Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 02:53:21 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 [371] 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 ... 426 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [CLOSED] BTC Guild - Pays TxFees+NMC, Stratum, VarDiff, Private Servers  (Read 884755 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
July 13, 2014, 09:31:05 PM
 #7401

That being said, I've never heard of Just Dice, who are they and what happened ? I assume they're something US based and have some sort of gambling thing running for em given the name Just Dice.

Edit: I see where you said they're canadian now lol

JustDice was one of the largest bitcoin "dice" gambling sites.  It had a provably fair system similar to SatoshiDice, but it didn't rely on all bets being placed on the blockchain, which meant significantly faster playing.  It also allowed users to pick their odds (payout scaling obviously).  What made it unique was the house edge was only 1%, and users could BE the house by investing in JustDice.  It had realtime stats and every time somebody lost a roll, it proportionally split the earnings among investors, and the same if somebody lost.  It was run by dooglus, a fairly well respected member of the forums.

Recently some Canadian legislation passed which is very vague.  It's clear the intention was targetting exchanges between CAD and BTC, but the wording did not specify that, causing dooglus to proactively shut the site down.


This is one of the ways BTC Guild *could* be forced to shut down as well.  Just like dooglus, I would not keep the site running in the face of new legislation that was too vague as to who it is aimed at.  The problem with JustDice and mining pools is that there is no reason for a user to comply with any type of KYC rules.  There are plenty of other sites they can go to hosted in other countries which wouldn't require it, so the moment a US law comes in that threatens the need for KYC it would immediately kill any US-based pool.  There's simply nobody that would volunteer that information when there is absolutely nothing preventing them from moving to ghash.io/slush/bitminter, which are all run by people not in the United States.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506178401
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506178401

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506178401
Reply with quote  #2

1506178401
Report to moderator
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
July 13, 2014, 09:38:28 PM
 #7402

A small bug was stopping wallet addresses from being verified as valid, so it was rejecting attempts to change BTC addresses.  This has been fixed.  The EU stratum server also had a very brief interruption, and should be working in very shortly.


EDIT for clarification:  The EU stratum *mining* was not interrupted, only the initial connection server which is used to filter botnet/DDoS traffic before it reaches any mining servers.  Most users should not have seen any interruption!  It only affected new connections attempting to be established.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1064


Machine Learning & AI - Trustless Ledger System


View Profile
July 13, 2014, 09:55:10 PM
 #7403

Well, here's hoping the government doesn't screw us which is laughable since they almost always do in one way or another.

 
⦁⚫⦁
     ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊ Trustless Ledger System ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊
  S H A R P E  C A P I T A L 
 

                 ▄▀▀▄
                 ▀▄▄▀
                 █
      ▄▀▀▄      █
      ▀▄▄▀     █
      █  █    █
     █    █  █
    █     ▄▀▀▄
   █      ▀▄▄▀
▄▀▀▄    
▀▄▄▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
Investing with AI & Machine Learning
.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ⦁⚫⦁ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  read our Whitepaper ▄▄▄▄▄▄
Bitcointalk Twitter Telegram  Slack
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
⦁⚫⦁
os2sam
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212


Think for yourself


View Profile
July 13, 2014, 11:50:33 PM
 #7404

What does "KYC" mean?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Miner-TE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 515



View Profile
July 13, 2014, 11:54:17 PM
 #7405

What does "KYC" mean?

Know Your Customer - Where it would be a requirement by law to collect personal identifiable information from the users.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer - "Know your customer (KYC) is the process used by a business to verify the identity of their clients."

BTC - 1PeMMYGn7xbZjUYeaWe9ct1VV6szLS1vkD - LTC - LbtcJRJJQQBjZuHr6Wm7vtB9RnnWtRNYpq
os2sam
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2212


Think for yourself


View Profile
July 13, 2014, 11:58:08 PM
 #7406

What does "KYC" mean?

Know Your Customer - Where it would be a requirement by law to collect personal identifiable information from the users.

Thanks.

That would seem to go against the principles of a CyrptoCurrency.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Icon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 735


Seems I deinvested all my btc :(


View Profile
July 14, 2014, 02:37:58 AM
 #7407

yep sun = oracle same, stay away from , or at the very lest don't allow java to run in the browser.


