Here's a screenshot of the issue I am having on Windows 10 and Chromebook in both Chrome and Firefox:



That screenshot was taken on March 8th and I am still having the issue as of today. and yes, I know you have to click the radio button on the top. If you don't that disables the 2nd drop down. The issue is that neither the 3rd nor 4th work regardless of what I select.

Since I was able to contact them with the Android app, I was able to get the initial issues dealt with, and I mentioned this issue to them. They asked if I was on a Beta version of Chrome, and I told them I wasn't. Chrome auto updates without my consent so it could have changed something, but Firefox is intentionally left out of date to prevent websites from breaking and hasn't been touched since before the issue started.

Why would I be the only one not able to contact them?

I'm having a few serious account related issues that I need to contact coinbase support about, but unfortunately, I am unable to actually do so. Their phone number is only for compromised accounts, their AI help system just tells me to use their contact form, and their contact form doesn't allow me to contact anymore since the last two drop downs are disabled no matter what I select. I have this issue on both Chrome and Firefox, and on both a Windows PC and Chromebook. Weirdly, if I try to contact from their Android app, it opens a browser window within the app that is somehow able to contact.

Is anyone else having this issue? I've been trying to contact them for over a month before I figured out that the Android app worked.

I'm still not getting anywhere with them because their phone support isn't allowed to deal with account specific questions and their email support is a joke that sends us in a circle. They have a business name, a business checking account, and an EIN, but we have to go through a literal infinite loop of steps to get them to actually follow the law.  Right now, if we contact Coinbase they tell us to go through GDAX, which has no such application form and instead tries to pull information for personal accounts and their contact pages redirect to a personal account.

Meanwhile, Coinbase is STEALING our mining income. For "security" they DELETED all of our addresses and won't even allow internal transfers anymore, despite having been a customer for more than 3 years with sufficient account activity. Seriously, what kind of idiot decided that keeping all the coin that someone sends to an account with a long established business history is good business?

I found my issue. In Chrome, for whatever reason, all error messages were simply "error" , so I tried Firefox where I have no extensions at all (because I don't as frequently use) and then it started to provide meaningful error messages. The address I tried to send to the first time was correct actually, and resulted in a "donation success" message, but when I tried sending to the account name rather than the account email (which had an underscore where an @ should be) I got: "coupon receiver ID not exist". So apparently "error" means something was blocked from working right, and if it comes up it will come up no matter what you do.

Hi, I hope this is the right place, but I tried donating a coupon (for the purchase of an Antminer) using the email address of the receiving account on Bitmain and it just said

error

A poorly worded error message to be sure. Since Bitmain takes forever to respond to messages I was wondering if anyone else encountered this "error" and what steps can be taken to resolve it? Thanks!

We've had a coinbase account for a number of years and for the entire time we used our business checking account and business debit card for all transactions. We submitted to them our partnership agreement and forms from the IRS with the EIN and we submitted our EIN to them when the account was set up, and at the time my partner's name was listed as the contact person.

We contacted them on multiple occasions, wanting the name of our business to be reflected on our account. Initially, they told us they weren't set up for that yet so we waited. Then there were significant reductions in how much we could buy or sell at one time so they acted like they never got the documentation. Then for a while they disabled use of our business checking account for transactions because they claimed it was a business checking account on a personal coinbase account. Around this time they also lost the photo IDs submitted.

In the latest bout, which has gone on for a few months now, they changed the date of their responses to 2 weeks prior to the date that we said we still needed support (and no email actually went to an inbox - this is just in their "my case" section) so I have no idea when they actually did respond. In it, they claimed:
 

(this was AFTER we submitted, yet again, the IRS documents with the name of our business, the registered agent, and employer identification number on November 29th, and after we tried to get them to respond January 3rd)

However, we aren't looking for any new services. We don't wire money anywhere - we use ACH transfer for sales and either that or debit for purchases. We also are not an exchange business as we don't accept cryptocurrency payments for anything. Our business is one part agricultural and one part cryptocurrency, and earn money on both fronts and have been working on integrating the two models together. Since we only sell our produce to grocery stores with a state whole-seller license we have no need to accept cryptocurrency payments anyway. Additionally, the link they sent us to is to upload a personal ID - yet again - and this time using a webcam as well. 

