This may be a stupid question, but why doesn't there seem to be an option to add a fee with the Android app?
I believe it automatically determines if a fee is necessary. Just today I sent a transaction and it said a 0.005 fee was required. I hit cancel to change the amount sent (because I didn't have enough to include the fee) and it sent it without a fee. Now the transaction is sitting out there unconfirmed, my local buyer didn't see the transaction appear in Bitcoin-Qt, and is worried he won't get his money. Needless to say I won't be using the BlockChain Android app anymore... |
|
|
|
Thank you for explanation, look like developer will not get donation any time soon, I know 0.01 bitcoin is not a lot but I dont have much more at the moment to send.
You could send a donation of 0.0095 bitcoin with a 0.0005 bitcoin fee. |
|
|
|
They should just make their own e-cigs, capitalize on both markets instead of just fighting it with millions and millions of lobbying dollars.
Almost everyone knows what economies of scale are, but not many people know that there are also diseconomies of scale. |
|
|
|
|
Why not have a bunch of trusted people create keys specifically for this purpose and create a multi-sig transaction so that 50% of them have to sign any spends?
|
|
|
|
Because the escrow fixes the price. If price rises until I meet the person, I make a bad deal (I cannot restock because I can't be sure the customer will show up). If price falls, customer might just not show up, which is also undesirable.
If I could use a formula (like in the ad) for the price, I would use the escrow.
Ah, there is that. Lately I've just been making clear that the exchange rate is locked for better or worse from the time of contact, and then buying coins at that price on Coinbase. |
|
|
|
Yeah, unfortunately none of the trading partners I've dealt with so far have been on OTC. It's mostly newbies just trying to figure out how to simply get some bitcoins and avoid some of the fees and hassle of BitInstant.
I understand that LocalBitcoins needs a way to earn revenue, so I can see why they would require a payment (such as the escrow fee) to participate in their rating system. It would be nice though if I could pay a small fee for a membership that allows me to provide feedback when I don't use escrow. The same for me: I did many good trades on localbitcoins and I still have 0 feedback  Im not on otc. There should be a better rating system. If you're fine with paying a fee, why not just use the escrow? |
|
|
|
Taxes are a necessary evil in my opinion... Yeah? Well slavery is a necessary evil in my opinion. I don't see how we could have civilization without slavery... said almost everyone before the abrupt end of slavery. |
|
|
|
|
What do you think of the Trezor? Is building Trezor or other specially designed offline wallet functionality into Armory an easier solution than all this? At least then, the onus is on the wallet manufacturer to design a secure system to protect the keys. The user's software just has to provide a good interface to it.
|
|
|
|
Their bottle appears in the beginning (it's their bottle isn't it?) and the name "Neft" is written on one of the airplanes of the hangar. Plus, this: It also happens to be a very bold piece of branded content for the Russian vodka company Neft.
You're right, I didn't catch that. |
|
|
|
What led you to the conclusion that this was an ad from NEFT? |
|
|
|
I view Trezor precisely as a way for non-technical people to protect their main chunk of Bitcoins,
Ah, thanks, I guess I was confused. Now that I know the Trezor developers don't consider me part of their target market I'll look elsewhere. If anybody has a lead on a platform suitable for a more expert-oriented security token, there is a bounty. Caveden isn't a Trezor developer. I'm pretty sure that they are wanting to accommodate both types of users. I personally plan on using their shield for my Pi at home, and a final unit for keeping on my person more than I would feel safe keeping on my phone. |
|
|
|
It *was* indirectly because of the size of the block. Even at 166 bytes each (or whatever the minimum size of transaction), a 250K block cannot contain 1700+ transactions. And a number of transactions that exceeds the BDB configuration is believed to be the root of the problem. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I will give the developers credit and assume testing all extremes from 1 really big transaction to many really tiny transactions probably would have been in a formal release cycle. No such testing was done, chiefly because this was an off the cuff suggestion, not a formal release.
The problem is with the old version, and is a previously unknown bug. Are you saying the developers should have thought to test the old version for an unknown bug before releasing the new version? |
|
|
|
Nope, as long as you didn't double spend against yourself, you will eventually see your transaction confirm. Even if it was in the losing chain, it will get reincorporated into the main chain. |
|
|
|
New ideas! Food for thought: I just talked to some people who are a bit better with hardware than me, and someone mentioned the idea of using "broken" cables. I still don't understand the attack vector this is trying to solve. Did the people who are better with hardware agree that plugging a device in to a compromized computer's serial port could allow the device to be compromised? What if all the serial TTY ports on the device are disabled? |
|
|
|
I received an e-mail back today offering to refund the coins. They informed me that you can only use their deposit addresses once. Once I have the coins I'll update the OP  I <3 Mullvad |
|
|
|
I want to know if the Dependencies-Bundle for Ubuntu 10.04 32-bit (*.zip) also works with 12.10 !?
Ah, I wasn't aware that existed. I don't see any reason it shouldn't work with 12.10, there just might be newer versions of the dependencies available in the repository. |
|
|
|
Hi!
I love this client.
Is there a offline linux bundle for ubuntu 12.10 available or does the existing work with it?
thanks for your help
What do you mean "offline linux bundle"? The version of armory from Github compiles just fine on Ubuntu 12.10 with the property dependencies installed. |
|
|
|
There's something wrong with this: https://blockchain.info/api/api_receiveIt's not sending the callback... My script is here: https://coinad.com/?m=account&op=depositI save the IP every time the callback script is accessed. And I don't see any IP from blockchain there. Everything works when I send a test callback. I just think for some reason blockchain has blocked callbacks to my site or something like that. EDIT:Hmm.. I changed server, (different IP) maybe the dns hasn't spread to blockchain's server, and it's still pointing to the old server? WTF is happening with this? I don't understand why it doesn't trigger the callback, did you block my domain or something like that? You take forever to reply by email, helpdesk and bitcointalk! If I ran a free service and you contacted me with this sort of attitude, I wouldn't want to help you either. Not saying that's what's going on here, but it's a possibility. Have you considered that you're not entitled to use the free service provided by Piuk, and that you should tone down your attitude in accordance with that fact? |
|
|
|
|
No, that is not safe because you have to scan the key into an online computer to use it, at which point it is vulnerable. You could scan it into an offline computer and sign the transaction there, but then why not just keep the key there instead of on paper?
A Raspberry Pi costs $35 and can sufficiently run an offline Armory install. It's a cheap and effective solution.
|
|
|
|
It is connected to my monitor, but it's not necessary to view the screen. The Pi server sends messages back to Armory which are then displayed in the UI. For instance "Enter passphrase to unlock wallet", "Invalid passphrase, please re-enter", "Unlocking wallet", etc. The only thing you really need is a separate keyboard plugged into the Pi in order for there to be no possible way your wallet passphrase can be captured by your online computer.
How would you be sure you aren't signing a larger transaction than you intended? You're right, without using a separate display, you cannot be sure. For my purposes, the possibility of this happening seems slim enough that I'm not concerned. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