Icon

Interesting. Sorry for offtopic, so what do you suggest to use instead of it? Like if you want to do pingtest or any other numerous tools online (which require Java)? My browser asks me everytime Java needs to run...

Thanks

Well if you're really just wanting a ping you can open a command prompt and type "ping microsoft.com"  or any web/ip address and it'll run a ping test, no need for java.

Really? What about packet loss and jitter? How are you going to find that out from the CMD? I guess, you would do the calculations yourself Smiley I am to lazy to do that....

O that 1 is easy simply use trace route

ie:
tracert  www.xxx.com 

will give ttl and where congestion was found in a command prompt on windows based pc's

Icon
psahx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile
July 14, 2014, 02:49:50 AM
 #7408

O that 1 is easy simply use trace route

ie:
tracert  www.xxx.com 

will give ttl and where congestion was found in a command prompt on windows based pc's

Icon

Thanks Smiley

Believe me, I know that commands very well. Still it won't give me enough info about my connections quality, to have a proof for complaining to my ISP. I just use speedtest.net and pingtest.net for the later, I need Java. But I guess I will have to find another way to satisfy my needs, without using Java.

Appreciated a lot.
Icon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 735


Seems I deinvested all my btc :(


View Profile
July 14, 2014, 02:52:06 AM
 #7409

well tracrt is a good and complete detail connection has each hop from 1 router to the next and its latency, it was designed to help trouble shoot problems

icon


fivejonnyfive
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


View Profile
July 14, 2014, 06:27:08 PM
 #7410

This is one of the ways BTC Guild *could* be forced to shut down as well.  Just like dooglus, I would not keep the site running in the face of new legislation that was too vague as to who it is aimed at.  The problem with JustDice and mining pools is that there is no reason for a user to comply with any type of KYC rules.  There are plenty of other sites they can go to hosted in other countries which wouldn't require it, so the moment a US law comes in that threatens the need for KYC it would immediately kill any US-based pool.  There's simply nobody that would volunteer that information when there is absolutely nothing preventing them from moving to ghash.io/slush/bitminter, which are all run by people not in the United States.

I feel like most of the US KYC laws are only going to be targeted at BTC/USD conversions and possibly vice versa.

Regardless - it's a fair warning to make even though it seems based on an incredible abundance of caution rather than an indication of a forthcoming policy shift.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
July 14, 2014, 08:53:00 PM
 #7411

This is one of the ways BTC Guild *could* be forced to shut down as well.  Just like dooglus, I would not keep the site running in the face of new legislation that was too vague as to who it is aimed at.  The problem with JustDice and mining pools is that there is no reason for a user to comply with any type of KYC rules.  There are plenty of other sites they can go to hosted in other countries which wouldn't require it, so the moment a US law comes in that threatens the need for KYC it would immediately kill any US-based pool.  There's simply nobody that would volunteer that information when there is absolutely nothing preventing them from moving to ghash.io/slush/bitminter, which are all run by people not in the United States.

I feel like most of the US KYC laws are only going to be targeted at BTC/USD conversions and possibly vice versa.

Regardless - it's a fair warning to make even though it seems based on an incredible abundance of caution rather than an indication of a forthcoming policy shift.

Yes, so far the US has been very focused on simply regulating the point where virtual currencies are converted into fiat currency.  However, depending on how widely accepted Bitcoin becomes, that may end up being changed.

But still, the warning is mostly just to try to get people to keep their balances lower.  It's a big headache/liability to have to constantly play this balancing act between the hot and cold wallet.  There shouldn't be single users that have balances in excess of 10-20% of the hot wallet balance.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1064


Machine Learning & AI - Trustless Ledger System


View Profile
July 14, 2014, 08:57:22 PM
 #7412

This is one of the ways BTC Guild *could* be forced to shut down as well.  Just like dooglus, I would not keep the site running in the face of new legislation that was too vague as to who it is aimed at.  The problem with JustDice and mining pools is that there is no reason for a user to comply with any type of KYC rules.  There are plenty of other sites they can go to hosted in other countries which wouldn't require it, so the moment a US law comes in that threatens the need for KYC it would immediately kill any US-based pool.  There's simply nobody that would volunteer that information when there is absolutely nothing preventing them from moving to ghash.io/slush/bitminter, which are all run by people not in the United States.

I feel like most of the US KYC laws are only going to be targeted at BTC/USD conversions and possibly vice versa.

