What a great opportunity to share some of my experiences. It took some hairs being pulled out, but I finally managed to get sendmany to work. Some observations (in decreasing order of triviality): 1. You run bitcoind from the daemon folder with one of the commands in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list. 2. You should specify the application data directory, if it is not the default, with -datadir= your_directory before the command. 3. You should unlock the wallet with walletpassphrase. 4. Your bitcoin.conf file should have settings to allow this, my own file looks exactly like this: # JSON-RPC
server=1
rpcuser=a
rpcpassword=b
rpcallowip=10.0.0.*
rpcport=8332
5. You can't use sendmany from an account which has no sufficient funds. However, you can move funds from one account to another even if the first account hasn't sufficient funds, and simultaneously creating the sending account if it does not exist. 6. On Windows, addresses should be triple-double-quoted. So it can look for example like this: bitcoind -datadir="C:\Bitcoin" walletpassphrase JustSomePassword 20
bitcoind -datadir="C:\Bitcoin" move "Sendmany sink" "Sendmany source" 0.003
bitcoind -datadir="C:\Bitcoin" sendmany "Sendmany source" {"""1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW""":0.001,"""1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac""":0.001,"""1HUrNJfVFwQkbuMXwiPxSQcpyr3ktn1wc9""":0.001}
Both account names can be entered verbatim and needn't exist in advance. However, after so doing I realized that the Bitcoin-qt GUI displays a list item for every address to which payment was sent this way. This is incredibly messy and I didn't want it. So I ended up using blockchain.info MyWallet for this. I hoped it would have an interface where you can paste a tsv of addresses and amounts to send, but I could find no such thing. What it does have is an HTTP GET API. The syntax is available at https://blockchain.info/api/api_send. So after moving funds to MyWallet, you can enter this in your browser URL bar: https://blockchain.info/merchant/your_id/sendmany?password=your_password&recipients={"1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW":100000,"1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac":100000,"1HUrNJfVFwQkbuMXwiPxSQcpyr3ktn1wc9":100000}
Note that unlike bitcoind sendmany, the MyWallet API takes amounts in satoshis. This doesn't cover the problem of how to generate the JSON parameter encoding all actual payments; this can be done with some Excel-fu and/or search-replace. I have put up an example at https://bitcoil.co.il/Sendmany-example.xlsx; the payment per share is in A1, the addresses and share counts are in columns B-C, D and E should be completed down. The last row of E is the recipients parameter in MyWallet format. Is there a limit with "sendmany" ?
There shouldn't be, but a limitation may exist because of the interface used. The command line may have a limit on the number of characters you can use it for; when using the MyWallet GET API there is a browser limit on the characters in the URI. I have successfully used the latter to send to 88 addresses with a 3606 character URI. If the API also accepts POST it could be more scalable, but slightly harder to use. try to avoid making double payments by accident.
One added benefit of using MyWallet as I described is that you can load it with only as many bitcoins as you intend to pay, making it much harder to make double or otherwise erroneous payments. however big transactions might become exponentially expensive due to blockchain spam prevention.
The word "exponentially" is commonly misused to describe things which show only polynomial growth (or no asymptotic growth at all). Here is a rare example of misusing it to describe hyperbolic growth (as the total block size approaches the limit, the transaction fee has a vertical asymptote with a simple pole). |
|
|
|
As you may know, the first emission of CIUCIU.BOND is now live on GLBSE https://glbse.com/asset/view/CIUCIU.BONDCIUCIU.BOND pays 1.1% of face value every Friday. Percentage will remain at 1.1%/week until the bond is bought back by the bond-issuer. Bonds will be issued at .1 BTC, and each share will pay .0011 BTC weekly. There is no limit on how many bonds may be issued, nor when they may be issued. Bonds can be issued and sold without warning by the bond-issuer at any price. Bonds cannot be sold back to the bond-holder except in case of a buyback. CIUCIU.BND does not have a set date of maturity. The buyback price is set at 0.1011 BTC per share. The bond-issuer is not permitted to change this contract at any time under any circumstance. Thank you. I won't be able to pay any dividends. All funds were tied up in GLBSE shares. I did not recieve the BTC I had in my account or any shareholders list.
