Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 08:24:30 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: someone fucked up and lost ALOT of money  (Read 26954 times)
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:19:19 AM
 #21

They're gone. No chance of retrieval.

Edit: Technically, if >50% of the miners agree, they could take the blockchain before the block with these transactions, and then generate a blockchain which is longer than the current one, without the transactions. It's unlikely that this happens though.

1480710270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710270
Reply with quote  #2

1480710270
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480710270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710270
Reply with quote  #2

1480710270
Report to moderator
1480710270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710270
Reply with quote  #2

1480710270
Report to moderator
1480710270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480710270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480710270
Reply with quote  #2

1480710270
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:21:00 AM
 #22

Maybe this helps.
It seems MtGox made a mistake somewhere.
Quote
<MagicalTux> that's a problem, but not the worst problem we ever faced
<MagicalTux> all the broken withdraws have been re-issued
<MagicalTux> just spent one week of BTC-only income
MagicalTux is a dev of MtGox.

Damn.  A quick peek at bitcoincharts and back-of-the-envelope calc after my above note lead me to believe that they could make it back in a week.  More luck than any real understanding though.


...and...I've had a long-term dream of Mt. Gox 'crashing the train' and increasing the value of my holdings greatly.  It would have been quite something if they'd used this code to do any big internal moves like their famous 414141 one or whatever it was.


casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2011, 02:23:55 AM
 #23

If there were a stock feature for "reject a block" and "ignore transaction" and the majority of mining power could be persuaded to use it quickly, this could be reversed. The miners would attempt to replace the lowest rejected block and would refuse to relay or incorporate the thorn transaction.

Too late for this transaction, but this would be the use case if there were one.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
worldinacoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile WWW
October 29, 2011, 02:24:11 AM
 #24

2-3k of bitcoins is big for us, but I guess nothing to a sizable exchange.
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:29:11 AM
 #25

2-3k of bitcoins is big for us, but I guess nothing to a sizable exchange.
It's a week's worth of BTC-only income, apparently. Since they also have USD income, this would be about half of their week income. So it's definitly not nothing.

2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:36:39 AM
 #26

MagicalTux is a dev of MtGox.
I just wanted to remind everyone in this thread that recently MtGox had acquired bitomat.pl and its development team. Or at least some time of that Polish development team.

So it is conceivable that those 2609.36304319 BTC is the cost of training of someone from that team.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:38:17 AM
 #27

Thought you all might find this chat from our channel useful:

