They should be able to any, one or multiple of those: bank wire, flattr, webmoney, dwolla, pecunix, paypal, weepay, etc...
For the same reason that no exchanges accept paypal, wepay, etc, you likely won't find any offer to send non-reversible bitcoins using funds received through these payment methods notorious for chargebacks. If it's for donations I don't think there's a problem. Of course there will need to be some assurance that the payments are indeed charitable. |
|
|
|
It should be more like 1 minute. I'm pretty sure most of the posts you write in less than 20 seconds are something like "+1" or "me too"- not really worth a new post. (tbh I also made some posts like that)
Posting in less than 20 seconds doesn't mean writing in less than 20 seconds. When making announcements you often write the posts in advance and then post a few in rapid succession. I have very often encountered this problem. |
|
|
|
|
You've described a way to sell digital content for Bitcoin. It has nothing to do with an exchange, which is about exchanging Bitcoin with liquid goods (usually, traditional currencies).
There are known ways to have some of the features of an exchange in a decentralized way, which are waiting to be implemented.
|
|
|
|
In case someone missed it, I posted a link to the old version in the previous post. (1) We shouldn't forget it's not really Adi Shamir's paper, but his grad student Dorit Ron's paper, who according to her linked-in page is working on a masters degree.
Link? According to http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~dron/ she's been writing papers for 28 years (and in case there is another Dorit Ron at WIS, the emails match). She would have done essentially all the work with Adi only supervising.
Even if that was true, "supervising" doesn't mean not having a clue what the research is about. Quite possibly prior to publishing the paper Adi didn't actually know much about Bitcoin.
I don't know if he knew much about Bitcoin, but he's interested in cryptocurrencies and has said "of course I've heard about Bitcoin" as early as a year ago. Why doesn't Dorit Ron pop in here and suck all knowledge from us and use our resources? Is there some formal reason like having to write the thesis on her own?
Probably due to low signal to noise ratio on this forum. I agree that they should have consulted with local and global Bitcoin experts at a much earlier point. (Speaking of which we're talking about me coming to visit for a meeting of faculty interested in Bitcoin and/or the paper). By the way Adi and probably also Dorit are reading these threads. |
|
|
|
A bit late to make fun of The Good Wife, but here goes.  |
|
|
|
PPS is pay per share.. so if the block isn't finished then there is nothing to share....
Every pool uses a specific reward method. PPS means miners get the same pay per share no matter what blocks the pool finds. If you need to wait for a block to be found to have something to share, it means you're not doing PPS (and doing PPS is much harder than you seem to think). And if not, you need to specify what it is that you are using. And honestly, operating a pool is hard work and trying to do it without thorough experience with Bitcoin, mining and pools is just asking for trouble. I think the past 2 months have taught us that what Bitcoin needs is not more entrepreneurs, it's more people who know what the F they are doing. |
|
|
|
The 78% figure was probably a result of a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works, the problem is how the mainstream media acts as an echo chamber, taking a number out of context and sensationalizing it. The more accurate figure is 60% - and so what? There's nothing wrong with saving for the long term - and it's no secret that currently the usability of bitcoins is limited, and that many people hold them as an investment. How about the dramatic part, where it says: and discovered that almost all
of them are closely related to a single large transaction that took place
in November 2010, even though the associated users apparently tried
to hide this fact with many strange looking long chains and fork-merge
structures in the transaction graph."  Someone had lots of bitcoins (Mtgox? An early adopter?) and either: 1. Tried to make himself more anonymous, or 2. Used them normally, creating a variety of patterns. |
|
|
|
|
Wap2 versions also appear very often.
|
|
|
|
|
For RAID 1 you certainly DO NOT want the drives to be from the same batch as they are more likely to all fail together.
But for RAID 0 I really don't think it matters. Having the same model will probably be better for performance but no need for the same batch.
|
|
|
|
I'd like to remind everyone that block withholding can be used for a profitable attack against non-PPS pools, called "Lie in wait". I estimate the max profit can be achieved from it to be multiplying the rewards by (1 + h/(4H)), where h is the attacker's hashrate and H is the network's total hashrate. And, if block withholding ever becomes a problem one solution is to modify the protocol to allow oblivious shares. This attack has the advantage of keeping the difficulty artificially low. It is economically advantageous to the attacker if they control > (share_difficulty / difficulty) of the network.
