At this point, if they were willing to give refunds, I'd take it over waiting for my unit.
Yifu, want to save some work by not shipping mine?
I have some interest. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the offer. Normally, you would just make the bid and I would return his not-winning bid in a day or so, after block 240,602. Since he has publicly requested a refund and will not be winning, I will make the refund as soon as I notice 6-confirms. It is fine to outbid him by only 1 Satoshi. That will let any automatic block-chain monitoring software work, but it will not put unneccessary burden on you. Do be sure to account for the miner's fee. How about a compromise. My bids have been sitting here for 6+ weeks, so what's a few more days. I can add 0.14 to my bid at 1JzMp55NW22xjEE4QKUhN5iAmKyFnJSUDg to outbid dogie and ProfMac you can then refund his bid because he will no longer have a winning bid. Is that acceptable? 1 1K5YnnLhvvgJAejqSxeaSP7tTDya54Cphu 1.399
Please refund.
Has there been a compelling personal crisis? Bids are not retractable. Perhaps you will be outbid. Because I'm not going to win, I have other uses for the funds and this will/is taking forever! I have debt repayment schedules to meet and I'm having to topup with Fiat I shouldn't be touching. That sounds like you got cold feet about your bid. By compelling personal crisis, I am thinking of something that happened after your bid that is unforeseeable and serious, such as a house fire, an automobile wreck, a parent with a heart attack. If you bid high and try to win, then other people outbid you, and then I return your bid outside the rules, I have to deal with anger and chaos. On your 7 BTC bid, everyone knew it was a blunder. It was the right thing to return that bid and it did not generate hard feelings from the other bidders. Not this time. As it stands, you are on the winner list. If you and I do nothing else, you will either win, or you will have your bid returned. |
|
|
|
Thank you for posting. I believed in them before. I believe in them now. |
|
|
|
1 1K5YnnLhvvgJAejqSxeaSP7tTDya54Cphu 1.399
Please refund.
Has there been a compelling personal crisis? Bids are not retractable. Perhaps you will be outbid. Because I'm not going to win, I have other uses for the funds and this will/is taking forever! I have debt repayment schedules to meet and I'm having to topup with Fiat I shouldn't be touching. That sounds like you got cold feet about your bid. By compelling personal crisis, I am thinking of something that happened after your bid that is unforeseeable and serious, such as a house fire, an automobile wreck, a parent with a heart attack. If you bid high and try to win, then other people outbid you, and then I return your bid outside the rules, I have to deal with anger and chaos. On your 7 BTC bid, everyone knew it was a blunder. It was the right thing to return that bid and it did not generate hard feelings from the other bidders. Not this time. As it stands, you are on the winner list. If you and I do nothing else, you will either win, or you will have your bid returned. |
|
|
|
there is still time for the US people to stop this nonsense and petition to their politicians, create organisations who will remind US government and its departments that they are going wrong way. You cant just sit and watch wtf they are doing. Take Turkey as example.
The terrorist filled us with terror. We are acting scared, giving up hard won freedoms. |
|
|
|
1 1K5YnnLhvvgJAejqSxeaSP7tTDya54Cphu 1.399
Please refund.
Has there been a compelling personal crisis? Bids are not retractable. Perhaps you will be outbid. |
|
|
|
I am prob a top 5 holder in bytecoins and I def support forking the chain if it will encourage more mining. It's pretty obvious something needs to be done, and quickly
How much mining capability do you have? |
|
|
|
This 40thash jump on network could be Avalons testing before sending to buyers.
600 x 68 ghash is somehow close to that.
Also person mining them is from HongKong. And miners are not full time online, it goes offline sometimes.
Maybe Yifu testing new products.
There are two new players finding a lot of blocks named "Made in China" and "七彩神仙鱼" which means "Discus Fish" and they both point to the same address. Let's all hope this is Avalon testing our shiny new babies. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77000.msg2348461#msg2348461Avalon says that they do not mine bitcoins to test their units. Avalon has never said they do not buy more wafers than it takes to make 600 units. |
|
|
|
He's blocked even the bitcoins in Bitfloor accounts. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BLOCK THOSE BITCOINS.