All we want them to do is recognize that the transactions we carry out are all carried out in the name of a registered business. We file taxes as a business, maintain a business ledger, and it would really screw things up if they continued to report business transactions as personal transactions. It could cause problems if we are audited - either as a business or as a personal entity in different ways - and if we are ever sued it would look like we were mixing personal and business assets which would increase our own personal liability. I thought that registered financial institutions had rules to follow. They can't tell the IRS that a business is personal, or so I thought, but they are acting like they don't have to treat the account for what it is.

Does anyone know of any way that we can proceed on this? Can we report anything to the IRS so that they know that Coinbase is knowingly submitting business transactions as personal transactions? Even if another exchange becomes registered in Illinois (last time we check, Coinbase was it) we still need to make sure their records about our business activity is accurately reported.

This explains the type of problem my area has, and why I also prefer using voltage regulators. The smart meters used by my utility creates voltage irregularities that increase the risk of damage to sensitive electronics like Bitcoin Miners:

http://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/dirty-electricity-and-smart-meters.php

I'm not overreacting. I've had very serious problems that only a combination of surge protection and voltage regulation can solve. I'm not talking about health concerns, I'm talking about the voltage going out of an acceptable range, which in turn causes amperage to go outside of an acceptable range. If, for example, the voltage drops too low the amperage will go too high which will in turn cause the line to overheat. The voltage regulator prevents the type of power irregularities that can lead to fires.

This is the voltage regulator I use for my 120v devices:



Similar to the watt meter and surge protection issue, the company that makes these also makes a 240v version, but it's designed to handle European outlets, and because of the frequency difference it probably wouldn't work right.

I'd like to. That's why I created a topic titled "ARE THERE 240v surge protectors and watt meters for AMERICAN MINERS?" I mean, it's right there. I couldn't be more clear than that. I have explicitly stated that I am looking to spend my money on these products. Why do so many people derail threads into random directions when the question is in the topic?


I never said I wasn't worried about overloading a circuit. I need the ability to read the power draw from each outlet so that I can make sure that I am not overloading a circuit. I've done all the calculations, and updated my last response with them so you can see what I am trying to do with it.

This is Kill-a-watt. I use it to read how much power is being drawn from a 120v outlet so that I can make sure everything is working properly and I am not overloading anything.



I want a 240v version that will work for American outlets so that I can do the same thing for my miners. It's a very very SIMPLE question. If I could even just find one to go on the line it would mean that I could plug the miners in one at a time, at the very least, to test their individual power draw so that I can make sure everything is working properly. Planning for more amps than I actually need would just reduce the maximum number of miners that I can safely run.

That... sounds like total nonsense to me. I don't know anyone personally who hasn't encountered a voltage irregularity or a power surge at some point in their lives. Personally, in every location I have ever lived - in both the United States and in Canada - I had power surges. Sometimes the device is protected by a surge protector, sometimes it isn't. It depends on the quality of the protector if it survives or not, hence why I prefer to have more than one line of protection. (I've only ever had one case of a surge protector actually being responsible for killing a device)


That doesn't make me feel any better. Last time I ran a miner on ATX a power surge resulted in the PSU erupting in flames. Thankfully I was there to put it out. I was lucky. It could have burned my house down, and that one was brand new. Besides that, a surge protector tends to be less expensive overall than a PSU (not to mention the time delay in getting the miners back online if the PSUs all fried - which represents lost revenue). Obviously I'd rather it failed than the miner, but ideally I want neither to fail.That's the whole point of surge protection.

For my 120v equipment, I use voltage regulators, surge protectors, and uninterruptible power supplies rather to keep me going for an hour even in the event of a power outage or worse - a power flicker. I have NEVER had any problems with power when using such a setup, hence why I want to replicate it in 240v.



Why?