At this moment, after the GIGAMINING episode which will be followed soon by many, I'm afraid I'm in default.
I'm sorry, but the OP didn't say anything about the bond being null if you suffer losses due to a 3rd party service. It says the bond is guaranteed and intended for people who do not want risk. Delays and disorder due to missing data are acceptable. Default due to losses on GLBSE, GIGAMINING or elsewhere are not. (I wasn't invested in this. I considered it, but didn't feel right about it in light of this comment.) |
|
|
|
I have made a test payment of 1 satoshi per bond for bondholders appearing in Nefario's first list. The transaction is f925b5c30a5df8481ec2afa3159fca7e1f55263b92d1abe7dbdeaf31d65330c8. (Edit: You can read up on my process here.) Within ~1 day I will pay to these bondholders the coupons that have been accumulated from blocks 201935 to 209327, a total of 0.0164844138 BTC per bond. Afterward I will wait for further input from Nefario before proceeding. Bondholders who are not currently on the list shouldn't worry much. As far as I know the errors in this list are only of omission, so it should be easy to pay the coupons for these blocks to additional holders as they become known to me. If Nefario fails to provide a complete list, I will consider including credible claims even without official confirmation. There were a total of 16,000 issued bonds of which 434 were held by me (this was a result of working around GLBSE's UI limitations). Rather than paying the coupons for these bonds to myself (which would be silly), I am updating the records to acknowledge 15566 outstanding bonds. As always I take my reputation very seriously and I would like to clarify how some issues that were raised with other assets relate to me: 1. My obligations are not conditioned on any losses I may suffer or have suffered as a result of the GLBSE shutdown or anything else. The bond is about risk allocation wrt the future of mining, not financing; my mining operation is still running, even without it I have enough assets to back the bond, and even without those I'd work to pay off my debt. If some bondholders cannot be identified I will still pay someone (typically some charitable organization), I will not keep any funds myself as they are not mine to keep. 2. I see no reason and am not intending at this point to lawyer up in relation to PureMining. The scale of PureMining was deliberately small enough to make it legally uninteresting, and I can pay up just fine according to the described plan without any intervention. |
|
|
|
The only question remaining is how much of the new ASIC devices will a BFLS.RIG share get you.
Once the details of the ASIC unit orders are publicly available, available shares will double and be put up for sale. At that point, it will require 6058 x 2 = 12116 shares to convert your BFLS.RIG shares into the physical hardware (Mini-Rig or SC).
Right, so one can argue that a better BFLS.RIG->ASIC conversion rate should be used. I don't know how cleanly Inaba's roles as BFLS issuer and BFL COO are separated, but it would make sense if the rate is determined by the ratio of devices he gets from upgrading the totality of BFLS-backing hardware to the number of outstanding BFLS.RIG shares after the merger. |
|
|
|
I am going to be converting BFLS shares into BFLS.RIG at 1:1, so everyone will in one payout bucket.