What the hell? Why is this the first time anyone has even bothered to bring this up? I was under the impression that all Bitfloor bitcoins could still be easily pulled out, and have been. Perhaps in your blind rabid defense of an incompetent you missed that in the first days of this disaster? You other defense about Bank B not being obligated to cash it is correct, BUT I think you miss the point, Bank A (who issued the check) MUST cash it BY LAW. Minor Miner, don't argue with the internet lawyers. They are much smarter than you. Especially when they are a internet professor AND an internet lawyer. You can't win. I am putting together an introduction packet to take to my bank. This is with a view of having a place that will accept the bitfloor check and disburse the money to it's rightful owners. I do not expect this effort to bear fruit, but I plan to do it right. In that letter, I will give my personal 1 page introduction to bitcoin, and a reference to the March FinCEN clarification, and a cover letter telling how bitcoin fits into the bank's business and gives them an advantage with their existing customer base. I have heard that there is an FBI position document on bitcoin. I do not know if this is public, or leaked. I would like to avoid having a leaked document in my packet. If anyone has some links to other documents I invite you to mention them here. I want to have all of the negative and restrictive news in my opening packet, so that the bank can't discover anything that I have failed to include. I think these documents should be from federal agencies, recognized financial groups, or other sources likely to be valued by bankers. I will not use any sources from Destroy Banks for Anarchy and the like. The Rolling Stone and Mother Jones would be good sources, if they have published anything. It would also be helpful to have a list of those places that have been closed or brought under scrutiny. Again, if the bank finds out from me, I am still credible. If their due diligence shows that I have been transparent, I maintain my credibility. Are you trying to convince banks to be friendly to Bitcoin? The FBI made it clear what they want, they took down 2 exchanges and seized a few domains. The FEDs want to stop money laundering. I think that is ok. I don't see evidence that they are hostile to bitcoin itself. I don't care if this bank is friendly to bitcoin, only that I have a bank officer, a phone number, and a statement that they will accept the bitfloor check. This is the same thing I have asked others to obtain, if they are certain that it is easy to deposit a check and return funds. |
|
|
|
He's blocked even the bitcoins in Bitfloor accounts. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BLOCK THOSE BITCOINS.
What the hell? Why is this the first time anyone has even bothered to bring this up? I was under the impression that all Bitfloor bitcoins could still be easily pulled out, and have been. Perhaps in your blind rabid defense of an incompetent you missed that in the first days of this disaster? You other defense about Bank B not being obligated to cash it is correct, BUT I think you miss the point, Bank A (who issued the check) MUST cash it BY LAW. Minor Miner, don't argue with the internet lawyers. They are much smarter than you. Especially when they are a internet professor AND an internet lawyer. You can't win. I am putting together an introduction packet to take to my bank. This is with a view of having a place that will accept the bitfloor check and disburse the money to it's rightful owners. I do not expect this effort to bear fruit, but I plan to do it right. In that letter, I will give my personal 1 page introduction to bitcoin, and a reference to the March FinCEN clarification, and a cover letter telling how bitcoin fits into the bank's business and gives them an advantage with their existing customer base. I have heard that there is an FBI position document on bitcoin. I do not know if this is public, or leaked. I would like to avoid having a leaked document in my packet. If anyone has some links to other documents I invite you to mention them here. I want to have all of the negative and restrictive news in my opening packet, so that the bank can't discover anything that I have failed to include. I think these documents should be from federal agencies, recognized financial groups, or other sources likely to be valued by bankers. I will not use any sources from Destroy Banks for Anarchy and the like. The Rolling Stone and Mother Jones would be good sources, if they have published anything. It would also be helpful to have a list of those places that have been closed or brought under scrutiny. Again, if the bank finds out from me, I am still credible. If their due diligence shows that I have been transparent, I maintain my credibility. |
|
|
|
If there is merged mining support in the main Bitcoin source that is not in Bytecoin I am in favor of pulling that in. What I am not in favor of is any code changes that make Bytecoin distinguised from Bitcoin other than the basic name, cosmetic, and new blockchain changes.
Can somebody explain to me in layman's terms why merged mining needs a blockchain fork? Will mining Bytecoin alone be possible on the new fork?
I asked about merged mining on #bitcoin-dev yesterday. They provided this link to help explain merged mining: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-workThey say that both merged mining implementations, p2pool and another, have some problems. They say that merged mining does provide a way to bring lots of hashpower to a new coin. They have the view that alt-coins only have legitimacy in the context of expanding bitcoin. They are deeply suspicious of most alt-coins as a scam to get noobs to buy snake oil. |
|
|
|
In a deflationary currency, such as bitcoins, gold, and silver hoarding is a natural occurrence. Therefore I'm fine with it.
In order to encourage the behaviour you want, the only way is to turn bitcoin into an inflationary currency. Which is something I dont want to see.
I think the more important issue, is how can a person with 0 bitcoins obtain a bitcoin or at least a fraction of it through the system?. Currently, there are none, because mining is already a high cost activity. I think it would be nice, if we can find a solution to this problem.
