/28086d694d18548cc83420ff3e09d9d3dd0f2fee0c55a25facca9e6696b635bcyou can see the generation transaction: 1FgDoZQLYE8y1rDAPhT3KbDNVQ5dy2AyRw: 5085
1M2ZXZMwnq8HWs3kuFnU2qtMdCPdaKTBTH: 45000
would it be possible to make a python script or something to read blocks and determine what address received the generation? Which is probably how MtGox is doing it. I do know they are using custom software they made themselves, while the others are most likely just doing API calls to the daemon. Just from my p2pool mining, for instance, at one point, bitcoind started showing the addresses the generated coin belong to, and they get counted in my p2pool receive address... litecoind, on the other hand, using older code, doesn't show the addresses the coin is generated to. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
62
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Use Devcoin Client or Devda Web Wallet for Receiving Generation Devcoins
|
on: March 20, 2013, 11:41:28 PM
|
I don't quite get why... Perhaps it is because mined coins need 120 blocks to mature and their software cannot handle that for some reason.
It's because of they way they appear to the devcoind client. They appear as "generated" rather than the normal sent/received status. The balance of the generated coins aren't picked up via the devcoin API calls usually used to see if funds have been received. Generated transactions don't show up with an address they were generated to, while sent transactions show which address they were sent to. That's the main reason why they don't get picked up. The only exchange I know of that can pick up generated transactions is MtGox, but they don't do DVC. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
63
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should the bitcoin community ban the Satoshi Dice filter patch?
|
on: March 19, 2013, 12:44:15 AM
|
A far easier way would be to introduce a 'mix' filter, so that 'low value' transactions can take up no more than '%' of a block, backlog them, they will soon reduce them down.
Or 'boundary' them, I.E bitcoins between a certain value get delayed a given number of days, before there is an attempt to stuff them in the block.
:facepalm: Ya know... it is these stupid artificial games played by people who want to control the money supply which sparked the existence of Bitcoin in the first place! Leave it alone. The transaction fee/priority system works. Stop trying to fiddle with it and LET IT WORK. We've become too complacent with the change to reduce transaction fees in the first place, which never should have been done. Now people will have to include reasonable fees again. GOOD! -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
64
|
Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] BTCJam - Peer to Peer Bitcoin Lending
|
on: March 18, 2013, 10:03:56 PM
|
(How) Can I retract my investment during the funding period, if something suddenly smells fishy? Why does everyone rate +/-10? An approach similar to the BTC-OTC system would be more sensible methinks: http://wiki.bitcoin-otc.com/wiki/OTC_Rating_System#Rating_guidelinesMaybe this could be forced, as in: If I have invested / borrowed one loan with a user, I get to vote +/- 1. Once I have invested / borrowed with a user twice, I get to vote +/-2. Etc. I do agree that many people appear to use the rating system who donnot understand it. However, I would not force a limit. If I do 10 deals for .01 BTC each, then I trust them far less that 1 deal for 1000 BTC. There also are people on the site who I personally know and would trust with my life, even if I only have loaned money once or twice- even for small amounts. I think there just needs to be a description of how the rating system works within the rating page. Something like: -10 - Scammer -1 - Seems Shady to me +1 - One good transaction +3 - Couple good transactions +5 - Very trustworthy +10 - Would bet life on them repaying Obviously I exaggerated, but if this "chart" was on the rating page, people will tend to rate where they think the person fits on the chart, rather than just giving +10 in the hope of getting +10 in return. Blame certain social media sites, where the userbase considers you rating one of their pics a +9, an insult and that you must be a hater, and needs to be banned... (never went back) -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
66
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Fork: alternate scenario
|
on: March 15, 2013, 01:55:05 AM
|
I want to understand what would have been repercussions of forking if miners were not persuaded to go back to version 0.7, either 0.7 fork would have been bigger as is the case now or 0.8 branch would have taken precedence in that case 0.7 orphan blocks would have been retried, so what was the big loss in that case?
I'd bet in that situation the majority of miners will still fall back to 0.7 as a safe measure, since the fork was not planned It's risk measurement. Fall back to 0.7 is the least risky strategy since it has been working well for much longer time than 0.8. If you urge the rest of the nodes to upgrade to 0.8, and 0.8 showed another problem (since it has been on the field for less than a month, you can not rule out that possibility), then you are in big trouble You mean, if 0.8 shows _A_ problem... the problem in this case, was pre 0.8... Now after some analysis you know that the bug is hidden in BDB, but at the time when the chain forked, no one can guarantee that 0.8 has no problem, but everyone know that 0.7 works fine ...unless you count that pesky little issue that it tends to reject and fork on valid blocks... such a little issue, barely worth mentioning, really... -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
68
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU
|
on: March 13, 2013, 06:09:13 PM
|
I'm not making SD the scapegoat. I don't advocate for its blocking, simply leaving the blocksize alone would make transactions expensive enough SD would die on its own (along with micropayments).
It's just a fact of life that we cannot raise the block size so big that no system with free or negligible fees wouldn't take up the whole transaction space.
