Run it on testnet so it's not tempting for people to keep the coins. they'll be more likely to take them and return them. Exact same functionality on display, no actual money at risk.

Surely it's nicer to buy knowing you'll be able to buy at a definite price into that wall? Would you rather buy without the wall and as you buy see the price continue to go up so you end up buying some of your coins at a higher price?

Just to be sure for anyone who reads this thread in the future:

bitcoind listtransactions "*" COUNT FROM will return an array of transactions which is a subset starting at the FROMth transaction (starting from the most recent transaction) and will fetch COUNT entries which are older than that one.

I had mistakenly thought that it fetched entries which are more recent than the FROM point and that the FROM point was measured from the oldest transaction.

The correct solution to my problem is

bitcoind listtransactions "*" 1 X
for x starting at 0 and increasing by 1 until the result matches a transaction I've already encountered before

This will fetch one entry at a time from the newest to the oldest. Therefore it is sensible to stop at some point.

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't passing on my misinterpretation of how listtransactions works

Awesome thanks it worked! But another simple question - what should I do instead of the 9999999 for count? I've noticed that if I put in too many 9s it gives a 'negative count' error.

right now this is what I've got and it's working well enough, but I'd like to tidy the 9999 business


Which will get the last 99999 transactions from transaction 32 onward, but if I have more than 99999 + 32 transactions... this won't work as I intend.

I'm trying to get a list of all transactions using the 'from' keyword, regardless of what account they belong to

from the command bitcoind help I can see that listtransaction is specified as such:


If I specify no arguments I get all transactions regardless of the account.

How do I use the 'from' parameter without the 'account' parameter?

ie I want to do something like this


which should show me a list of all the transactions after transaction number X regardless of the account they're in.

as an example of what I've tried but has not given what I want:

bitcoind listtransactions "" 9999999999999 32
only lists from transaction 32 onward for account "", I want any account

bitcoind listtransactions * 9999999999 32
* is not valid

bitcoind listtransactions --from=32
--from is not valid, returns an empty array

bitcoind listtransactions from=32
returns an empty array, presumably treats the first keyword as account

I tried to add a listing today but got an error

Problem parsing equation

USD24h*USD_in_AUD*1.10

Equation made using the tool
- weighted
- USD
- 24hr
- 10% comission

I live in Australia and want to use a conversion from the bitcoin USD rate and then to AUD.

I am interested in placing a message into the blockchain for the purpose of timestamping the message (eg adding the hash of a document to the blockchain so that the document can be verified as existing sometime before the timestamp of the block)

I've looked at how btcmsg does it but the comment in this link suggests that btcmsg isn't the right way to do it.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/2616/how-to-decode-messages-embedded-with-btcmsg


Can someone propose how I may best achieve placing a message in the blockchain? I've had some ideas but would like to hear how the pros think it should be done.

I expect flames that 'bitcoin isnt meant for that' - if so please explain the alternative you'd use instead.

I've seen a few TA terms mentioned with respect to the action in the past few days.

Cup and Handle is one pattern
Flag/Pennant is another

I'm wondering for those more in the know than me:

How long do you reckon the 'handle' of this cup will be? How long will the flag be?

Is a flag the same as a handle if you ignore the leading pole/cup respectively?

Is it common to see multiple patterns arise for one piece of data? When this does happen, does one pattern usually tend to be more indicative than the other? How about in this case? Which is dominant?

If the price goes down instead of up after this, was it neither a handle or a flag? Does that defeat the purpose of assigning a pattern to it in the first place?

What kind of tolerances are those claiming to see these patterns putting on their observations? Or is it just a matter of eyeballing it?

And of course, ultimately, who will win - HANDLE OR FLAG?!!!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=handle&word2=flag

I realise that these are not particularly constructive questions, I'm just curious about this pattern matching because not many places I've read about these patterns have put hard metrics on their definitions and they feel a bit fuzzy and done with a 'looks close enough' attitude. I'm still finding it hard to see how TA is not some sort of magic (purely based on my reading about it on the internet). I would like to be convinced otherwise.

Yep that makes sense about transactions having confirmations not addresses

To be able to use gettransaction I need to have a transaction id which is not something I automatically have for a deposit, only for a send.

I can get a list of incoming transaction ids using


however I still have the problem of having to do lots of filtering if ACCOUNT has a lot of transactions. I guess I could keep track of how many transactions were returned the last time I called it and use that in the 'from' parameter to narrow down the list.

Thanks for the ideas. Still doesn't seem like a neat solution, but listtransactions is better than the previous ideas I had.

edit:
I might clarify the reason I made this title 'address confirmations' and not 'transaction confirmations' is that I plan to have each address used only once, and hence address should be analogous to a transaction. Of course I cannot assume that the address will indeed only be used once since someone may pay to it multiple times, so I am also thinking about how to deal with that scenario should it arise.

I want to know how many confirmations each of the transfers into a given address has.

I can achieve this in an inefficient way using


and manually filtering the result for only the address I'm interested in.

My concern is that if I have a lot of transactions, this command results in a very long list containing all my addresses. Is there a way to get this same list but only for a specific address, so that I don't have to filter through it?

Another way I could do it is using


and iterate over a suitable range for X until I see a balance change, and then I know that there was a transaction to that address which has X confirmations.