Quote
< genjix> guys, in block 150951 there is 2609.36304319 BTC of irretrievable money: http://privatepaste.com/fba4dd1f44
< genjix> someone fucked up and lost ALOT of money
< joepie91> how come it's irretrievable?
< shockdiode> was just checking that out
< genjix> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50206.0
< shockdiode> http://blockexplorer.com/block/0000000000000449ee5b94ba7a051caffff5c23d6a03335f6e20e3985b5ffa61
-!- abstinence [~abstinenc@gateway/tor-sasl/abstinence] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
-!- da2ce7 [~da2ce7@gateway/tor-sasl/da2ce7] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< necrodearia> genjix, interesting.  In what way is it irretrievable?
< genjix> you cant spend them?
< shockdiode> this seems like a real flaw in the protocol
< shockdiode> those are basically just not getting sent to any address - no address/pubkey in the output
< shockdiode> so it seems it should be designed so that the sender is able to recover those
< genjix> shockdiode: no it isn't
< shockdiode> i know it isn't
< shockdiode> i'm saying it seems like it should be that way to me
< shockdiode> seems like an oversight
< genjix> i disagree though
< shockdiode> oh?
< genjix> someone was using a hacked/custom version of bitcoin
< shockdiode> reasoning? i'm sure you've thought this out much better than i have so am genuinely curious
< genjix> they messed up their output script and lost
< joepie91> shouldn't this have been rejected by the rest of the network as an invalid transaction?
< joepie91> seeing as it doesn't have a recipient
< shockdiode> right that's basically what i'm saying
< genjix> well output scripts are supposed to give you the power to make many different special transactions
< genjix> but it's a sharp knife
< genjix> someone just put their address as 0 in the standard tx type
< genjix> joepie91: no it doesnt fail because it's a perfectly valid tx Smiley
< joepie91> what is the purpose of sending a transaction without a recipient?
< joepie91> why is it?
< genjix> ok do you think they should make programming languages where you cannot have a logic error?
< da2ce7> lol
< da2ce7> genjix you should quickly spend em'
< da2ce7> then give them back to mtgox ;P
-!- abstinence [~abstinenc@gateway/tor-sasl/abstinence] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< genjix> Sad
< shockdiode> so basically looks like someone (gox afaik) screwed up on their output scripts...
< joepie91> if there is no purpose for a transaction without recipient, and the only effects it can have appear to be negative effects
< joepie91> then why should it be considered a valid tx?
< genjix> shockdiode: seems so.
< genjix> joepie91: because the scripting facility is a near full fledged programming language where you can do many things but the bitcoin protocol doesn't tell you what you can or cannot do
< genjix> albeit it is largely disabled for security reasons (checksig ddos) but that's the idea.
< shockdiode> hrm... but shoudn't anything with outputs to address 0 be considered invalid?
< joepie91> ^
< joepie91> I know that it CAN be done
< joepie91> but should it be ALLOWED to be done?
< joepie91> I mean, in most languages you cannot multiply a string either
< genjix> there's tons of shit you can do that isnt valid
< genjix> why try to ban it
< joepie91> then why is it not considered invalid?
< genjix> what about if i try to send to 000000000000000000000000001
< joepie91> because that prevents issues like these?
< joepie91> seems like a pretty good reason
< joepie91> to try and implement safeguards/checks against it
< genjix> nope bad idea
< joepie91> why?
< joepie91> why would you NOT implement it?
< genjix> scripting system is supposed to be basic, simple and highly flexible
< genjix> if you want to implement a type safe language on top then go ahead
< joepie91> that does not answer my question
< joepie91> why would you not implement it?
-!- copumpkin [~pumpkin@unaffiliated/pumpkingod] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< genjix> bitcoin scripting = assembly language
< joepie91> that still does not answer my question
< genjix> pointless. you cannot protect against every strange thing people want to do
< genjix> it is folly
< joepie91> this is about one of the most obvious mistakes
< joepie91> that can be made
< joepie91> there is all reason to at least implement basic protections against things like these
