Bitcoin Forum
April 27, 2024, 03:21:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 »
1081  Economy / Goods / Re: Gold for 0.5BTC Casascius Coin on: September 14, 2013, 09:13:29 PM
Let's also not forget how johniewalker was running a scam with his "silver" ingots.

Link?
1082  Economy / Goods / Re: Gold for 0.5BTC Casascius Coin on: September 14, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
how much Oz of gold is this? and purity?

Google says these are 22k, .0482oz.

As of today, spot would be $64, so I'd consider a fair price to be between $75-80. At $1500/oz, say $85-90.

Also as of today, with BTC-USD being around $125, I'd consider a 0.5oz 2013 brass round to be fairly priced at 0.9-1.0 BTC, or $115-125.

I'd certainly trade a 0.5 BTC Casascius brass round for a Dos Pesos coin + some other silver/gold coin, but I think the current terms of trade are a bit too stacked out of my favour Smiley

That said, watching this thread!
1083  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Amagi Metals - Best Prices of Gold & Silver for Bitcoins on: September 13, 2013, 03:17:48 AM

Saw those on the mint website the other day, they look crazy!
1084  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [DISCUSSION] Why aren't we using SWEEP for all in-person transactions? on: September 10, 2013, 08:08:11 PM
I don't feel comfortable with the idea that a private key is known to more than one party. If I create a new address/private key and send some coins there just so someone else can sweep it, there is always the risk that I send some more coins to that address by accident. Reminds me of all the issues we have with change addresses.

If something like this gets implemented it needs to have a really, really foolproof UI.

Yeah, it'd be nice to get developers of the major bitcoin clients on board. Something as simple as a separate tab for "on the go" funds would be helpful. The client could delete these OTG keys as soon as they're swept, to discourage reuse.

Surely the issue with this is that you need to know what you want to buy

Arguably this is a good thing.
But surely this will limit the adoption. Joe public is going to want something that is more useful - not more of a hindrance. And said person may want to go shopping without having planned the entirety of there shopping trip first. Having some form of card with NFC that is linked to a 'spending' account would no doubt be a more widely accepted solution?

Edit: obviously it would have to e carefully implemented. And appropriate safeguards put in place

"More useful" is relative. Arguably, sweeping is more useful than any other current face-to-face method for exchanging BTC.

If you're not sure whether you'll spend 0.1 BTC or 30 BTC on a shopping trip, well, perhaps there's a better solution. Although the "Dave" scenario would still work just fine -- load every BTC that you own. Just don't lose your phone Wink
1085  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [DISCUSSION] Why aren't we using SWEEP for all in-person transactions? on: September 10, 2013, 07:43:50 PM
Surely the issue with this is that you need to know what you want to buy and have enough QR codes. That's nt a step forward or easier than a plastic card/cash. There must be a simpler way of doing it.

Well, you only need to know how much money you might want to spend on any given outing. Not sure if you'll buy a tv for 2 BTC or 5 BTC? Bring 5.

It's just as easy as cash. If I'm going to buy lunch and toothpaste, I'm bringing enough $5 bills to cover my purchases, not the entire balance of my bank account.
1086  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / [CROSS-POST] Why aren't we using SWEEP for all in-person transactions? on: September 10, 2013, 07:20:34 PM
In an attempt to keep all of the discussion in one place, this isn't an actual cross-post; it's a link to the original thread. I realized after posting that my chosen subforum might not have been the right one.

So, without further ado: why aren't we sweeping?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291904.0
1087  Bitcoin / Project Development / [DISCUSSION] Why aren't we using SWEEP for all in-person transactions? on: September 10, 2013, 07:14:26 PM
There's no doubt that Bitcoin is wonderfully convenient for online transactions; it's fast, easy, and convenient. However, physical transactions involving BTC have always been a bit messier: how do you physically send digital money to someone with whom you're interacting face-to-face?

There have been a few attempts to find solutions to this problem.

The most low-tech method has been the static QR code, on display near the point of sale: the purchaser simply scans the vendor's QR code, sends the funds, and the transaction is complete. Pretty straight-forward, but not without its problems: the vendor must manually check to ensure the funds have arrived; the funds from all transactions are being sent to the same address, which quickly becomes a disorganized mess for bookkeeping. Also, the purchaser must have a smartphone capable of sending BTC, which is not always the case (many people have issues with blockchain.info for iOS, for example).

Hardware wallets like the TREZOR offer security and convenience for the purchaser; private keys never leave the device, so unless you physically lose it, your funds are reasonably safe. However, they're inherently dangerous for the vendor, because they have to plug foreign USB devices into their POS all day. All it takes is one bogus device loaded with malware to permanently change a vendor's mind on accepting funds in this manner.

