In case you don't hear from support, I ran into the exact same problem. This is not documented at all but you have to specify the currency of your offer in upper case (example: USD, not usd). If you specify in lower case you'll get that useless error message "Invalid offer: not enough balance", because you don't have any usd balance only USD balance. Same for BTC. 

I only discovered this fact through trial and error.

It is pretty apparent that the lending/borrowing engine has significant issues with matching orders in a timely matter. It is likely designed using a background process on the server that waits for a fixed period of time (minutes) before checking if there are matches rather than checking for matches each time an order is added.

However, even then the match can fail. There are a number of possible reasons (all bugs) that would cause this behavior. For example perhaps the match fails due to slight order amount mismatches (Example: 2.50 != 2.501 ) even though amounts exactly match on the display because the amounts are rounded to 2 decimal places.

Also they should do away with maximum/minimum lending times in general as this just adds another confusing and unnecessary dimension. There should be two markets ... one for the instantaneous variable rate loans ( < 2 day) and a second market for fixed length/rate term loans (15 days, 30 days etc..). Putting them all together just makes it unnecessarily complicated.

And how many major credit card brands are there?

Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, Discover

I rest my case.

DGh5BQZ3Pi5J6kCKw5ma91jxoUeMkuZCJU

such party!

DGh5BQZ3Pi5J6kCKw5ma91jxoUeMkuZCJU

Holla!

You're not thinking this through clearly. The simple answer is supply and demand. In a situation where the supply of crypto-currencies is growing rapidly and in fact INFINITE and the market demand is very much FINITE the picture is clear: The value of any particular crypto-currency in this process of unlimited creation will tend towards ZERO.

For a crypto-currency to resist this highly probable outcome and maintain a non-zero value it needs to offer something unique of value to the market that others do not. For Bitcoin the value proposition is obvious: "First Mover, Network Effect, Largest Market Cap, Widest adoption".  For Litecoin the value proposition is still there, though less clear "History/Longevity, Faster Confirmations, Harder to dominate through ASICs".

For third place and beyond the value proposition gets even murkier.

Peercoin: Proof of stake means moar secure!
Namecoin: For storing uncensored name/value pairs
Primecoin: Useful for finding prime numbers
Quark: Lots of nested Hashes means moar secure!
DogeCoin: It's funny (until people get bored with cute dog jokes)
etc...

With hundreds and then thousands of these coming online over the next year, how much demand or even attention will people give to these? Answer: Not enough to make their values > Zero. Unless your favorite crypto is in the top 10, or more like top 3, I wouldn't expect much from its price other than short bursts caused by occasional pump and dump attempts.

Uhh... where did you see that message? The main site is still open for business as far as I can tell.

https://www.joinsnapcard.com/

What if he's dead and gone? That's one theory at least.

Indeed. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They either

1. Keep prices artificially low despite liquidity conditions (low) and run out.
2. Allow prices to float upwards as high as necessary to stay in stock (but get laughed at when their coins are suddenly $10k).

Personally I think 2 would be a better choice. 1 is terrible for the customer because if you don't know what the price is going to be how can you make sure you have enough in your bank account to cover the ACH withdrawal?

Have you considered the possibility of the exact opposite outcome?

In a hyperinflationary scenario only 5 percent can get out of government fiat before it's value is completely destroyed. The remaining 95 percent have to get burnt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/porsche-911s-at-39-off-spurs-argentina-crackdown-on-peso.html

The same scenario could play out in every country, not just Argentina. Sure, you might "profit" in government fiat in the short term, but in the long term the outcome is not as clear.

I'll take my chances with Bitcoin, Gold and Silver, thank you.

You mean like Ripple.   

Christmas comes early?   

Development of new technologies is not the same as economic growth and it is not at all proven that one requires the other. Consequently you should avoid equating the two.

