Well, shit. Way to ruin my whole idea. I have a workaround though so I'll update the OP now. Edit: updated it.

The purpose of the site:

- It buys Bter codes at a discount. For example if someone has 1 BTC in Bter we will pay them 0.1 BTC for it.

Flow of the site:

- Person enters their Bter code (actually just the part before the -) and clicks Get Quote button.

- The site validates the code and determines how many BTC it is for.

- The site makes the person an offer of (BTC * 0.1).

- They enter the full Bter code, the address they want to receive BTC payment at, and their email address. They click Sell Bter Code button.

- The site redeems the Bter code and verifies the balance reflects the increased BTC.

- The site sends the person their payment of (BTC * 0.1).

The site keeps all transactions in a database so I can resolve them manually in case of any error.

No fancy design needed. The site is all about functionality.

Prefer PHP/MySQL but Python would be ok too. Must run on a standard Linux VPS.

PM me your quote, how long it will take you to make it, and something that proves you have the relevant experience.

Edit: So my original idea of buying Bter codes won't work right now because you can't generate Bter codes for BTC or altcoins. It will still work for Fiat though.

So instead of the below procedure, if you have a Bter account with BTC or altcoin balances that you want to sell (must meet the minimums below), I will buy the whole account from you at the discounts listed below. Bter's API still reports all of the altcoin balances so I will be able to verify your account balance that way.

Just PM me with how much BTC/altcoins your account has as well as you remember and we'll figure out how to do the trade.


If you have BTC, altcoins or fiat trapped in Bter I will buy them from you at a discount.

BTC: 10%, minimum 0.5 BTC
Fiat: 25%, minimum $500 USD or equivalent in CNY
Altcoins: 25-50% (depends on how stable the coin is), minimum = equivalent of $1,000 USD

How it works:

1. Let me know what you have (via PM only) and I'll send a quote [e.g. you have 5 BTC and I quote you 0.5 BTC].
2. If you agree, do a withdrawal to generate the Bter code.
3. Send me the first half of the code (the part before the -) and the BTC address you want to receive payment at.
4. I will validate and lock the code on Bter and send you the BTC.
5. You send me the full Bter code and I will redeem it.

If you are selling BTC or fiat steps 1 & 2 are not necessary since I will always quote 10% or 25% for BTC and fiat respectively. So you can start with step 3 to speed the process up. Or start with step 1 if you want extra confirmation of what the quote will be.

PM if interested, I will not reply to offers in the thread. Let me know exactly what you have when you PM or I will ignore your message.

Can't tell if passionate troll or just stupid.  In any case I get the last word: just check back in a year.  This thread will be deader than your brain cells and your idea will never have gotten off the ground.  And you will still be a lazy hippie whose life hasn't improved one bit in all that time.

BCT needs to integrate some type of Reddit-style voting system so moronic threads like this can be downvoted into oblivion.  Yes that means nearly all of the altcoin forum would go away but at least what was left would be worth reading.

100 grams = ~$4,200

For an entire currency.  With mining spread out over 12 months.  I'm not going to do the calculations but the cost of electricity probably exceeds the worth of the coins, or at least makes them barely profitable.

Anyone that started mining this just because it mentions gold needs to rethink their evaluation process.  Or you know, actually start having an evaluation process.

Let's see...

- Brand new site
- Brand new account
- Basically zero revenue to date
- Can't even refer to your own company name consistently ("raising finance on Crowdcube as affordable")
- Wants 200BTC for 20% = makes company worth $600,000.

http://pokerfacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/barack-obama-seems-legit.jpeg

So I originally came here to post this idea:

- A service that runs all coin daemons (Bitcoin and alts) and keeps them up to date
- If you wanted access you'd pay a few sheckles and you'd get a shell account with a read-only copy of ~/.bitcoin (symlinked or similar so it's always up to date)
- If you wanted write access you'd pay a bit more and get a writable copy (maybe everything but wallet.dat is still read-only?).  In this case a private daemon would be running just for you so you'd pay extra.
- You'd get a username/password that would allow you to connect to the daemon and use the API to read or write as needed

The reason for the service is of course that it's such a pain to keep all of these wallets and blockchains up to date on your own computer.  They can take forever to sync and use lots of disk space and for some reason are even CPU intensive when they're downloading the blockchain.

Today I came across a few services that are doing something similar:

- http://blockchain.info/: Well of course we all know this one.  Bitcoin only, access is via custom API.
- https://apicoin.io/: "Put the Bitcoin node in the Cloud!"  Bitcoin only, access is via custom API.
- http://www.blockcypher.com/: "Powering block chains in the cloud".  Bitcoin and Litecoin, homepage suggests they may add new coins, access is via custom unified API.
- https://helloblock.io/: "Focus on building Bitcoin apps, not infrastructure."  Bitcoin only, access is via custom API.
- https://chain.com/: "The Block Chain API for Developers"  Bitcoin only, access is via custom API.
- http://blockr.io/: BTC, LTC, TBTC, DGC, QRK, PPC, MEC, access is via custom unified API.