Almost. If the difficulty / share_difficulty is D, then by doing this they lose 1/D, and assuming everyone's hashrate stays the same, they difficulty drops by h/H meaning they get h/H, so this is indeed profitable if (h/H)>(1/D). But if the difficulty goes down, mining becomes more profitable and people will add more hashrate. So the difference between the old and new equilibrium will not be as large as h/H, maybe it will be h/(2H). With this assumption you'd need twice as much hashrate to make this profitable. |
|
|
|
I guess there still is no news from GLBSE for you either?
Naelr
Right. |
|
|
|
We've had a few talks (in Hebrew) in the last meetup, the videos are available here (3 parts). |
|
|
|
Do you really believe Alberto will resolve this voluntarily?
I don't know. But without giving him a chance to try, all other methods are moot. 2 months is a lot in Bitcoin time but not as much in real time. He's just delaying and hoping his case will be forgotten.
If that's all he's doing there's no rush. Whatever I can do now I can do in 2 months. (No lawyers needed for prosecution by italian authorities. Costs only postage.)
I highly doubt one could just contact them saying this man borrowed bitcoins and not paying them back, and they'll do something about that. How sure are you that they will? Anyway before seeing your message I've just chatted for an hour with Alberto. Nothing much came out of it but I'll update on any further progress. |
|
|
|
You mean mutli-sig?
Never heard of this? Where can I learn more? See http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions. The main two variants are to have the coins burned in case of disagreement.
Burned as in, the coins are not spendable ever? Seems like this would be lose/lose for everybody?? Either that or sent to a charity agreed upon in advance. Yes, it's lose/lose but the fact that each party can credibly threaten to execute it means neither will try to defraud the other, thus it will not be actually manifested. Sort of a small-scale MAD. |
|
|
|
This was discussed for example here. The main two variants are to have the coins burned in case of disagreement, or to have a 2-of-3 transaction with an arbiter that decides in this case. |
|
|
|
Indistinguishable under which lens? "Yeah, these all look the same to me" doesn't cut it. Can you prove information-theoretically that no information can be obtained?
Under what model? Under a model that allows you to sniff the keyboards of their creators you can distinguish them. If I hand you a transaction in isolation, however, you can not distinguish the cases as there is no information to distinguish the cases— a transaction U generated from inputs X and Y paying Z and Q is bitwise identical no matter if was authored by one party or two. I was talking about extracting information from the amounts involved. If you propose a model conditioned on other history about X and Y— if there is any, e.g. if users reused addresses— you might say that it's more or less likely to be one kind or another _but_ you could say that about X and Y no matter if U existed or not, the information did not come from U.
You use all your data. Using the history doesn't mean your conclusion will be the same whether U exists or not. Adi added this: I looked at the threads you initiated and saw a very lively discussion of the points I raised. However, some of the participants take the extreme position that if something can not be measured with complete accuracy, or if all the possible sources of error can not be characterized with their precise statistical distribution, then one should not even try to carry out a scientific research or to draw any conclusions from available data. With such an approach, one would never try to study any sufficiently complex issue. To demonstrate this point, consider the crucial problem of estimating how many poor people live in the US, which can have major consequences on the social policy and budgets of local and federal authorities. As a researcher, you will always have to make some arbitrary choices about where is the poverty line, about your sources of data (if you use tax returns, do you know how many people cheat in their declarations and which types of wealth are not properly measured by these returns? If you use a questionnaire, do you know exactly how truthful are the answers?), about the family unit analyzed (in case someone has no personal income but his close relatives living with him have high salaries), etc etc. If you specify your exact research methodology, explain the possible sources of error, and use best efforts to extract the best possible conclusions from all the available data, the research can be extremely valuable even when the conclusions do not perfectly match the ground truth.
|
|
|
|
I've talked with some lawyers; unsurprisingly, the bottom line is that going to court would be an expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and as such should be pursued only as a last resort. I will give Alberto another chance to resolve this amicably before going forward with this option. Alberto says that until more funds can be obtained, he will make payments from a mining operation of a friend of his (I'm still looking into the details of this). Funds will be forwarded to my address http://blockchain.info/address/17r6iGwC9iHBxJzw7nLQEgCcpw7xKWdkid; the amount collected will be tallied until it can be distributed among bondholders (the total received is of interest rather than final balance, as this is part of my normal wallet). The amounts so far are tiny. |
|
|
|
|
@molecular - I've now linked to dedicated threads for discussing the two problems, specific discussion of them should continue in those threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