Paper wallets are another solution, but they're not convenient, nor are they particularly secure: the address QR and the private key QR are on the same piece of paper (or plastic, metal, etc), which means that your funds are at risk from the moment you reveal the private key to the moment you've either spent all the funds in the wallet, or someone else has spent them for you. The vendor doesn't particularly mind this method of payment, as he can immediately import and sweep the funds from the private key. However, unless the purchaser is spending the entire contents of the paper wallet, the issue turns into where the change should be sent -- you don't want it sent back to the address for which you've just revealed your private key.

So why don't we start doing things in a way that makes sense?

Why don't we make sweeping private keys the default way to conduct a face-to-face transaction?


Here's a few examples of how this would work:

Alice
Alice wants to go to a cafe for lunch. She knows that a coffee and a sandwich will cost 0.1 BTC. She creates a new wallet address, sends 0.1 BTC to it, and prints out the QR code for the private key. When she places her order, she hands the cashier her QR code. The cashier sweeps the funds from the key, and no change is necessary.

Bob
Bob wants to buy some new clothes at the mall. He is planning to visit several stores, and he doesn't know how much money he will spend at each store. He has a budget of 2 BTC for this shopping trip. Bob creates 10 new wallet addresses, sends 0.2 BTC to each, and prints a QR code for each private key. He then creates a "change" wallet address, and prints the QR for the public key only.

Bob visits his first store and purchases a pair of sunglasses for 0.15 BTC. He provides the cashier with a QR code for 0.2 BTC, which is swept; he then provides the QR code for his change address, to which the cashier sends his change, 0.05 BTC.

Bob then visits another shop, and selects a pair of pants that cost 0.45 BTC. He presents the cashier with three QR codes for 0.2 BTC each, and then presents the QR for his change address. The cashier sweeps 0.6 BTC from the three keys, and sends 0.15 BTC to the change address.

Cathy
Cathy also wants to go to the mall to buy a television, earrings, and some lunch. She isn't sure how much money the earrings and lunch will cost, and she doesn't want to send a large amount of her money to a change address back home. She creates one wallet address with 3 BTC that she will use to buy her television, and creates several extra wallet addresses for her smaller purchases: some loaded with 0.05 BTC and others loaded with 0.01 BTC. This way, she can let the cashier sweep the funds without having to send too much change back home.

Dave
Dave wants to purchase 3 BTC worth of gifts for his wife. He creates ten wallet addresses, and loads the first with 3 BTC. He then transfers the QR codes for both the public and private keys to a smartphone app that can display them at will. He makes his first purchase by presenting the QR code for the private key with 3 BTC; he presents the public key of his next address in order to receive his change. With each subsequent purchase, he presents the QR for the private key that currently holds the balance of the funds, the cashier sweeps the funds, and Dave receives his change to an address of his choosing. As long as he has created enough addresses to cover all of his purchases, he can continue doing this until all of his money is spent.

Such a smartphone app would be trivial to create; it needn't even be specific to Bitcoin. This is handy for iOS users, as Apple disallows Bitcoin wallet apps, but obviously cannot ban an app that only displays QR codes. Users could create QR codes using bitaddress.org or a tool of their choice; importing the codes to a phone is as easy as capturing each one with the phone's camera.

I'm sure there are many, many other usage scenarios beyond the four presented here; I'm also having a difficult time finding any drawbacks in this system. Discussion is welcome!
1088  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Amagi Metals - Best Prices of Gold & Silver for Bitcoins on: September 09, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
I love the idea of gram bars, but they're such a high premium over spot. Sad
1089  Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It on: September 09, 2013, 02:40:03 PM
I have the feeling that the clouds are fading away upon us, in the AM sky... Smiley



Yeah I got the same feeling on a monday like this one!

Lowest ask on Havelock is 2.47 right now. Bummer for the people who sold at 2 Wink
1090  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: September 09, 2013, 05:18:03 AM
bi weekly is every two weeks, semiweekly means twice a week.

Yes, but colloquially people have muddled up the meaning of biweekly so it can now mean either twice a week or every two weeks. Needs clarification.

For me, biweekly is twice per week and fortnightly is every two weeks. I've already PM'd TheSwede asking for clarification. If their plan is once every 2 weeks, I'd rather them switch to once per round.
biweekly is twice per week, bimonthly is twice per month, biyearly is twice per year

Biweekly means twice a week in England, where English comes from. "Bi" comes from the Latin "bis" meaning "twice", hence bi-weekly means twice-weekly.
my english education is based on 'English' English, so i concur with the above statement Cheesy

Well, I am English, and I say bi-weekly means twice per week. Wikipedia says biweekly means twice per week in the UK. The dictionaries give both meanings and if you Google bi-weekly, you'll see discussions about whether it means once every two weeks or twice per week.