At 240 volts and 15 amps, the max power draw is 3600 watts. Technically, the line gets derated, but at 20% derating it SHOULD still be sufficient to run 2 miners, assuming the power draw in the specifications is accurate that is. According to Bitmain, the power draw for it's Antminer S9 plugged into it's APW3++ (on 240v) is 1323W with a power discrepency of +/- 10% which means that the maximum power draw should be 1455.3 watts each. Assuming two miners were plugged into the same circuit, and both just happened to have the worst power rating, they would draw 2910.6 watts from the wall. At 240v that would use 12.1275 amps. Derating 15 amps to 12 amps would mean that it's 0.1275 amps over, but only in the case of the worst possible power draw. If I was able to actually read the power draw I'd have a clear idea of what is needed though. I could, for example, combine an efficient with an inefficient to balance things out. As long as the two miners working together are not drawing more than 2880 watts that should meet within the derating standards and draw only 12 amps. Right now, I only have one miner plugged into a single circuit. There's a reason why I want to read the watt usage.

In any case, the electrician actually installed 20 amp breaker switches because that's all they had on hand. It's just that the outlet itself is rated for 15 amps. Technically, I could switch them to NEMA 6-15 out for NEMA 6-20 if there really is a problem with that and use the breakers in place, but the problem there is that the breaker box and all the breakers are rated for 240v max and the NEMA 6-20 is rated for 250v so I am unsure how that would affect things, even though I can easily plug a NEMA 6-15 plug into a NEMA 6-20 outlet.  (that, and I literally JUST dropped the money to have these outlets installed.)

Even if I did that, I'd still want proper surge protection, and I'd want to know exactly how much power is being drawn. Even an inline watt meter to go in front of the planned sub panel that will be used specifically for the miners would help if there is nothing else.

Hi, I decided to have NEMA 6-15P outlets installed in my home to run mining hardware, due in large part to recommendations for 240v in mining and given that this was a standard available in America. It definitely runs better than my experience on 120v (and as a side note I'm detecting around 10% the EMFs from the 240v wire compared to my 120v wires), but my concern here is that I can't seem to find surge protectors, voltage regulators, or even a single watt meter and I was wondering if any other miners encountered any, or else what their solutions were.

For reference, this is a NEMA 6-15P outlet:

http://internationalconfig.com/prod_shot/5642-i.jpg


All of the 240v surge protectors and voltage regulators I can find are for european outlets, which probably wouldn't work right given a frequency difference even if I could find an electrician to install outlets like that (and I can't, since it's not approved by code)

I was able to find a power strip for it, but it doesn't specify that it's a surge protector and I couldn't run more than 2 miners on a single 15-amp breaker anyway.

http://www.internationalconfig.com/icc6.asp?item=60400

The electrician said that I can have installed a surge protector for the entire house, directly on the line - but only after I update the breaker box because there's no more room for it. Even when I do, I'd prefer having more than one line of defense. They had no idea about voltage regulators, even though I currently use them for all of my 120v computer equipment. I thought about installing an inline meter, since I was going to end up with 2 panels - one panel for business use only, so figured it could go there, but they weren't familiar with anything.

I would hope that, considering the importance of protecting such equipment, someone else has found a solution. Thanks!

I completely agree. In the short term at least, the Lightning network is clearly needed as a solution to congestion by offloading transactions from large centralized companies with large numbers of transactions so that there would be less congestion, and therefore lower fees and faster confirmations for everyone else. I am totally on board with that use case.

However, my concerns are more for the long term. With what happens when miners need to be paid in transaction fees to remain in operation at all. In order for the network to be profitable for miners when the last coin has been mined (and, really, long before then) we'd have to have a shift towards being paid in transaction fees which means the network itself must both expand to handle more transactions and to also have an increased number of transactions overall. If we kept the block ceiling where it is, or even just a little above it, there won't really be enough transactions for the miners to benefit enough to remain in operation.

My point is basically that we shouldn't rely heavily on the lightning network as a silver bullet, and we should also plan for a single change to account for all the changes to block sizes that will be needed rather than dealing with these problems every few years on repetition.


I hope it can stay that way

According to the Lightning network FAQ:


That means, yes, one transaction is needed to open a channel and another is needed to close the channel, but on-chain. That doesn't mean there's a limit to how long the channel can remain open though, so in cases of people who leave it open indefinitely that ends up being even worse for everyone else who uses on chain transactions compared to those who occasionally close the channel.

