Do I have to request to be whitelisted here? Or does it happen automatically after five posts?
It happens automatically, but you need 1 hour and 50 minutes more logged in time. That being said, you qualify for preemptive whitelisting, so that won't matter for you anymore. |
|
|
|
|
This was likely a payout from Eligius because you were inactive for more than a week.
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that dark pool trades are still available via the API? I could imagine a bot executing these trades and not knowing any better.
|
|
|
|
|
They keep track of it, but you can withdraw it at any time.
|
|
|
|
|
This is MtGox fulfilling withdrawals.
|
|
|
|
We absolutely cannot allow people to cancel unconfirmed transactions.
If a transaction hasn't been added into the chain, then there isn't any reason why it is more important than any other colliding transaction. Oh, I know. A Finney Attack would still allow double-spending, but the idea is to not make double-spending as simple as clicking "cancel". |
|
|
|
The only pool I've used that pays out the full amount of BTC is Swepool. Other pools like Deepbit will only pay out a portion.
For example, if you had 1.79658246 in your Slush balance, you would only receive 1.79 BTC. Only Swepool pays out the full amount so that your remaining balance is 0 BTC.
Because anyone using the default wallet will lose out on the change, as it doesn't take sub-cents. This. Not everyone has upgraded, and it would suck to lose up to 20 cents for no good reason. Could be wrong, but I don't think you actually lose the money. The client just can't "see" it. So if you upgraded to the latest you'd be able to see your full balance. No, you lose it. The next spend you make would use it as a transaction fee. |
|
|
|
* Drop the old transaction, use the new incoming transaction as "valid". This probably allows me to increase fees, decrease fees, and even to "cancel" the transaction (by replacing the output of the transaction to go to my own wallet). Of course, if a miner refuses to drop the old transaction, it might still be included in a block and become valid, even though the user canceled/changed his transaction.
* Drop the transaction with lower fees (or lower fee/kb). This allows to increase fees and might solve the "coins in limbo with 0 confirmations" problem.
The client needs some logic to actually allow changing a transaction by the user. An intentional conflict needs to be created that makes sure the old transaction is considered "invalid" by most miners. (Since we can't control what logic miners use to deem transactions invalid, this can never be 100%..)
We absolutely cannot allow people to cancel unconfirmed transactions. Thus, one additional check can be made that the outputs are going to the same addresses and are greater than or equal to the original amounts. To prevent compromising which txOut is the change, there can also be additional change addresses added. In fact, this creates a nice side effect: It would then be possible to attach new transactions to existing open transactions. Imagine if the Faucet could rebundle their mega-transaction every time someone requested coins! |
|
|
|
Well, whatever are the details of all this, none of the devs seems to care even to talk to me about this.
So i find this extremely suspicious.
I wonder if some (or all) of them didn't invest heavy money in mining. After all, who would want to intentionally decrease their profits ?
There's no conspiracy. The reality is, this issue isn't high priority for the next release and is extremely complicated. There are two main issues: 1) Someone needs to develop some heuristics to guess what fee is needed for a transaction to be confirmed in the timeframe the users requests. 2) We need a way to increase the fee of a transaction after it has been sent. Until one or both of those are done it is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to remove the fee requirements. I hope you're prepared to recover all the stuck coins your patch will create. |
|
|
|
I agree with you that it is a weakness of the system that there are no ways to distinguish whether a coin is loss or simply hoarded. From the economic view, it may raise concern of sudden discovery of the old wallet in the future. However, your solution is not good and it is too complex to be accepted into the current protocol. My proposal: Unmoved Bitcoin with age more than, say, 40 years are marked as lost and cannot be used for further transaction. Imposing a time limit has many advantage over the supposed infinite time model: 1. All cryptography keys in use today need to update periodically, for security reason. Leaving the same public key in block for a long time will simply increase the risk of being hacked. So moving the Bitcoin into a new wallet could secure their Bitcoin. 2. It allows the network drop old blocks. 3. This proposal can be implemented very easily with few lines. 4. The proposal implies that value of the lost Bitcoin will be automatically go to all others wallet. 5. It allows the differentiation between lost Bitcoin and hoarded Bitcoin to reduce uncertainty. 