< joepie91> and no reason not to
< joepie91> your arguments so far come down to "it's the law because it's the law"
< genjix> im totally against adding any restrictions to the scripting language
< joepie91> _why?_
< genjix> no rules
< joepie91> come up with a concrete reason
< genjix> because you start piling on lots and lots of rules to muddy the standard and then somewhere down the line you wonder how you got into this bureaucratic mess
< joepie91> this is more a bureaucratic mess than anything
< joepie91> "it's not like that because it's not supposed to be like that"
< genjix> a good standard is simple and elegant. it's not the job of the standard to try to protect people by implementing safeguards
< genjix> that's the job of the application developer
< joepie91> lolno
< genjix> HTML does not legislate rules to protect web servers
< joepie91> it is the job of the standard if that standard is responsible for collective bookkeeping that affects other users
< joepie91> and not just itself
< genjix> that's the job of the web server software themselves to not have flaws.
< joepie91> implementing a disapproval of miners of transactions without a recipient has ZERO negative consequences
< joepie91> NOT implementing it DOES have consequences
< joepie91> as we can see here
< joepie91> genjix: bad analogy
< genjix> someone misused bitcoin. not our fault.
< shockdiode> eh, well he's got a good point
< joepie91> HTML has zero to do with webservers
< joepie91> whatsoever
< joepie91> HTML is fully client-side interpreted
< shockdiode> it is up to the developer to check their shit
< joepie91> the webserver just sends out data, it doesn't give a shit whether it's XML, HTML, text, or an MP3
< joepie91> shockdiode, the issue here is that the implementation does NOT only affect those that use that specific implementation
< joepie91> but the entire network
< genjix> i dont want people stuffing crap into bitcoin. if gavin wants to implementing scoring for disconnecting nodes, i might not like that but it's ok since i don't have to do it.
< joepie91> also those that do NOT choose to use said implementation
< joepie91> and that is where the problem lies
< genjix> he thinks it makes the network more secure. i disagree
< genjix> but if that was a standard.
< genjix> then fuck me.
< joepie91> genjix: that can have negative consequences
< joepie91> the change I proposed does not
< joepie91> if it does, feel free to point out a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> yes it does have negative consequences.
< genjix> maybe not today.
< joepie91> ok, point it out
< joepie91> point it out
< joepie91> point out a negative consequence
< joepie91> a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> read this article: http://www.aosabook.org/en/bdb.html
< joepie91> that is not an answer to my question
< genjix> take it from someone who has worked on projects with millions and millions of lines of code
< joepie91> I don't care
< joepie91> name. a. concrete. negative. consequence.
< genjix> you don't tack shit on mindlessly *right* now
< joepie91> I value what people say, not who they are
< genjix> it is purely reactionary.
< joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence.
< joepie91> name one.
< genjix> that it is stopping me using the scripting system how *I* want to use it
< joepie91> how is that a negative consequence if you doing so would hurt the network as a whole?
< genjix> there are a near infinite number of different variations of scripts that can cause me to put my bitcoins into a black hole
< genjix> we cannot legislate to protect everybody
< joepie91> sure, and this one is so obvious it would be trivial to protect against it
< genjix> which this essentially is.
< joepie91> it's not a valid argument
< genjix> rules to try to coddle bad developers.
< joepie91> name a negative consequence - and I am talking about negative consequences for the network as a whole, not one individual user
< genjix> or well developers mistakes (we all make mistakes Smiley
< genjix> negative consequences - a hugely muddled and bloated standard
< joepie91> you're avoiding the point and have still not named a negative consequence that affects the network as a whole
< joepie91> that is not a concrete negative consequence
< genjix> yes it is
< joepie91> 'do not accept transactions without a recipient' is one line of text
< joepie91> that's it
< genjix> and 8 lines of code