Since your understanding of steady state economics (organizing an economy to be stable or mildly fluctuating in size) seems to be lacking perhaps you should do some more research starting here before you write the idea off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economics
http://steadystate.org/

Some basic principles for achieving a steady state economy are:

(1) Maintain the health of ecosystems and the life-support services they provide.
(2) Extract renewable resources like fish and timber at a rate no faster than they can be regenerated.
(3) Consume non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and minerals at a rate no faster than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewable substitutes.
(4) Deposit wastes in the environment at a rate no faster than they can be safely assimilated

Perpetual economic growth in an environment with limited/scarce resources stands at odds to these principles.

And since the anecdotal evidence is that most miners are buying their mining rigs on credit, they will have to either repay or default on their credit cards. Unless all miners decide to just default on their credit repayment, that means they will be forced to sell BTC at less than the cost they paid to mine them, driving the cost DOWN.

I want to personally thank miners for doing this and providing cheap BTC for those of us who are simply buying!  

From an investment perspective, I would definitely be interested in any altchain that implemented Zerocoin, but only if it were to address the flaws previously mentioned.

While it's nice that AnonCoin will be testing out the existing/experimental version of the Zerocoin library and it does appear that you've attracted some speculator attention (tripled in the past week or so), this is likely because these speculators are either clueless about the production-readiness of Zerocoin or perhaps they do realize it and just want to make a quick buck while leaving someone else to hold the bag (pump and dump).

The points I brought up are for potential bag-holders who are actually performing due diligence on their investments. The other "suckers" won't read this thread anyway.

Too bad for them.   

Are you integrating the Zerocoin v1 library as is or do you have plans to deal with the two major flaws in Zerocoin first, before releasing it for use against the "production" AnonCoin blockchain?

Flaw #1: Zerocoin v1 is highly inefficient (not production ready).

https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/wiki/Frequently-asked-questions

Flaw #2: Zerocoin as currently implemented requires configuration with a trusted non-secret integer of 1,026 bits in length generated by multiplying together two factors p and q. That means you need a "trusted party" to configure Zerocoin; more importantly, if this trusted party decides to hold on to the p and q factors they used (rather than destroying them) or shares them with anybody, then they will be able to double spend any zerocoins. This is a fatal flaw if we wish Zerocoin to operate in a zero-trust manner.

https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/wiki/Generating-Zerocoin-parameters


If you plan on integrating Zerocoin as is, that's fine. I just hope you realize that by doing so you'll be turning the AnonCoin blockchain into more of a test/research blockchain that may not scale well (due to Flaw 1) and can't be fully trusted (due to Flaw 2).

So today something a little odd happened. I tried to go to bitminter.com in my browser (firefox) as usual and it wouldn't load at all. No server timeout errors or anything; just nothing like the site vanished. So I did a little DNS investigation and:


Seems like it resolves to IPv6 addresses prioritized before IPv4 addresses but I know my router doesn't handle IPv6. So I thought this might be why I can't get to the site. The next thing I tried was to add the following entry to my hosts file ( C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts ) to force it back to using the IPv4 address (since hosts file takes priority over DNS):

108.162.201.123  bitminter.com

... and after that the site worked fine again! Strange though.

Yes. The choices are:

• You buy mining equipment and nobody else buys mining equipment (difficulty stops increasing, you win)
• You buy mining equipment and many others also buy mining equipment (difficulty goes up, you lose -ROI)
• You don't buy mining equipment and nobody else buys mining equipment (no income from mining, you lose 0 ROI)
• You don't buy mining equipment and many others buy mining equipment (no income from mining, you lose 0 ROI)

Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

While it's theoretically possible to win (option 1), if all players act in (what they think is) their own interest and buy mining equipment, the more likely outcome and what we are seeing now is everyone loses (option 2). Thus, the best option is not to play = 0 ROI.

Yes, highly improbable. Seems like a legitimate problem with the pool software of some kind.

For example, what if the software responsible for broadcasting each NMC block is down, delayed, out of memory, timing out... basically preventing NMC blocks from being sent to the network in a timely manner. That would cause a problem like this.

Looking under the Statistics -> Blocks (Income) -> NMC Only:

https://bitminter.com/blocks?commodity=NMC

It appears all Namecoin rewards for the past 12 hours are either marked as "Stale" or "Processing". Not sure what the deal is with that.