A single payout bucket is welcome but I have a concern about the proposed 1:1 conversion: as commented on earlier in this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg1255003#msg1255003), a 1:1 conversion does not appear to represent fair value for BFLS shareholders. Unlike 'regular' mining bonds such as Gigamining, BFLS and BFLS.RIG represent a share of hardware, not hashrate, so: BFLS (1 Single/200 shares): $600/200 = $3 per BFLS share BFLS.RIG (1 MiniRig/6058 shares): $15295/6058) = $2.52 per BFLS.RIG share This indicates that a BFLS share is worth more ($3/$2.52, or 1.19x) than a BFLS.RIG share. Put another way, 5098 BFLS shares ($15295) are worth the same as 6058 BFLS.RIG shares ($15295) which is the value of 1 MiniRig. So to fairly convert the hardware value of BFLS into BFLS.RIG, 1 BFLS share should be converted to 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares. A 1:1 conversion would mean that BFLS shareholders take a 19% loss. If my analysis is flawed, I'd like to know where it fails. The mistake here is assuming that a mini-rig is worth $15295. At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295. At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much. Before there are ASIC upgrades, the 1:1 hashrate conversion makes sure that holders receive the same payments before and after the merger (as output is proportional to hashrate). While the upgrade plan does not take this into account, the fact is that buyers of BFLS.RIG had to wait more before getting payments; this should be compensated by an increase in the credited value. The most natural objective measure by which to compare the two is the hashrate. The only question remaining is how much of the new ASIC devices will a BFLS.RIG share get you. |
|
|
|
Nefario acknowledged that some omissions are due to problems unrelated to any of those mentioned, and says he will send a more complete list at an unspecified time. my next question would be what value of the share will you honor as being the buy out price and would you consider letting us stay with your bond and revive like monthly payments?
I will continue paying coupons of 1MH/s per bond for a while. When the ELE (extrapolated lifetime earnings with current difficulty) was about 1 BTC the bond traded around 0.4 BTC (40% of the ELE), so when I eventually do a buyback (likely after ASICs have stabilized) I think a fair price will be 50% of the ELE at that time (this is subject to change). I intend to relaunch this bond as a colored coin, and the pricing will be such that people could use their earnings from the buyback to reinvest in an even greater amount of the new issue. What can you tell us about the colored coins? Are they what OT should be? (distributed trade-able shares?) The short answer is yes; the longer answer is https://bitcoil.co.il/BitcoinX.pdf (work in progress). killerstorm is leading the development effort of implementing the concept. |
|
|
|
The Tel Aviv Block [halving] Party 2012 has been scheduled for November 28, 19:00, in Resh Lakish, Nahalat Binyamin 49, Tel Aviv. See http://www.meetup.com/bitcoin-il/events/92646192/. Be there or be a block. Time and place are subject to change, please check back for updates. |
|
|
|
Nefario acknowledged that some omissions are due to problems unrelated to any of those mentioned, and says he will send a more complete list at an unspecified time. my next question would be what value of the share will you honor as being the buy out price and would you consider letting us stay with your bond and revive like monthly payments?
I will continue paying coupons of 1MH/s per bond for a while. When the ELE (extrapolated lifetime earnings with current difficulty) was about 1 BTC the bond traded around 0.4 BTC (40% of the ELE), so when I eventually do a buyback (likely after ASICs have stabilized) I think a fair price will be 50% of the ELE at that time (this is subject to change). I intend to relaunch this bond as a colored coin, and the pricing will be such that people could use their earnings from the buyback to reinvest in an even greater amount of the new issue. |
|
|
|
|
(Unfavorable comments regarding Alberto which were here earlier were removed at his request. I'll wait some more before bringing up the heat.)
|
|
|
|
There were procedures in place to wrap this up before the end of 2012?
That's what Alberto said, yes. But since Alberto is at best extremely unreliable I'm also looking at it from other angles. Don't get any hopes up. Any updates now that GLBSE is finally sending out asset lists?
It's far from over, the lists Nefario is sending are pretty bad. |
|
|
|
You know, perhaps I overlooked your idea too soon, if there were some way to make bitcoin and all the alt-coins automatically update and write in "landmark" blocks where everything that the chain has followed up to that mark is considered permanent no matter what alt-chain is introduced. It would need to be automatic though because the checkpoints would need to be frequent, maybe every 10-12 blocks. Maybe less for some coins.
I apologize for not considering your idea more deeply the first time around...
Having frequent, automated, temporal checkpoints leads to exactly the same chaos and vulnerabilities that made the blockchain needed in the first place. Bitcoin has infrequent, hardcoded checkpoints - this works. Checkpoints based on PoS (as in my proof of stake system) might work. I haven't read up the probabilistic PoS discussion yet, but that could work too. |
|
|
|
Nefario said this in his blog: These lists are not 100% complete, users who have not claimed their GLBSE account, and users who have not returned the double payment of bitcoin have not been included.