6. They should know that Bitcoin can be lost so that they wont put everything into Bitcoin. There is no such need to reclaim the lost Bitcoin or allow for new mining. Otherwise, if there is 100000 Bitcoin lost for 40 years, you just give the miner with the ability to manipulate the market which make no difference with someone who discovers it. Also, the time interval is should not be too short, say, 1 year. It will only create an instability for the Bitcoin economy. For example, you might want to destroy others wallet in order to maximize your own profit. Using the proposal, everyone else is actually gaining a very tiny value of their own Bitcoin and it is the most fair method to handle lost of Bitcoin. Remember that the creation of Bitcoin out of nothing is simply a way to make an initial distribution of Bitcoin, there is no need to mining in a sustainable system anymore in the future. I know someone do not like to see that the decimal in their account is smaller and smaller over year. But it is just a game of number, you should really divided by the maximum number of Bitcoin. If 99% of bitcoin is marked as lost, we can simply multiply 100 to the balance in the bitcoin client.  I agree that this whole issue is solved by simply marking coins as lost. I also agree that we will have to do this eventually. The great news is, unlike the proposal to reintroduce the coins, this is actually compatible with the current blockchain! For this to work, we don't need to have everyone upgrade, we just need over 50% of the miners to agree not to include any transaction using expired coins into a block and reject any block that does. We could literally implement this policy today. Because of that, I feel that there is no reason to worry about this until it becomes an issue. Whether that issue is advances in cryptanalysis or because more than 10% of the Bitcoin supply is in an unknown state, is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
its the 4 hours thats hard
You're supposed to use that time to read some threads and get familiar with the community. This has little to do with spammers, and more to do with people not caring about what they post because they knew it was easy to just get another account if they were banned. That, and the regulars were annoyed by always being asked the same questions. Anyway, please use the Newbie restrictions sticky for these discussions. Yes, we read it. |
|
|
|
Mine was only 9 chars, and wasn't on that list.  Is this only the unsalted pw's? This is including salted passwords. Also, it wasn't a full bruteforce: they looked for common patterns. |
|
|
|
You caught me on my gullible day. I just sent you one bitcoin. Would you care confirm receiving it?
Oh wow... That's, uh, nice! I see it on Bitcoin Charts, so it's legit! |
|
|
|
|
Your friend might have accidentally claimed the wrong account, and was successful. This should be rectified with MtGox immediately, as they may accidentally think your friend did this intentionally and press charges.
|
|
|
|
|
Moral of the story: length means nothing if your password is still easy to type
My password isn't on there, and it isn't long at all. But it's hard to type. That said, I expect it to be found in the next few days.
|
|
|
|
What harm could occur from using a bad block chain from a malicious source?
Because it isn't verified, a malicious user could literally give themselves a large balance that your client would then accept. They can also change other balances. Worst of all, they can permanently put you on their own fork of the blockchain. Basically, if you download this, you must implicitly trust the person as much as you'd trust the person who built the bitcoin client you are currently using. |
|
|
|
|
Be sure to quit out of your bitcoin client before making the copy on your end. Same thing on the receiving machine.
|
|
|
|
This is a public forum ran by people who choose to make the rules. You are coming on their turf, they will treat you, me, and everyone like 12 year old kids if necessary to keep the bullshit in line.
Browse around, 100 posts may not be the best answer, but right now you have to keep the Newbies out of regular discussions or hell would break loose.
I see the problem. But I don't see how this is the solution. There are people like Synaptic, replying to every post with obscenities. And people like me who read and don't say anything unless they think it will actually contribute to the discussion. Which behaviour you want to encourage? PLEASE PM one of the mods if you see the same user repeatedly doing something like this. We are massively understaffed and do what we can, but often things like this will slip through. Also, the current requirements are working out well. They won't be changed. |
|
|
|
Way to alienate your user base with a newbie forum until they hit 100 posts. I can understand maybe 20 post, or 25, but 100? come on guys.
Huh? The requirement is 4 hours and 5 posts. Even then, you can request to be preemptively whitelisted. Anyway, please keep discussion of the newbie restrictions to the Newbie restrictions sticky, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