< joepie91> calling that 'hugely muddled and bloated' is a MASSIVE exxaggeration
< genjix> now add another 100 of those
< joepie91> we are talking about this specific change
< genjix> 1000 lines of code and an extra month of work
< joepie91> not about 100 others
< joepie91> those 100 others only exist on your side of the conversation
< genjix> why are you scriptist?
< joepie91> this discussion is about transactions without a recipient and only about transactions without a recipient
< genjix> all bad scripts are equal
-!- ej_ [~ej@67.224.69.45] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
 * joepie91 sighs
< genjix> we need to try to stop all of them Smiley
< joepie91> we are talking about ONE SPECIFIC CHANGE right now
< joepie91> not about 235018235601720681203967102936 potential imaginary future changes
< joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence that affects the network as a whole for THAT one specific change
< genjix> poor software
< joepie91> note the keyword concrete
< genjix> you are behaving like people who say X is bad, government needs to ban X
< joepie91> so, we can conclude that there are no concrete negative consequences that affect the network as a whole for that specific change?
< genjix> let people autonomously find their own way to protect against it
< joepie91> so, we can conclude that there are no concrete negative consequences that affect the network as a whole for that specific change?
< genjix> it only affects developers not users (ideally)
< genjix> your words, not mine.
< joepie91> yes or no?
< joepie91> it was a question
< genjix> yea-no.
< joepie91> seriously, stop dancing around it
< joepie91> if you cannot come up with a concrete consequence then just say you can't come up with one
-!- ej__ [~ej@67.224.69.45] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
< joepie91> I've been asking you for what? 15 minutes now?
< genjix> miners set policy about what they accept
< joepie91> and you have not been able to give even ONE concrete negative consequence that fits the description I gave
< genjix> there is no rules on what they can put in the blockchain
< joepie91> and yes, you can trail off on another discussion now and try to divert the subject
< joepie91> to not have to admit that you cannot name a negative consequence
< genjix> and the software currently does NO checking of scrpts
< genjix> scripts
< joepie91> but I'm not going to bite into tjhat
< joepie91> that*
< genjix> you want to change ALL of that
< joepie91> are you even reading what I am saying/
< joepie91> ?*
< genjix> reshape the network. have a gigantic overhaul to implement a new standard.
< joepie91> I guess not then.
< genjix> ok.
< joepie91> did you read what I said above?
< genjix> the bad thing is that it compromises network architecture and the very foundation and ideas of bitcoin itself as well as being bureaucratically infeasible and a path towards a complicated and bloated standard (which is not what we want).
< joepie91> .......
< genjix> if i want to write to address 0 in c++ then I can
< genjix> the program doesn't try to stop me.
< genjix> and why should it? it's MY code. i do wateva the f i want
< genjix> bitcoin script IS code
< joepie91> it does not 'compromise network architecture', does not compromise the idea of bitcoin (this is a solely technical limitation, not a usage limitation), I cannot see how it would be bureaucratically infeasible, and 'towards a complicated and bloated standard' is a slippery slope fallacy.
< genjix> yes it does. how do you want to enforce all the miners to accept this new rule?
< joepie91> you don;t
< joepie91> you don't*
< genjix> then how can you make it invalid
< joepie91> did you see me say anywhere <joepie91>at all costs every single miner HAS to adopt this method or be kicked from the network
< joepie91> ?
< joepie91> because I didn't
< genjix> yeah that's how you enforce rules
< joepie91> because if it is a standard and is implemented over time, that will naturally happen
< joepie91> I never said ANYTHING about enforcing rules
< joepie91> anywhere
< joepie91> whatsoever
< genjix> umm bitcoin is a set of rules
< joepie91> every miner for himself can decide whether he wants to accept those transactions or not
< joepie91> with no address
< joepie91> I do not see any issue with that
< genjix> which is what has happened now
< genjix> im cool with that
< joepie91> yet, noone seems to have implemented it