Additionally, I never said that people couldn't pay directly. I said that people who weren't sending a large number of transactions wouldn't benefit from use of the lightning network themselves. (although I did make it clear that in the short term it has a benefit by easing congestion)


Please don't respond to threads with a condescending attitude, especially with inaccurate information, lest you be seen as trolling. That last like was unnecessary and detracts from the conversation flow. Even if I was wrong (and I wasn't) there's nothing wrong with being wrong and being corrected.

That's good to hear.



Good question and good points. To give an example, the last time I wrote a sorting algorithm for a CS class I measured the metrics by setting an integer to increment each time any checks were performed. In this way I was able to get reliable information separate from the processing power of a given machine. All I focused on was the core essence of what the program was doing.

So what does a node to? What is the core essence of it's functionality that acts to limit the capabilities of the network?


So then, a reliable metric for node operation is to keep track of the information being broadcast to the network. Since it's the capabilities of the network that we care about, maybe there would be a simple integer appended to the information broadcast to the network indicating if the node is below or near it's peak capabilities? If every node attached this information to the messages it transmits to the network, and then it was read as an aggregate from the completed blocks, it would only add 2 bytes to the minimum size for a block and then the block as a whole could be read to determine the average. The information transmitted is also an aggregate of various factors applied to the machine, to give an average which ends up being more of a vote.

So, as an example: Suppose we have 10 nodes participating in a specific block. 6 of them report a 0 - indicating that they are well below capacity. 3 reports a 1 to indicate that are near capacity. 1 reports a 2 indicating it is at it's limit. That means we have 6 votes to increase the cap, and 4 votes against, but only IF the current block size equals the current block size limit. If they are full, the next block has a slightly higher ceiling. The amount of which could be based on an additional digit within that integer as some signal to the network of how much more it can handle. The consequence is that the node which is at capacity won't be able to participate in as many transactions, so will get fewer votes.

That is a simplified example since a given node might have thousands of transactions that it has participated in, but that's OK. If it handles more transactions it has more votes, meaning that smaller nodes that are not as capable might participate in less transactions given it's self identified capability rating. Giving node operators who have a wallet attached to the node a piece of the transaction fee for participating in this process would provide incentive to a node operator to upscale to handle more transactions.

Now, if the reverse happens where a majority of node operators vote that they are at capacity, the network might cap there, or if the votes are leaning towards it being too much the network might scale back - even if the block isn't full. A formula could decide how much to scale it back as well.

I don't see any reason why we can't do this.

That scenario would still see to decrease the usability of direct bitcoin transactions. It means that everyone has to pay more fees entirely for the benefit of a small group of centralized companies paying less fees overall.

To give an example, suppose that we are in a future where miners only get paid in transaction fees and the lightning network is heavily relied upon to compensate for having never implemented dynamic scaling. Online merchants who want to process millions of transactions a day around the world utilize a system where one on block transaction opens the channel for the day, and another on block transaction closes the channel for the day. All transactions that go through their payment system is taken care of in one go keeping the fees low for everyone sending transactions between the two companies. However, the people who initially send the coin to those centralized wallets are going to pay extremely high amounts which would discourage independent wallet usage (and increase the risk of what happens when centralized companies go out of business). Meanwhile, the people who just want to send money to someone across the world wouldn't benefit from the lightning network at all since they are dealing with just a single transaction, so they have to pay more as well.

The reason why everyone is stuck paying more is because anyone with multiple transactions just processes one, which means that the cost has to be spread across fewer payers, and those with less transactions ultimately pay the most.


I agree with that sentiment. Even though the lightning network itself is decentralized, it's only value (that I can see) is in allowing two centralized systems to communicate with a total of 2 transactions - one to open the stream of communication, and one to close the stream of communication. That means that, for example, two exchanges could use the lightning network to allow inexpensive transactions to flow between practically instantly, but it won't allow two individuals using a decentralized platform to send anything at any increased speed or decreased cost. While I actually do like the lightning network as a tool for reducing the congestion (why should I have to wait because a big company has a million transactions it wants to process?), I don't like the idea of the entire network depending on it for avoiding all congestion. We still need a solution to keep the network working smoothly for everyone else.