Looking forward, the easiest, most conservative patch was to just ban SD, BUT this is not what I'm calling for. The problem is that DDoSing the blockchain is simply allowed (could be even worse than SD, it could be on 0.00000 fees, at all - most devs want to support this "for the time being" meaning years to come). They're not DDoS'ing the blockchain in the first place, and banning SD is hardly a conservative approach. Throwing accusations against SD for their choice of business model, _IS_ making them into a scapegoat. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
69
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks
|
on: March 13, 2013, 07:56:12 AM
|
The Story of Bob, The Bitcoin Miner Bob mines bitcoins. He has a lot of other miners he works with. His job is to process transactions. For this, he gets paid. Some of Bob's fellow miners make a big show of working hard, but at the end of the day, they didn't have any transactions in their blocks, but they still get paid the base rate. Unfortunately, this leaves more work for Bob, who has to pick up the slack for the other miners who don't bother to process their transactions. Bob doesn't feel this is fair, so one day, he decides he's not going to work so hard for the extra pay anymore, and just do the bare minimum, since other miners get away with it too. The people sending in transactions, however, notice that Bob isn't keeping up like he used to, and is even ignoring their transactions. Those people, however, are his mine's biggest customers. Since Bob's numbers have plummetted, Bob gets fired. His fellow miners who never processed transactions in the first place, however, keep their jobs, never having been noticed since they never did any actual work in the first place, and keep collecting their paychecks. Pretty soon, more and more miners refuse to process more and more transactions, bringing the mine to a standstill, and the mine closes. --- Moral of the story? A MINER'S JOB IS TO PROCESS TRANSACTIONS... that is the whole purpose of your existence in the bitcoin community. If you're not processing the transactions in front of you, you aren't doing your job, and you don't need to be here. Go whine somewhere else, or quit bitching about how much work you're getting paid to do and do your goddamned job. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
71
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: http://www.pyramining.com/ - Discussion thread (no advertising here)
|
on: March 13, 2013, 06:32:51 AM
|
Hi all, So I thought about it some more and joined pyramining with a chunk of BTC  I didn't go for ASIC's with this deposit, as I'd rather earn immediately this time around. Now, I'm also considering creating a new account and depositing a fairly large amount using the initial account as the sponsor. Is that generally a good idea (I figure it can't hurt)? Is the bonus credited to the initial account proportionate to the amount deposited into the new account (so larger chunk you deposit, the bigger the bonus amount)? Also, if I allocate the new deposit to ASIC's, does the initial account still receive the bonus immediately? (I assume so, just checking  ) I'd be happy to hear any other investment strategies others are using if you don't mind I have about 30 or 40 accounts all feeding into and out of each other in various ways. Linking your accounts through your own referrals is a good idea, and not frowned upon. I don't know about the strategies tho... I did mine up kinda haphazardly. Someone else will have to answer about the specifics of the bonus amounts. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
72
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks
|
on: March 13, 2013, 05:49:02 AM
|
Cumulative Fees Paid: 2837.93797500 BTC
What's wrong with the fees paid? Those all went to miners.
small (bets < 4 BTC) | 3522656What's wrong is they're spamming the chain with microtransactions with minimal fees causing a lot of dust that will bloat the chain. It's not healthy. "minimal" fees, which just so happens to follow the rules when it comes to transactions and the inclusion of fees... if you don't like the "minimal" fees on small transactions, then lobby to get the fees changed on small transactions... _ALL_ small transactions... don't just go targetting SD specifically. They are just following the system in place. -- Smoov Equilibrium is an old Indian word that means "nobody is happy." When everybody is happy, liberty has died. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
73
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks
|
on: March 13, 2013, 05:33:53 AM
|
Cumulative Fees Paid: 2837.93797500 BTC
What's wrong with the fees paid? Those all went to miners.