< joepie91> because it isn't put down anywhere
-!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< ThomasV> genjix: it wasn't me!!
< ThomasV> (re: someone fucked up)
< genjix> heh ThomasV
< genjix> ThomasV: you missed the heated discussion Smiley
< ThomasV> what was it ?
< ThomasV> I bet it was about whether miners should accept that
< genjix> yes exactly
< genjix> guess which side i was on
< ThomasV> oh no idea
< genjix> pro-everything goes in script. no checks.
< ThomasV> checks seem to be difficult indeed
< ThomasV> pro-choice
< genjix> yep about a bazillion things you can do to cut yourself
< genjix> not a standards responsibility to protect implementations
< ThomasV> people should have the right to kill their bitcoins
< ThomasV> but hell, why did this guy play with 2600 coins? maybe he believed he was on testnet?
< genjix> no idea. so strange huh
< necrodearia> <joepie91> name a concrete negative consequence. - broken record ftw.  how about naming an abstract, ideal, immaterial or intangible, careless, faulty, inaccurate, lax, vague, counterfeit, false, fictitious, imaginary, legendary, pretended, unreal, diluted, dissolved, melted, opened, thinned, unclotted, liquified, separated, waterproof, loose, slack, flexible, soft, supple, weak, yielding, implicit and/or unclear consequence?
< joepie91> necrodearia, did you just smack me with a dictionary? D:
< necrodearia> no, a thesaurus
< joepie91> close enough
< necrodearia> although, I wasn't smacking you
-!- Mqrius [Mqrius@forecast.student.utwente.nl] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
< necrodearia> hi Mqrius
< shockdiode> "this guy" was tux...
< genjix> shockdiode: really?
< ThomasV> shockdiode: huh?
< shockdiode> yeah, he said as much in #mtgox
< shockdiode> [18:08] <MagicalTux> that's a problem, but not the worst problem we ever faced
< shockdiode> [18:08] <MagicalTux> all the broken withdraws have been re-issued
< genjix> Shocked
< shockdiode> [18:10] <MagicalTux> just spent one week of BTC-only income
< necrodearia> heh, one week
< OneFixt> his tx had too many inputs
< necrodearia> again, us$100,000+/year profits
< shockdiode> yeah
< genjix> OneFixt: explain?
< shockdiode> [18:14] <MagicalTux> I need to limit the number of inputs in a tx, seems that normal bitcoind don't like a tx with 293 inputs
< OneFixt> ^ that
< ThomasV> this is another blow to mtgox's tech reputation
< genjix> smells like bullshit
< shockdiode> oh yeah?
< genjix> there is no limit on the number of inputs
< shockdiode> intredasting
< shockdiode> wasn't aware of one myself
< genjix> and the maximum number of inputs on his transactions is 4
< OneFixt> isn't it 255?
< genjix> no
< genjix> anyway his max number of inputs was 4
< ThomasV> tux said a few days ago that he's not using bitcoind anymore
< ThomasV> bitcoinj instead
< genjix> damn
< OneFixt> i thought he was using something custom and not bitcoinj
< genjix> why?
< shockdiode> hrm, yeah does seem that max number of inputs was 4
< OneFixt> maybe it shows up as 4 because the other tx wouldn't show up in block explorer?
< genjix> nope
< genjix> i have a custom bitcoin version myself
< genjix> SQL database
< OneFixt> ok, i'd like to see more details on the error in that case
< OneFixt> looks like shockdiode brought it up
< genjix> if anyone wants a dump of the sql database ask me.
< OneFixt> i need to get around to writing one of those
< genjix> libbitcoin.org in case you didnt see it Smiley
< OneFixt> ah, thanks =)
< genjix> anyway it's still pre-alpha
< OneFixt> rally time
< genjix> 01:50 < graingert> just use Python
< genjix> 01:50 < graingert> and get on with your life
< genjix> 01:50 < gmaxwell> I like writing software that actually runs in realtime.
< genjix> laughed hard
 * necrodearia rallies with OneFixt
< OneFixt> hehe
< necrodearia> excitebike world rally, right?
< OneFixt> bitcoinworld rally!
< genjix> sorry guys
< genjix> not going to happen
< OneFixt> you don't like rallies?
< genjix> why would a loss of 2k btc make a difference
< OneFixt> oh, it's unrelated
< genjix> ohh ok
< OneFixt> hehe just looking at my charts
< ThomasV> ping me when it reaches $30
< ThomasV> good night
-!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
-!- SomeoneWeird [~SomeoneWe@unaffiliated/someoneweird] has quit [Excess Flood]
-!- Guest59589 [~SomeoneWe@unaffiliated/someoneweird] has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:47:25 AM
 #28