As it stands right now, I've stopped sending Bitcoin all together. It's too expensive and takes too long. When I want to send someone anything, I'm either using Litecoin or Dashcoin. My opinion is that as it becomes easier and easier to transfer between coins - especially if fully decentralized platforms come about - Bitcoin will become less usable to the average person without dynamic scaling.  


My opinion is that an open cap is too unrestrictive, but a solid cap is too restrictive. That's why I think we need a way for the network to raise the cap on it's own within a set of limitations so that it can't bloat.

EDIT: I took a look at your thread, which looks similar to the first part of what I suggested here, but what's to stop the block size from increasing too fast for the network to handle? I think dynamic scaling needs to focus on both the needs of the network as well as the capability of the network with two distinct scaling solutions used together. The first adjusts the network according to the needs of the network, and the second adjust the network according to the capabilities of the network. Together, it allows flexibility, but there would have to be some incentive for the node operators to be willing to expand to handle the increased traffic.

I just noticed something else: The time of the transaction that hasn't been broadcast keeps changing. So, for example, a transaction that was supposedly sent 2 days ago now says that it was started less than 2 hours ago. However, the time for the transaction on the side of the sending address remains unchanged, which is weird.

So, for example, I took a look at a random transaction from one of their address started December 7th, and within their address the correct date is shown, but now it says it was started today under it's transaction ID:

https://chain.so/tx/BTC/b2b8f5163966f059a59d9aa56000a6ec9ab0d3fd58fe66eb628787237be692b9

That means it's not even operating on a proper queue, where we'd expect a first in first out order. Some transactions are confirming fast, while others take days to over a week.

huh. I didn't notice that they put USD values beside coin values now. That's what was throwing me off. I'm used to only sending coin values, not seeing USD values as an option at all.

I was able to send the coin, but unlike sending bitcoin it wasn't broadcast to the network right away, so now I'm screwed because 5 minutes elapsed without it being broadcast and the transaction on shapeshift expired. So apparently it's not safe to use altcoins from coinbase at all.  

EDIT: yeah, 10 minutes later, the transaction doesn't show up on Blockcypher. Coinbase hasn't broadcast the transaction, so now it will take a few days to get the mess sorted out. When I send coin from my own wallet externally the transactions are instant, even if they don't confirm right away. Now at least I know that I have to send to an external wallet and pay transaction fees twice in order to exchange anything.

https://live.blockcypher.com/ltc/tx/b5c126b212ec670381e50d784571eede6883cf19d86b33d936f40701db8d37d7

um... what are you talking about?

I tried sending 0.16 LTC, which equals around $45 USD. Their minimuim is 0.001 LTC, which is equal to around $2.85.

Even when I tried sending more than one FULL Litecoin, the same error ALWAYS appears.

Additionally, that link you referred to has nothing to do with sending Litecoin. I have no trouble buying and selling on coinbase. This time I specifically purchased 0.16664102 LTC using funds from my USD wallet, and it was a complete success, but the trouble is SENDING altcoins to external wallet addresses. That I am unable to do because the system is flagging ALL transactions of any size as below the minimum.

I have been trying, for a few weeks, to send Litecoin and Ethereum from my Coinbase wallet to an external wallet, but Coinbase won't allow me to do so. No matter how much I send, it always says:

"Amount is below the minimum (0.00100000 LTC) required to send on-blockchain."

and

"Amount is below the minimum (0.00100000 LTC) required to send on-blockchain."

The amount I have been trying to send is way more than that minimum, and I always have plenty left over to cover fees, but all Coinbase will let me do is buy and sell. I can't actually use it. For starters, it makes no sense to impose arbitrary limits, but isn't it a bit... well... scammy to lock people out of using their cryptocurrency? I can't even exchange it for Bitcoin (which will send without any problem) because they don't allow buying one coin with the funds of another coin (which makes no sense either) so if I want to send anything my only option is to sell the coin I just bought, pay them yet another fee, then buy Bitcoin, and pay them another fee still, just to be able to send what I should have been able to send.

Of course, we contacted Coinbase support, but no response to that in over a week. Similarly, my business partner has been trying to have our business account setup to use our business name since they've had all our business documented and FEIN and business checking account setup for multiple years, but every time we ask them about about fixing that they just ignore us. Last try contacting them was a month ago, with no response.

