That's been my experience, yes.


Nowhere.  While I have done this kind of thing (not recently and not at this kind of price level), when I put in a bid that is over that of the best ask, I'm charged for the best ask for as many bitcoins as were available at that price.  My account balance doesn't change based upon how much I bid, but how much that actual sale was for, plus fee.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Rudd-O, I often cring when you jump into a conversation, because I both tend to find your participation to be both provocative & content-lite, as well as often arguing on my own side.  As a moderator, I find this to be an aggravation.  For while I often find your comments funny, they usually lack any particular merit.  This very comment is more civil than your norm, but otherwise typical.

No one, but it's fun to watch you guys flop around.

MtGox openly takes a small percentage of the transfer as a fee.  It's been a while since I messed with MtGox at all, but last I checked, they state that orders should execute at the actual price plus fee even if the bid amount is higher than the ask.

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this.  I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.

Bitinstant.com or Coinbase.com are two good ones.

Are you making an accusation?  Or just speculating?

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

Well, I guess I was the one confused.

One of us is confused.  The public and private keypairs are just really big numbers, and are not compressible.  The leading 5 on a bitcoin address denotes a private key expressed in bitcoin's own format, with a built in checksum.  I know not what the others represent, but could represent keys expressed raw, or keys expressed in the format for the testnet.

Looks like it was included in a block.

There is currently a hard data size limit for a block at one MB, and a soft data size limit for all transactions that do not pay the minimum fee of roughly 10% of that, or about 100KB.  Since the average transaction is about 1.5 KB, it'd only take about 70 free and low fee transactions to hit that soft limit.  Eventually, though, such transactions do make it in.


Blockchain.info can't really know if your transaction is part of a double spend attempt or not, because such conflicts are sovled by a race of sorts.  When a transaction is broadcast to the network, it is received, checked for validity, and forwarded to all that node's peers.  If any node has already seen a transaction that spends particular inputs, any other transaction that it sees afterwards that attempt to spend those same inputs will be invalid, and will not be forwarded.  So what happens is the two competing transactions will move across the p2p network trying to capture as much of the network as possible before they meet at a front.  Once a block is solved, whichever of the two transactions that particular node saw first will be included, and the other becomes forever invalid.  Once that block is accepted by the part of the network that saw the losing transaction first, the losing transaction is droped from their transaction queues altogether.  So under such conditions, the transaction that hits the p2p network first has the advantage.  Right now, the edge to edge propogatin time for the entire network is only about 10 seconds, so it's a very small window of opprotunity.

Sorry about that.
I'd love to be proven wrong.
I believe that you have done your homework, and I believe that it's perfectly legal.  However, I also am aware that there are vested interests for which any advancement for Bitcoin is a threat.  I am also aware that some of these vested interests really don't care whether or not Bitcoin is or should be legal.  Pressure will be imposed upon your trading partners to abandon you, for whatever excuse that they can conjure up.  Ultimately they will all conclude that the business that they stand to gain from working with you is far outweighed by the business that they stand to lose from other sectors.  Paypal is much larger than the whole Bitcoin economy, but they were strong armed to not permit users from places in the world for which the US federal government lacks influence.  There is no gain for Paypal to exclude potential markets, either; but that is what has happened.  You have just become a single point of failure for the Bitcoin economy in Europe, and aspects of your life are about to turn crazy and beyond your own control.  I will add you and your family to our prayer list, because that is the extent for which I can do anything.  I would caution you to retain a good lawyer, if you have not already, and set up a bitcoin address for legal donations, should things really start to spiral.

I give it two months before there are real problems between Paysius and their fiat banking partners.  It won't be their fault, of course, but this will not last.

Time will not tell.  That is the very point.  We can't have two versions of society running side by side, with a government control and an anarchist experiment.  Well, we can sort of.  That was the original idea behind the seperate soverignty of the individual states of the US, but we don't really have that experiment anymore.  Some people simply aren't willing to let the experiment be long enough to have a conclusive outcome.  It's simply against their nature.

This is one of those analogies where one aspect is deliberately vague, so that different people can see differnet answeres and not be wrong.  I look at the 'fluorine' as representing something about governments that most people can't imagine can arise without government.  That could be "order" or "charity", or it could represent the regulatory nature of governments, and thus fluorine represents such dictates.  Or it could simply be the monopoly on force that is government itself.  I'm inclined to assume that it's likely the latter, because I also believe that the character Grover is a not very veiled reference to Grover Norquist, who has spent a career fighting the size of government in the pursuit of greater liberty (as he see's it, mind you), without really questioning the role of government in society, or it's importance to the end result.

Oh, I don't doubt that we will see them in time, because they certainly do serve a role.  I think that we will see light clients like this that are tied to a trusted full client, whose job it is to load spendable transactions upon the light hardware client that are deliberately spendable in ways that do not require (or often do not require) a change output.  Thus allowing the light device to forget about the spent transactions, because it no longer has a vested interest in them at all.

Also the identity of Grover.

It hasn't been shown to me.  And it hasn't been shown to you, either.  You just take it on faith, really.  In our modern world, it's literally impossible for us to actually understand all of the science, so we have to take some things on faith.  That was exactly the point of the story.

And who said anything about corporations?  There are other ways to fund research than taxes or potential profits.

That's an interesting map, but it suggests to me that the  size of the geographic area that a particular border incloses might have more to do with the diversity of the cross-border Internet connections than government interference.  If one were to do the same thing examining individual US states, would the diversity be as high?  Also, this map almost cannot include all the pathways, since many of the smaller ones are privately owned by corporations.  This is pretty much how tor can puncture the great Internet wall of china, and exactly how we can reasonablely expect that bitcoin might be unstoppable.  It's not that those slower connections have to be discovered, it's that someone still knows about them, and deliberately moves to take advantage of them when necessary.

EDIT: It's probably got more to do with population than even geographic size.  Otherwise Iceland would be much better.