Regardless - it's a fair warning to make even though it seems based on an incredible abundance of caution rather than an indication of a forthcoming policy shift.

Yes, so far the US has been very focused on simply regulating the point where virtual currencies are converted into fiat currency.  However, depending on how widely accepted Bitcoin becomes, that may end up being changed.

But still, the warning is mostly just to try to get people to keep their balances lower.  It's a big headache/liability to have to constantly play this balancing act between the hot and cold wallet.  There shouldn't be single users that have balances in excess of 10-20% of the hot wallet balance.

So why not set a forced withdraw if / when a users account balance gets to something like .2 since I assume what your talking about is people saving up with .5 or higher.

Edit: Or just impose higher fees on these people to try and deter them from doing it.

 
⦁⚫⦁
     ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊ Trustless Ledger System ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊
  S H A R P E  C A P I T A L 
 

                 ▄▀▀▄
                 ▀▄▄▀
                 █
      ▄▀▀▄      █
      ▀▄▄▀     █
      █  █    █
     █    █  █
    █     ▄▀▀▄
   █      ▀▄▄▀
▄▀▀▄    
▀▄▄▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
Investing with AI & Machine Learning
.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ⦁⚫⦁ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  read our Whitepaper ▄▄▄▄▄▄
Bitcointalk Twitter Telegram  Slack
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
⦁⚫⦁
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


A new tool for prediction https://bitvol.info/


View Profile
July 14, 2014, 09:09:04 PM
 #7413

okay I am set at 0.1

 do you want it to be lower?

I can set at .05 >

by your request I will do that.


I made it .05 for btc and .2 for nmc

Please support sidehack with his new miner project Send to : 1BURGERAXHH6Yi6LRybRJK7ybEm5m5HwTr
I mine alt coins with https://simplemining.net I see BTC as the super highway and alt coins as taxis and trucks needed to move transactions.
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
July 15, 2014, 12:18:47 AM
 #7414

So why not set a forced withdraw if / when a users account balance gets to something like .2 since I assume what your talking about is people saving up with .5 or higher.

Edit: Or just impose higher fees on these people to try and deter them from doing it.

I don't do forced withdraws because there is always a chance that somebody has a wallet on their account that is no longer valid (lost keys, online wallet, defunct exchange, etc).  And if the wallet is locked, there is a chance in the case of old+inactive accounts that the wallet points to something like MtGox or one of the many online wallet scams, meaning sending the payout would just give the coins to a thief.


okay I am set at 0.1

 do you want it to be lower?

I can set at .05 >

by your request I will do that.


I made it .05 for btc and .2 for nmc

The post is mostly targeted at users who have balances in excess of 1 BTC.  Some even have balances in excess of 100 BTC, which are the ones that really scare me due to the fact that if multiple users like that withdraw at once the hot wallet will be empty and cause withdrawal delays for the entire pool.

If you already receive payouts at least once a week, there is no need to tweak your withdrawal settings, unless 1 week of mining is 25+ BTC, in which case you should probably target daily withdrawals.
kendog77
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


View Profile
July 15, 2014, 12:22:53 AM
 #7415

So why not set a forced withdraw if / when a users account balance gets to something like .2 since I assume what your talking about is people saving up with .5 or higher.

Edit: Or just impose higher fees on these people to try and deter them from doing it.

I don't do forced withdraws because there is always a chance that somebody has a wallet on their account that is no longer valid (lost keys, online wallet, defunct exchange, etc).  And if the wallet is locked, there is a chance in the case of old+inactive accounts that the wallet points to something like MtGox or one of the many online wallet scams, meaning sending the payout would just give the coins to a thief.

Why not make everyone login to their account and confirm their BTC address, and then do forced withdraws once their balance goes over a certain amount?

Accounts that are not confirmed within a reasonable period of time (say 30 days) can be suspended.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1064


Machine Learning & AI - Trustless Ledger System


View Profile
July 15, 2014, 12:39:16 AM
 #7416

So why not set a forced withdraw if / when a users account balance gets to something like .2 since I assume what your talking about is people saving up with .5 or higher.

Edit: Or just impose higher fees on these people to try and deter them from doing it.

I don't do forced withdraws because there is always a chance that somebody has a wallet on their account that is no longer valid (lost keys, online wallet, defunct exchange, etc).  And if the wallet is locked, there is a chance in the case of old+inactive accounts that the wallet points to something like MtGox or one of the many online wallet scams, meaning sending the payout would just give the coins to a thief.