Holy crap, that was a pain to read. I gave up halfway through. I can't believe how patient you are, genjix Smiley

Vladimir
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


-


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:52:14 AM
 #29

Interesting event which gives us all some information.

This event has caused about 0.0346% Bitcoin deflation.

Annual MtGox "BTC only income" can be estimated now as approximately 136 000 BTC or at current exchange rates slightly below 0.5 million USD.

Given 7.55 millions of current bitcoin float it is almost 1.8% of all bitcoins currently in existence.

more commentary on this matter at https://bitcoin.org.uk/forums/topic/402-mtgox-the-largest-bitcoin-exchange-has-revealed-its-income/ .

P.S. Only those who do nothing, do not make mistakes.


-
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2011, 02:53:36 AM
 #30

I was just thinking today about resetting the -testnet with new rules to make it more stable/useful...



How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 02:56:14 AM
 #31

All these bitcoins, can they be retrieved or is it "Sayonara" for them?  That's really a lot of money!

Bitcoin is irrevocable.  The coins were sent to nowhere.  They are gone.
julz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
October 29, 2011, 03:13:25 AM
 #32

Wasn't the idea of destroying bitcoins by spending to a provably non-redeemable address floated somewhere around here before? It was part of one proposed mechanism of migrating value to a new blockchain I think.
It seems to me that scripts such as this (sharp and pointy as they may be) should be allowed.

@electricwings   BM-GtyD5exuDJ2kvEbr41XchkC8x9hPxdFd
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
October 29, 2011, 03:50:40 AM
 #33

There is some discussion about having miners reject bad transactions.  Wouldn't that just cause a huge split in the network if only half the people upgraded the client and then that happened?

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 03:53:21 AM
 #34

There is some discussion about having miners reject bad transactions.  Wouldn't that just cause a huge split in the network if only half the people upgraded the client and then that happened?

Client doesn't have anything to do with miners.
Miners already can include or reject any transaction for any reason.

Each miner (or pool) decides which transactions (if any) to include in the block they are hashing.
klaus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 29, 2011, 04:40:39 AM
 #35

// EDIT:

Im not in the irc, so i can not reach MagicalTux

 [18:08] <MagicalTux> all the broken withdraws have been re-issued

for me, thats not true until now.

- can someone reach MagicalTux via irc and link him to this?

// FIXED !

BTCurious helped me out.

my withdraw has been reissued by mtgox !! thank you very much mtgox!

bitmessage:BM-2D9c1oAbkVo96zDhTZ2jV6RXzQ9VG3A6f1​
threema:HXUAMT96
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 05:12:21 AM
 #36

- can someone reach MagicalTux via irc and link him to this?
I've contacted him on IRC. He had already sent out a new transaction. It was not yet processed by the blockchain. You could see it pending here: -link removed-

Just now while typing it, it's been included in a block. It should show up in your wallet in a while, as it downloads the newest block.

-link removed-

etotheipi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


Core Armory Developer


View Profile WWW
October 29, 2011, 05:15:50 AM
 #37

Well, at least it was someone with a lot of BTC, and not some kid like half the people on this forum, who have devoted the last year to BTC and then lost it all with a buggy script.  The guy running MtGox can probably afford it, at least...

OTOH, he just helped me identify a bug in my code:  it chokes when it receives an OP_0 where it expects to find an address...

Founder and CEO of Armory Technologies, Inc.
Armory Bitcoin Wallet: Bringing cold storage to the average user!
Only use Armory software signed by the Armory Offline Signing Key (0x98832223)

Please donate to the Armory project by clicking here!    (or donate directly via 1QBDLYTDFHHZAABYSKGKPWKLSXZWCCJQBX -- yes, it's a real address!)
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 05:16:51 AM
 #38

OTOH, he just helped me identify a bug in my code:  it chokes when it receives an OP_0 where it expects to find an address...
:')

klaus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
October 29, 2011, 05:39:57 AM
 #39

@BTCurious

thanks alot for your help !!! i can confirm that. the rest came. happy now.


i want to send you a 5 btc donation for your help.
i did not rewarded, and you did not ask for that.

but for me, a donation to you in this case is just we should treat each other. i have no btc service or something i could give you something back. so i send you btc. even i dont know you.

can i use one of the adresses in your footer? are them btc or a fork?
can you give me a btc adress?

thanks once again.

bitmessage:BM-2D9c1oAbkVo96zDhTZ2jV6RXzQ9VG3A6f1​
threema:HXUAMT96
BTCurious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.


View Profile
October 29, 2011, 05:43:04 AM
 #40

Cheesy I'm glad everything worked out for you Smiley
They are all BTC addresses, yes, you can pick any one of them.

Thanks a lot for the donation Cheesy I really wasn't expecting that!

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  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!