I feel like I'm missing something here and I'm making this harder than it is. Anyone got some ideas what I should do?

The latest other thread on this topic of the many - this has been asked many times in the mining forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86223.0

In summary

Bitcoincharts.com is not very accurate. Some of the unknown blocks are from known pools but called unknown.

I also would like this feature to be part of gox merchant services so each payment can be individually tracked, preferably with a settable url callback when the balance at the address is changed.

Did you end up finding anything from the data related to luck or general improvement?

In my bitcoin-qt client I get a balloon notification whenever coins are received in my wallet.

Is there a way to tap into this functionality from bitcoind? I have a cron job set up to check my 'expected incoming addresses' for changes in the balance, but cron has a resolution of one minute which is pretty crap for this kind of thing, and I would prefer an event-style code-base where possible rather than a scheduled-task-style code-base.

Any tips on how I can tap into this to trigger some other event as soon as an incoming transfer is detected from bitcoind?

As much as I agree with this statement, I think monthly subscription payments are familiar to the majority of 'normal' customers, and having familiarity is really important for acceptance (of your site/service, not of bitcoin). I wish it wasn't like this but look at how apple has 'such great interface' when really the main thing they've done is make new situations feel familiar. I'm not saying being able to offer monthly subscriptions will be the deal breaker for your service, but every bit of familiarity you can provide makes your customers feel that much more at home using your service. True, prepaid is also familiar, but I think prepaid cannot be directly substituted for monthly payments. It is, however, probably the closest alternative.

This is not to say I think bitcoin should 'natively' support subscription payments. I am currently trying to figure out this same subscription-with-bitcoins thing myself, and have no answer. I will be making my customers make a payment once a month.

I considered the prepaid model as an alternative but it has some drawbacks, especially from the business side of things as already stated.

Is there a similar thing to http://www.greenid.com.au/ but not only for Australia? For example, Mt Gox probably wouldn't use these guys cause they have clients from all over the globe, and being able to hand off just your Australian customers may not make it worthwhile when you have a process in place anyhow for the other places.

I'm interested in this sort of thing, but would like it to be a bit broader than Australia. If you have any other examples of companies doing similar work to greenid, it'd be great if you could post them in the OP so that there's some kind of central resource to find 'outsourced AML providers'... that would be handy for many upcoming bitcoin businesses to have access to.

Thanks for posting this, it wasn't something I had previously considered.

json interface to google calculator, eg

http://www.google.com/ig/calculator?q=1AUD=?USD

or if you wanna go pro sign up for the xe.com api

edit: fantastic idea btw.

But, despite this, it does seem like eternal growth is possible if you do the things you suggest such as investment in education, efficiency etc (which I forgot to implicitly state myself and agree with). Without increases in efficiency then growth will of course consume too many resources no matter where that growth happens. As you suggest, growth isn't just about consumption, it's also about reducing the consumption and changing to non-resource consumption, yet whenever growth is mentioned in an economic sense it's about 'doing more with more' not about 'doing the same with less', but they're both still forms of growth.

It depends if there is an assumption that to provide better service requires more energy. Right now, I think it does, but with the right attention, it's possible to provide better service with equal or less energy than before, which would facilitate eternal growth. As you say, we are certainly not heading this way by way of policy, but perhaps we'll figure it out ourselves before too long...

As for charging more for the same service ($200 for a $20 manicure), that's not really 'growth of the economy' that's just growth of the monetary system. There's a very distinct difference between the value of something and the cost of something. I'm talking about eternal growth in the value of an economy, regardless of the relative cost associated. I imagine people generally consider growth to be reflected in 'the awesomeness of sports cars' rather than 'the cost of sports cars' (substitute 'features' with 'awesomeness' and 'family car' for 'sports car' if it pleases you more)

It all depends how you define growth, which I have not yet seen a reasonable definition in this thread.

On the exponential growth thing... I have often wondered but never reached any conclusions about whether you can have economic growth forever (exponential or not). My gut feeling is no, but I will pose some questions that cause me indecision:

Can you have continual growth in services?

The thing with services is, you don't just need more people to provide more service. You can also have growth in quality of service. In this sense, it would seem possible for eternal growth to not only be possible, but a part of the human condition to always improve.

I think we're not going to move from a growth-based economy to a 'stable' economy, but rather from a product-heavy economy to a service-heavy economy. This will better facilitate the 'endless growth' that seems so desirable.

But as I say, I'm still really undecided on this issue.

Are .com domain names able to be taken down by US for 'any old reason'?

Are they able to do this for any other domain extensions other than .com?

Presumably .eu is 'safe' - TPB uses a .eu extension and I'm sure they've unsuccessfully been targeted by the US for takedown... is this right?

Assuming .com can be taken down and .eu cannot, and you use the .com only to forward to the .eu, will the .com be taken down if they USA doesn't 'like' the .eu site being forwarded to? eg if tpb.com was just forwarding to tpb.eu would the USA still want to / be able to take down the .com site?

Anyone know where I can find more detailed info on this?

I have no idea how the law works with the USA (or any other country for that matter) regarding taking down websites, but it seems like they can just do it however they want. I'd really like some more info (links) on this sort of thing. My google skills failed me on it.