A bank here has customers from another country, and they send money home. Bitcoin is cheap. A bank to bank settling mechanism with bitcoin would help the banks, and in turn make banks protect bitcoin. Don't treat them as an enemy, treat them as a powerful neighbor that we want to form an alliance with. To get bitcoins without mining: do what you do with money without a printing press. Work, or sell goods & services. I try to convince my wife that bitcoin is valuable, because I can get on the web and buy coffee with them. Someone sells coffee, and they get bitcoins. Find what you can sell. |
|
|
|
ProfMac,
Correct. The evidence suggests that someone with an ASIC/serverfarm has kicked the difficulty up at least twice, once on 4-08 at block 14112, where diff jumped from 4096.032 to 16384.25, and again on 5-06 at block 18144 where diff jumped from 8948.631 to it's present 35794.675.
What this new group proposes to do by forking the blockchain is to form a pool that gives them the advantage in mining and leaves the rest of us with our fly unzipped and nowhere to go.
Thanks for the lead. At block 16128, on 2013-05-03 22:20:02, a new difficulty of 8,196 was begun. 1 day later, at block 17108 2013-05-04 22:20:08 That is 980 blocks / day, or about 4X what it should be. In the 30 days or so since block 16128, there should be 7,200 blocks mined to bring us to about block 23,328. The blockchain is behind 4,997 blocks. I can't get a genrate from #bitcoin-otc right now. ---- There are two things I don't know: a. How fast can you generate blocks with 1.2 GH/s at difficulty 8,196 b. Can you spoof the time to the miner. The thing you can do if there is a rogue and hostile ASIC is to simply generate a block with a timestamp each 10 minutes, starting with block 16129, on 2013-05-03 22:30:00. Include all the transactions that are valid on your fork, and simply invalidate all of the pirates mined blocks. Keep the blocks paced at the 10 minute rate, and when you get to 18,332 you have done a takeover. The date will be far in the past, and some transactions will appear to be in the future to the block-chain. Then, you mine a block for each transaction that needs to be confirmed. When you are caught up, the rate is low and karma is restored. |
|
|
|
Well he has a right. Our blockchains will just fight. Depending on how many people join me. This is democracy and Bitcoin thought of everything. If he isn't putting money where his mouth is and mining, he will lose.
Will the existing block chain stay valid? Are the branches of the fork exclusive? |
|
|
|
I will be sticking with original Bytecoin and will not go to any forks of the code; the only code changes I will accept are updates from the main Bitcoin source.
Do you mine? |
|
|
|
Starting bid is 230 BTC which is ~78 days breakeven at current difficulty (yes, I know, difficulty may raise, caveat emptor) "may rise"? LOL So... You mean that maybe won't rise at all? Yeah... RIGHT  I have to say that I love when sellers calculate ROI in their offers without taking into account the yearly profitability decline, in the "real world" you would be fined for "misleading advertising". Caveat Emptor - If buyer is dumb enough to pay BTC230+ for a miner without being aware of the underlying profitability he deserves to lose money. Bitcoin is valuable if there is a community that uses it. Unlike gold, there is not a larger community outside of this one. Rude, uncivilized, or grabby behavior keeps the community small, and the value of bitcoin small. It harms us all to act bad. |
|
|
|
I will be sticking with original Bytecoin and will not go to any forks of the code; the only code changes I will accept are updates from the main Bitcoin source.
I will have some hashing power in a few weeks. I don't see a reason to fork the code. I don't understand what merged mining is, or what the advantage is to support it. Where we are now, could we simply set up 1 pool and benefit from it? I assume that the current problem is that some people with a lot of hashpower mined very fast, raised the difficulty, then went away. Is that the consensus opinion? |
|
|
|
Did you even read his post about WHY he wants to fork the code? Merged mining. If we can merge mine this coin with Bitcoin, and had pools like bitparking.com take it up, imagine the value skyrocket. Bitcoin has Master merge mining code already so if anything, it's getting closer to bitcoin, not farther. This is so far behind bitcoin it might still be using Berkley DB.
One of the developers did a pull and ran a diff on the source code, a prudent security precaution. The differences were the coin prefix, the genesis block hash, and the BTE/BTC string replacements. At the time of it's release, it was exactly current with bitcoin. It is within a week or so of the current bitcoin release. It is a peer to bitcoin. I see it's strength as a place where either micro-transactions can aggregate, or where a narrow industry group can focus their transactions. I think several of them operating in parallel can help with the "scale" problem as the number of users grow. There is yet another new chip for the sex industry. This is an example of a narrow industry focus where Bytecoin could find a niche. My own interests, for example, might be in the worldwide coffee trade. |
|
|
|
I will be sticking with original Bytecoin and will not go to any forks of the code; the only code changes I will accept are updates from the main Bitcoin source.
I will have some hashing power in a few weeks. I don't see a reason to fork the code. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