So it could be that some of the omissions are for people who have received a double payment and did not return it. I wonder if people who have not received a double payment (meaning, haven't received any payment at all) have also been omitted. |
|
|
|
Not according to the wiki: The wiki is simply wrong about this (I'll try to edit it sometime). No amount of confirmations is enough to prevent double-spending by someone with more than 50% of the hashrate. 6 confirmations is a completely arbitrary number considered secure enough against an attacker with "typical" hashrate (say, 10%). |
|
|
|
|
I paid a visit to WIS today to meet the group of 8 people involved in Citi-funded research (which includes Adi, Dorit, my M.Sc advisor, and some other people I've known from my time there, which AFAIK was before this project started). Adi explained that this funding was given for doing banking-related research, and that each member of the group dedicates a small portion of his time to such research. He wished to emphasize again that other than this broad directive, the researchers are free to choose their agenda, and that no input was received from the Citi Foundation regarding the choice of topic, let alone the conclusions of the research.
Through most of the meeting I answered general questions about Bitcoin; we also spent some time brainstorming ideas for improving the paper. I will soon put up for discussion here some of the issues that were raised.
|
|
|
|
I am happy to announce I have received a list of bondholders from Nefario. However, the problems are not over yet. This list is very incomplete - only 6943 claimed bonds out of 15566 (16000 if you count those held by myself). Also, while it is overall consistent with the direct claims I received, there are some surprising omissions. I will list here the Bitcoin addresses I received and the corresponding number of bonds (I'm not hashing or anything since this will be public knowledge anyway once I start sending payments); please verify that the address you submitted to GLBSE appears here. If it does not appear, or if there is a major discrepancy in the number of bonds, please let me know (email is still glbse at menirosenfeld dot com, PM can work too) and verify that your GLBSE claim has been accepted. 1MrSjifA8DEaN7Uhb4sBk3F8Kys8HeENmW 1723
15NVXrMhqrkyssA6MowDLahjhhhELjGBoX 926
1Aaza38CfWEo1fJMmVU5xjqbgpQBbw5n2U 560
1GzhK1qx4vTkLhCBwUqaMhvjvDnryjWDEi 512
1BMjJkPZu1dS4ePpomL418UyL92ovhR2z8 350
1HXxASKNBBt5s1dtEmBk85aFQB2iyn8Wik 240
1Bt5qiQyVivwfGEMdGRjnsvu1xBZUGfHgg 229
1F7bofbRqPDVU29Yo89sRtn215H1cyR3Sg 210
1JJPByDjFKNV6Wz7RSCvqSFmnRjcT6ZeiW 201
14vx31xnEx7bTixLPNC2PEAh6bpJms72yv 170
1Ni9fi2P9TiCEdQWc9pkhepPnXYZNRZEXP 154
17RbEbXTtijSdVssMSJeHiLKe2KxE4LYQ3 113
1VzWC6kVDje3tD81CbMtmtLwYzm9BiedD 102