Just because you say it's one of them, doesn't make it so. That's also true for me as well. We need to wait to get it clarified like I said, as it actually does mean both.

Biweekly is a shit word, for precisely these reasons.

FWIW, it means every two weeks (or does a bicentennial happen once every fifty years?) Wink
1091  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Amagi Metals - Best Prices of Gold & Silver for Bitcoins on: September 06, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
Received my tube of Silver Maple Leafs today. Beautiful coins, thanks so much Smiley
1092  Economy / Goods / Re: ASICMINER Friedcat Fan T-Shirt - Cat Rich or Fry Tryin' by request! on: September 04, 2013, 09:04:46 PM
Give me the rights to make them and I will do it in smaller quantities for about $17 USA shipped each. 

I don't think there are any rights to give away. The phrase itself was dreamt up by a forum member, and the image itself is just free vector clipart from the web.

I did two runs of t-shirts with that exact same cat graphic; here's the second one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246518.0

1093  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
^ Yeah, I would have loved to have been able to invest in LocalBitcoins at a similar stage in their history. I'm holding.

I'm skeptical as to how high this will go though, given that the dividends are fixed for the first year.  Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I predict 0.02 by the end of the day, so you better cancel your asks Wink
1094  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
wtf i signed in after 2 minutes past 12 and it was all gone. been waiting for this for a week.

Your clocks must be off.  Sad

According to the time on the site, shares were available until ~12:07.
1095  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 04:27:56 PM
(shiny)

Is that Dealcoin holding everyone's money, or shareholders holding Dealcoin shares? Wink
1096  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 04:07:24 PM
Okay its back up, my order did execute Smiley

Wow that sold out fast!


7 minutes, 13 seconds.
1097  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 04:03:03 PM
Hi Nubbins, I see what you're saying but to clarify, LABCO is passthru fund on Havelock (official listing is on BTC-TC).  So we perform the due diligence on such funds themselves (easy on the Labcoin PT since we manage it) and not on the underlying assets as we don't have the same access to the managers/owners that we would if listed through us.  The way we look at it, its when a major exchange lists an ETF or mutual fund.  They look at the fund's structure, management etc but don't necessarily dig into each underlying asset that the fund may invests in. 

That being said, it is something we have debated internally and reviewed periodically.  Do we want passthru funds on Havelock?  The added investing options and demand for the underlying assets from our users have so far made passthru funds worthwhile.  Cheers.

Noted and understood. Sorry for giving you guys a hard time about that in this and other threads; I agree that there are both pros and cons to hosting PTs. That said, I think you're providing a valuable service, and doing a great job.

And we're off to the races!
1098  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] CryptX introduces the PETA-MINE - DEPLOYMENT OF 20 TH/s on: September 03, 2013, 03:46:53 PM
stuff

Yeah, I fail to see why anyone would choose to throw their money away on this "fund". So much doublespeak and confusing language.

I'm mildly surprised nobody else has taken issue with this point:

We will deploy 20 TH in September and all dividends will be divided among shareholders until the 0.65 BTC investment is recovered.

Or, to put another way: shareholders will give us an interest-free loan that will take us 2+ years to pay back.
1099  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: September 03, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
We perform due diligence on our listed companies which exceeds any other exchange and do not allow just anyone to list, which sets us apart.

Quote
The Labcoin passthru will be maintained and operated by Havelock Investments. Havelock Investments has not performed any due diligence on the underlying asset and individuals involved in managing Labcoin.

Just sayin'.

(Nitpicking aside, I do trust Havelock more than BTC-TC and BitFunder.)

This IPO sounds interesting, although regarding the service itself, I'm in the same boat as Ninshatamoto -- I live in a city of ~200k people, and there is exactly one local seller on localbitcoins.com.
1100  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] CryptX introduces the PETA-MINE - DEPLOYMENT OF 20 TH/s on: September 02, 2013, 02:02:09 PM
But I could be wrong.
Yep, maybe. But for sure you're panic button is way too sensitive, relax dude.
Just don't invest.

But running around screaming makes u look like a fool.

I'm neither panicked nor running around (haven't even gotten out of bed yet!), but I can understand how you might get confused by my liberal use of red. Reading comprehension is at an incredibly low level around here, so I wanted to make sure that people at least got the important points.

Obviously I'm not going to invest in this terrible idea, but thanks for the free advice.

If pointing out a scam makes me look like a fool, what does the guy with 13 posts on a 1-month-old account who says "you're" instead of "your" and "u" instead of "you" look like?

Why even consider investing in this?

+1. If you guys want, you can send your BTC to me instead of CryptX; I'll hold onto them for only 6 months before giving them back to you. Sounds like an even better deal, huh?
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!