Why not make everyone login to their account and confirm their BTC address, and then do forced withdraws once their balance goes over a certain amount?

Accounts that are not confirmed within a reasonable period of time (say 30 days) can be suspended.
Not a bad idea but I say the higher fees for these accounts would be the best deterrent.

Say anything over 1 BTC incurs a 5-10% extra daily "maintenance" fee which is deducted from the accounts balance.

 
⦁⚫⦁
     ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊ Trustless Ledger System ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊
  S H A R P E  C A P I T A L 
 

                 ▄▀▀▄
                 ▀▄▄▀
                 █
      ▄▀▀▄      █
      ▀▄▄▀     █
      █  █    █
     █    █  █
    █     ▄▀▀▄
   █      ▀▄▄▀
▄▀▀▄    
▀▄▄▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
Investing with AI & Machine Learning
.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ⦁⚫⦁ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  read our Whitepaper ▄▄▄▄▄▄
Bitcointalk Twitter Telegram  Slack
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
⦁⚫⦁
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750



View Profile
July 15, 2014, 12:43:19 AM
 #7417

Why not make everyone login to their account and confirm their BTC address, and then do forced withdraws once their balance goes over a certain amount?

Accounts that are not confirmed within a reasonable period of time (say 30 days) can be suspended.
Not a bad idea but I say the higher fees for these accounts would be the best deterrent.

Say anything over 1 BTC incurs a 5-10% extra daily "maintenance" fee which is deducted from the accounts balance.
[/quote]

That is essentially theft in my mind.  The same with suspending accounts for inactivity.  Every coin earned should be capable of being withdrawn, up until the site is no longer operational.  Even then, the stated policy is *at least* a 3 month window for inactive users to come back and get their coins out.
MoreBloodWine
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1064


Machine Learning & AI - Trustless Ledger System


View Profile
July 15, 2014, 01:06:44 AM
 #7418

Quote
Why not make everyone login to their account and confirm their BTC address, and then do forced withdraws once their balance goes over a certain amount?

Accounts that are not confirmed within a reasonable period of time (say 30 days) can be suspended.
Not a bad idea but I say the higher fees for these accounts would be the best deterrent.

Say anything over 1 BTC incurs a 5-10% extra daily "maintenance" fee which is deducted from the accounts balance.

That is essentially theft in my mind.  The same with suspending accounts for inactivity.  Every coin earned should be capable of being withdrawn, up until the site is no longer operational.  Even then, the stated policy is *at least* a 3 month window for inactive users to come back and get their coins out.
So with all due respect then, just because you "complain" about these users doesn't mean they have to make any changes. They may just figure, well hell, if he's not gonna do anything about it then I'll just keep doing my old tried and true of using the pool as a bank and withdrawing when I feel the need to.

Seriously though, unless you willing to actually do something about this "problem" then you might be lucky if only a third of these people actually give a damn and make a change.

 
⦁⚫⦁
     ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊ Trustless Ledger System ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊
  S H A R P E  C A P I T A L 
 

                 ▄▀▀▄
                 ▀▄▄▀
                 █
      ▄▀▀▄      █
      ▀▄▄▀     █
      █  █    █
     █    █  █
    █     ▄▀▀▄
   █      ▀▄▄▀
▄▀▀▄    
▀▄▄▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
Investing with AI & Machine Learning
.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ⦁⚫⦁ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  read our Whitepaper ▄▄▄▄▄▄
Bitcointalk Twitter Telegram  Slack
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
⦁⚫⦁
hurricandave
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 937



View Profile
July 15, 2014, 01:27:17 AM
 #7419

I think setting a 90 days to change your setting deadline followed by a (per hour/payout round) max withdraw from an individual account amount, that says (overages/requested) will roll over to the next round of payouts till the request is complete would work.
Bitsaurus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 863



View Profile
July 15, 2014, 04:04:13 AM
 #7420

I think if a user's account rolls beyond something 5 or 10BTC they should be notified that withdrawals will be limited to manual intervention.  Using the pool as a bank puts all the other users at more risk since it takes away the valuable resource of Eleuthria's time.

Apparently people haven't learned from 50BTC to not use a pool as a bank.
Pages: « 1 ... 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 [371] 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 ... 426 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!