1GSyaokLr4h5k3YECiHXQm6CyN9EMqBdbG 100
1CWmZPpGVnnjhxN7qvpDqXNZpBEA2hH4D3 81
1MR3e419f3B4AVR7zHQVh83Gwyj5okkocr 81
1DRd1waDtV9BJZzQdaMuUZ5jN2Ba56Ehg1 75
1GtDesYuZ674iKzygzrvq4xQ3w3NSSyTUT 74
1FVwrwLeRgZx1XKJTisyT6EQsvUHDoyHt6 70
18kSLPHCzavfWYPzzqVyDA1Fdca238MnYV 70
12NcPjtX6wjYLfmsTYvuTdXYwZ91tE1GFw 53
17JRP2GPXCxCRLSYAKxDPbED5LhQdjn33Y 50
15Ld5XoModQeRRSS6HAPDvydhbJJPDHMVr 50
1CK97PGvm46N51f6XUPxEa1SQLi8AyfCSq 50
15Fd4zjH3MNrQWPrEAkLeb5rQcz1LBfFY6 49
176GqXdxhb9UeJLSKNSrCPB4B9vHnV45QB 48
16Ec1kPD5xk716daQ4ZvJd9XyjdPsdwJJw 42
1KmAm1QMxcZsKALpcJ3FABTdq2NTwwfggb 35
19KDwaNX9xk6aHaBzt2DjZRk6wLj4vAtfF 35
17Gt94xaBPy6KrNWnDRsbmtzdnBVnbtBzz 30
1NXgMFazsNcCmnNK7aYZz38NEqj3SQ9JWk 30
1GbVRYeWrFT9raMhuUw9LuzaTZeKDBC2tD 30
1GaoANJv9tcC7SEMfwfeWnLyK8LtrYAxrb 29
1Q8P38y9Fd4Xs5vkFm4yrbUf4K2yiS4kHc 28
1Prbdh3PFoK4hJS5rdx2S5SA4wQswgvJEb 27
1Hcu6MHKrkkexrfJNDGHRbKpJ9kofVUM1U 26
1BmDkwMccKjFzomVJpkF3ciepdq1kgQjmR 24
1NWBTs8LK7kJUDKe31uncF7nWpaUH14AMg 22
12EaoJCa5Hsuzn7aLjhSAGARvkDcM33cya 22
13J1VbRNG1DXpM8r3m4jnXKJPmq7sFAU1P 20
16Q5cD4yK7HP375rbbXJ9ZtKLKw953TgKw 19
1Df8GTfWasZHJ4svNXR9sGrmXzTRt1Z5BT 15
1EBTCaYFiuN2tf8ryutTRUiUxLM9QS9BML 15
1HTraGKt9Fr3sJ2CEPj4SEyJf64GDEwhmh 11
18vx8giNtScNekKQCyyAvsiSqQYWnjrmsw 10
13ozuJQLrXN21gYZizd3AvPKpuF134382M 9
17ACageWG2KkaUs63rjbxEzfn1DUM82FJr 9
1NG3sHCvpavdGaBsJa2SyaSFHweHZvJGuV 8
1FcJJz4RLaAPtVtotMaPCATkAk1yyKe9XP 8
1EZBPJnbPF15UKoeL9erYiLVeDxBpbMHx5 7
1HUVTLS8V9zaUjXxE2HkaGq4pmszq3HG1 6
1Nth5awpbHmrM8wpQB7eot1VWp7hWjWBsh 6
1AD5PuNxinH2DvPLNSnzLjqcRox42MKydp 6
19vEHZLujAq93v4tzEqVMvbWfhawB8xYh2 6
15qxDJADUcEvKh7D1yuMsr8mvdtExD3naL 5
1AMcBUgEmrGZLemkwc8Tqc6Yvtb7Y86df4 5
138KzLqjWce8d91BLrZKup5pJQ1CdeNkMB 5
19ntWSdcFqBRfxdgXm95Q3G9Mviu3Yvwjn 4
1BUV8TDudsWc1eqNj2HfwU2YpVsoiGKWYn 3
1D1F87t3hb1ueXWf94yy9GUBnFDBVmLu5F 3
126v8kmPVsmAiQxH7YX73feDPWzzVFz8hc 3
1LhRFJsJwM12uQdf7s3TpqXbPoiNWScv5 3
14dWm7sFcC1wSQxk91KJC4kT5VCMEwRdaY 2
181EeG91962JSRU4A1j9LfWLfxxP3sQQ1y 2
13u2RX6Kmm9eiicQmHieeRX6fBjuEubZP7 2
1MgsToxUz7nwKRoLTjiRgfhJQ8xKe92fRY 2
12uUi36ujYRV4s2G3XiSqvUnY77zfhTZrT 2
1HAbHyYCUGhLJP1MX8Fg7hjRy4zuHN48HP 2
1AmqG9JATMyeYK89nnaeB5Lmw3DbjqkdSB 2
1HvfCagw7Rdy6PaeAnoQDwETvrLWF1yyfD 2
1F3JmKp4b1GLuVeoVpoQwvQvDpkJLSZSgY 2
1AEJ5pgRtgxY8e4Qc8UaG7FGUGb6qKFE4F 2
1GfvjCo5zQe7HpnrBFL7tNyvXBRqJm6i8Q 1
12Kx6fhd8vi4K4vKyXbDRp82NGNaz5gJ5V 1
1BJdU4UKNE2bkNTcDMkn7TfNU6DsDc27jQ 1
14iqhdEsvB4HvBthAkZfRpmm92oTBj5rdh 1
14nC5vvoMNeqU5wWn9nkgLzfguQ4srqbfT 1
1FtqnHeF2rqyp6xxnnFrncQAMEwq1SBPBx 1
1NUQXCU4DD9c5VuhY9Mj8BVdn7EWdFLEuN 1
19Bk6FbEXiSCSiTZLxF6mnBr6apfh79DHH 1
1JPgBnLMtz8Vbi7hcfjXkRR4f42kYbUmcd 1
17vPWN6GUoBeBkKVvdDVpLWyn3RohRinLe 1
17b1cP1VB7ue6AZwbM87fSm7pt4YfQKZ6 1
1Epg5PTC5sF5EWVNDUhWuA17RfZ4EzASKA 1
1BZJg9tNbppAzqCN1qPQroMtRdHVkdQR5U 1
1591TioQC4j8iUnkEmxMHbhbaH9vZ5xnBo 1
1382pvZAaB8ysPryqGG2UnpncVYcSD3sv8 1