small (bets < 4 BTC) | 3522656What's wrong is they're spamming the chain with microtransactions with minimal fees causing a lot of dust that will bloat the chain. It's not healthy. "minimal" fees, which just so happens to follow the rules when it comes to transactions and the inclusion of fees... if you don't like the "minimal" fees on small transactions, then lobby to get the fees changed on small transactions... _ALL_ small transactions... don't just go targetting SD specifically. They are just following the system in place. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
74
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU
|
on: March 13, 2013, 03:03:52 AM
|
Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary. If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below ) -- Smoov Both are factors. As I said, fee pressure would be enough to keep the volume from taking up all the transaction real estate. I'd be willing to bet on that  Raising the block size much more poses very real problems in terms of storage and bandwidth, and I don't think it's necessary at all. Don't get me wrong here... I think the whole move to make SD a scapegoat for BTC's shortcomings is a foolish direction to take to begin with. From a message I just read a little while ago, it appears SD is paying plenty in fees, according to the rules, and if people don't like it, that's just too bad. As long as the transactions are being processed properly, without regard for who sent to who and why, with fees or without as appropriate according to the priority rules for processing them, SD is under no obligation to kowtow to "purists" who find SD's (or SR's, or whoever else ends up being the scapegoat of the month) use of the currency to somehow offend their fragile sensibilities of what is or isn't good enough to use bitcoin, in whatever manner they choose. Cryptocoin should be agnostic. All it should care about is, is this a valid tx, and if it is, then throw it in the queue to be prioritized like all of the other ones. Nobody using cryptocoin, is in a position to tell me what I can or can't do with my coin, and this bandwagon bullshit trying to make SD the scapegoat here is laughable, AT BEST. No, this recent problem with the fork, wasn't caused by SD... it was caused by short-sightedness of various programmers directly and not directly involved with cryptocoin development. Plenty of blame to go around here... but... being able to stand up and take responsibility for their own oversights, is a very rare quality in today's world... hence, the need for a scapegoat... that's the only place where SD comes in here. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
75
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU
|
on: March 13, 2013, 01:03:10 AM
|
@all: Gamblers, have a different mindset than those who are engaged in commerce. Let's just call it entertainment, and not get too preachy. Gamblers will pay substantial fees for entertainment that those engaged in ordinary commerce will not (or cannot) pay. (15%-20%, typically, at a parimutuel US horse race; 40-50% at a typical US State lottery; 5% at American roulette; etc.) I don't think it is possible to raise the fees in a way that would make SD unprofitable, without raising the fees in a way that makes bitcoin unprofitable for many other economic purposes.
The only reason gamblers would pay that sort of fees is because it's an extremely regulated business and as a result it's very uncompetitive. SD would have to compete with other gambling systems off the blockchain and it would soon become a rip-off in comparison. On top of that, all the current abuse would become so expensive they would be squint rather soon. And on top of that, it really isn't a business that can grow so big that it will phagocyte any possible blockchain, provided there are some sanity limits (namely fees). If you think gambling can grow so big, even at fees as high as 5%, that it will make any other business uncompetitive by land-grabbing blockchains of any transactional performance, then that would basically prove the whole idea of Bitcoin inviable. We would have to abolish complete anonymity in transactions and start monitoring what people do to stop gambling. I'm willing to bet ( ) this is not necessary and that gambling would stay within control just by virtue of fee-based self-regulation. Gamblers don't choose where to play, because of the fees (or rake, or house edge, etc)... they choose to play because of the games being offered... the rake is secondary. If fees were the primary choice to choose where to gamble? Everyone would be playing at Seals With Clubs. (referral link in my sig below ) -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
76
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [CRYPTOSTOCKS] Vircurex [VCX] - Going public
|
on: March 10, 2013, 05:30:49 PM
|
Hi just wondering when you're planning to improve the GUI on the site? I see a lot of comments around the internet that seem to suggest if the site was more intuitive they would be much more interested in using it. Wouldn't mind updates as to what's happening with the upgrades every two weeks or so just to keep us in the loop Optional UI... I like the UI as it is now, all the info I want or need... Tho I can understand why some would want a different interface. Not everyone day-trades every possible pair like I like to do. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
77
|
Economy / Exchanges / Re: BTC-E.com exchange Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin <-> USD\BTC (fee 0.2%)
|
on: March 09, 2013, 06:11:33 PM
|
The site only went down for a minute or two at the time trading was halted... it has been up since, with plenty of trolling in the trollbox, so if you can't get on, it is on your end.
-- Smoov
It's been 'under maintenance' for the 2nd day in a row now. Send an email to support<at>btc-e.com Maybe you're getting caught by the DDoS protection and need to be whitelisted? -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
78
|
Bitcoin / Mining / Re: Soft block size limit reached, action required by YOU
|
on: March 07, 2013, 06:51:27 AM
|
|
Personally, I see the miners who are refusing all transactions (so their blocks propagate faster, less chance of orphans), who are only mining for the reward, completely ignoring that the purpose of mining is to process transactions in the first place, as being a bigger problem than Satoshi Dice is.
As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business.
Look at the block explorer from time to time. I see plenty of found blocks that have 0 transactions in it, just the reward generation.
That is the big problem.
-- Smoov
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
Economy / Exchanges / Re: BTC-E.com exchange Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin <-> USD\BTC (fee 0.2%)
|
on: March 06, 2013, 01:39:27 AM
|
dev said so himself... I was on at the time. They are apparently closing up a vulnerability they themselves found.
and, just now:
dev: i am think i am done
dev: there is no hack/ no losses
dev: its just my fault
-- Smoov
Unless that dev is the hacker... :/ I can't even get on the site, it's completely down. The site only went down for a minute or two at the time trading was halted... it has been up since, with plenty of trolling in the trollbox, so if you can't get on, it is on your end. -- Smoov Thanks for the info. There are other people on bitcointalk that have the same problem where they can't load the site. Can you see your funds? Can you withdraw? All my funds are fine, my pending trades are still intact. Trading and Deposit/Withdrawl are halted until dev is finished double-checking the site before operations are resumed. -- Smoov |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