So without the ability to use a coin, and without any responsiveness from coinbase, what can we do? Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find any exchange to switch to that will do business in Illinois, so we usually combined Coinbase with Shapeshift. Didn't expect this type of problem though.

Here's a screenshot of the most recent attempt as proof, with address censored out.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Tec5rMEx2d9e4_LkWNfq5ozh_OFoVqr

Similar. In that case though the size is set purely by the miner who mines the block, so it could still lead to bloat that would potentially cripple the bandwidth of a node operator. I mean, basically it would create an incentive for mining pools to accept more and more transactions, but at some point there would be a bottleneck that could cause network problems. To me that seems more like not having a ceiling value at all, whereas I am of the opinion that we need a ceiling, just one that scales with network capability.

That being said, the system of requiring pools to give up a piece of the reward to do so is an interesting solution. I wonder how well that would work in practice though. For it to be worth giving up X% of a block reward , the transaction fees would have to more than offset that. With heavy congestion it would certainly help motivate a miner to alleviate that, but wouldn't it also create the risk of failing to complete the block all together? I mean, as I understand, there is never really any progress to completing the block. It's more or less a lottery where more hashing rate just means more tries per second, but accepting a higher difficulty to process more transactions effectively means the odds of "guessing" correct goes down. Operating the entire pool without such a risk might very well decrease the number of transactions they can confirm because it increases the chance someone else will beat them to it.

Another problem, as your reference points out, is that it would introduce an investment attack. Giving a large pool of miners the ability to artificially inflate the difficulty rating long term would allow other miners to be pushed out completely - namely those using less efficient hardware, or living in areas with a higher electric cost. It would fundamentally alter the minimum price of production as well.

For example, I calculated that if the price of Bitcoin fell to $3k USD with the current difficulty level people paying 10 cents per kwh would only earn around $100 a month per Antminer S9, 20 cents per kwh would just break even, 30 cents per kwh would mean total loss. For those running Avalon Miners, which have more electric cost for the hash rate, such a price would mean no profit at all. That's why I place the minimum price of Bitcoin around that price - because that's when the network starts to break down without miners going offline.

As it stands already, there is not enough competition in the ASIC miner scene, but there is some competition. Wouldn't it therefore benefit a company like Bitmain to use their miners to inflate the network difficulty long term to make their competition not profitable at all? To drive them out of business? Similarly, wouldn't it benefit a country that wants to destroy Bitcoin to buy up (or seize) a large number of miners to create their own pool, then inflate the difficulty in such a way that they neither make or lose money on the operation, so that no one else can make or lose money, thus forcing all miners out, and then they simply flip a switch to shut down the entire remaining network?

Seems like giving miners that much power is power too much.

I'm finding the types of delays in their transactions very suspicious. Ordinarily, when a transaction is sent, it appears immediately and then depending on congestion the confirmations might take up to a few days. However, when they send a transaction it doesn't even broadcast to the blockchain for a few days to even a week. They all say "unassigned" under block number when looking up the transaction ID on the pages they link to, but on literally every other site the transaction ID can't be found.

As best as I can tell, it looks like they are using an internal queue to send through a network that is independently congested, but why would anyone do that? Is it possible for them to send and receive coins that otherwise would have a transaction ID signed? I mean, I know this is possible with an offline network because the blockchain won't know until it is broadcast if the coin has been spent or not. Maybe they are just signing the transactions and putting in a long line on purpose to maintain the illusion that the transactions have been sent?

They claim the delays are due to unconfirmed transactions on the blockchain, but since the transactions have never even reached the blockchain - some not for over a week - how can blockchain congestion be responsible? That makes this even more suspicious.

My last withdraw was set just a day prior to their announcement that they are suspending Bitcoin withdraws until the congestion is resolved, but, lol, at this rate that might as well be never. Still haven't received anything from them though. All I know for sure is that during such delays I have no problems sending Bitcoin normally. It seems to me that if they really weren't running a scam they would have a transparent payment system. Maybe even pay to everyone in a batch whenever they reach their minimum automatically on a daily interval so a single wallet program could do it.