17B4F27GD5612KSVnmwfcXzkoDXZC3XJ8p 1
|
|
|
|
Rumor has it that Nefario has started sending out asset holder data.
I haven't received anything yet but I contacted Nefario and hope to receive the list of PureMining bondholders soon.
I'm also making some progress towards a technical means to disperse payments once I have that list.
By the way, even with the official list I suspect there will be unclaimed bonds, and we haven't picked the charities yet. (I think we can add Bitcoin100 to the list.)
Unless you're wanting to shut down, we have your technical means: https://btct.co/  Thanks, but my days of issuing assets on centralized Bitcoin-based exchanges are over. The payment will be with a static list until I can migrate to colored coins (or possibly Open Transactions). |
|
|
|
What was the overall interest of the presentation?
The particular talk which prompted this presentation will be next week. Is there any chance of making presentation about BTC in Top 10 technical school in IL? thx
Things like this are on the list but there are higher-priority items currently. |
|
|
|
|
Rumor has it that Nefario has started sending out asset holder data.
I haven't received anything yet but I contacted Nefario and hope to receive the list of PureMining bondholders soon.
I'm also making some progress towards a technical means to disperse payments once I have that list.
By the way, even with the official list I suspect there will be unclaimed bonds, and we haven't picked the charities yet. (I think we can add Bitcoin100 to the list.)
|
|
|
|
|
I added some notes to the slides.
|
|
|
|
from google search: theymos:
That was a few days ago. 1AYtn... received 400,000 BTC and then sent 150,000 BTC to 1LYJH... (possibly the same person). 1LYJH proceeds to break the coin into many smaller pieces over a long period of time. My guess is that 1LYJH is breaking the coin intentionally for some reason (maybe anonymity).
There might also be another person (1NMDH) between 1LYJH and the chain of coin-breaking transactions.
Interesting series of transactions.
One of the 400,000 BTC transactions was only 259 bytes in size, and only one transaction/block, since the 400,000 BTC was already in one coin. psy Or maybe just an early adopter... This is the originating address http://blockchain.info/address/1AYtnRppWM7tWQaVLpm7TvcHKrjKxgCRvX400K BTC that were consolidated there on January 27, 2011, coming from various sources. And seeing as a lot of those coins that were sent there are the 50 BTC block reward coins, it's some miner. A very rich miner I would say lol For reference, these threads are: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4102.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91086.0 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