I'm not including normal block explorers on the list because they don't have a unified API and are usually very slow and unreliable.

Of the existing services blockr.io comes the closest but they haven't added a new coin in forever and the alt ones they have aren't really useful.

In order to keep up with all the new coins that come out, such a service could even allow the coin devs themselves to maintain their coin's daemon.  If the service was popular enough every dev would want to their coin to be included.  They could be given access to a chrooted account or similar to set up the daemon and then the unified API just routes calls to it.  And best of all if a coin daemon breaks or gets on the wrong fork or whatever the dev will be the one getting yelled at and not the service operator.

If you wanted to get really advanced you could even make an API/protocol that allows the wallet.dat to be stored locally while making calls to the hosted daemon.  Like Electrum and Multibit, but with more direct access to the daemon and a unified API for all coins.

So, any thoughts on such a service?  Any other existing services that offer something similar?

Edit: Also another related idea: you could create a snapshot of all the daemons and create VPSs on demand for customers that they could connect to via VNC.  That way with a few clicks the customer would have a desktop open that has all of the wallets, available and up-to-date as of the time the snapshot was created.  They could do whatever they need to and kill the VPS afterward.

Edit 2: There's also a GitHub repo that is trying to unify block explorer APIs.  It doesn't solve the problem of block explorers being slow and unreliable though: https://github.com/RCasatta/blockchain-common-api

I know it's a ton and work and probably won't happen, but it would be awesome if we could add coin addresses and have their balance automatically updated.

Ok, one more post.  The point richiela made about the order book is an important one.  Say the max number of coins in the ANN was 48,000,000.  Typically only a few % of total coins are listed on exchanges.  Even if Bittrex was the only exchange for that coin, they might have only 2,000,000 coins.  So a scam dev could still inflate the moneysupply by 24x before such a precautionary check would notice.

A possible solution would be to alert when more than a certain % of expected total supply is listed.  But that would have to be just an alert for someone to investigate, not something that would stop trading.

I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but you are assuming the "real" fork is the hard fork released in 1.2.0 and the other fork is "broken".  That is more of an opinion than a fact.  The original client as released was designed to do exactly what it did.  It has been in the wild for days and the chain is much longer than the forked 1.2.0 chain.  Just because most people didn't understand how the original client worked doesn't mean the chain it built is invalid.

If you disagree, imagine everyone switched to the 1.2.0 chain.  But two weeks later the new trojan inserted by the dev into 1.2.0 is discovered and it is realized that he profitted again starting at block 14000.  So now a 1.3.0 forked version is released that resets everything back to block 14000.  But you had bought coins on the 1.2.0 chain.  Which was is the "real" chain now?

Anyway this is my last point in this thread.  Too much time spent on a shitcoin.

Such a change would be a good precaution and I think it's likely Bittrex will consider adding it.  However you don't seem to have grasped the concept of max number of total coins yet.  The number of coins in the ANN posting is supposed to match the number of coins the source code will produce.  In most cases that number matches, in this case it didn't because the dev lied about the max number.

So a precautionary check like the one you suggest would be a good idea, but the number stored in the database could get out of date.  A coin could legitimately update their source code to produce more coins than originally intended, and therefore such a precautionary check could halt trading in a legitimate coin.

It's a trade-off that Bittrex will have to decide on, it's not a completely obvious choice to make (although I think they should add it, the trade-off seems highly in favor of it).

You don't have to investigate the code, but you should.  You should either review it yourself or you can rely on opinions of people who have.

When you buy a stock you should review the finances of the company to determine if it's solvent and a good investment.  If you don't do this yourself you can choose to rely on the opinions of people who have (stock analysts and ratings agencies).

In fact, a cryptocoin analyst service would make perfect sense.  The analyst would review the source code and the promise of each coin and pass that information on to their subscribers.  An accurate cryptocoin version of S&P would have rated this coin an F.

Yes, it was supposed to happen.  That was my point.  The inflation in the number of coins was part of the source code and was destined to happen.  You might not have known it was going to happen, but that doesn't make it invalid.  Again, the moneysupply is decided by the network and is not a fixed number.  The "max number of coins" you see in ANN posts are not definitive.  The source code and those who run it are the definitive reference for the moneysupply.

The coins were not invalid.  The source code and those on the network running it decide how many coins there are, who owns them, etc.  Ninjacoin operated exactly as it was intended to do.  How it was intended to operate may have been different from what you and everyone else (except the dev) expected, but that is a interpersonal issue not a technical one.

If you had your wallet open and were staking, your client was complicit in the inflation of the moneysupply.  Your client agreed on the new higher number, your client validated the new blocks, etc.

Some quick facts:

- The moneysupply is decided by the network.  There is no fixed number for Bittrex to compare against.  The moneysupply went up due to the dev's trojan, and if Bittrex checked against the moneysupply they would have been checking against the new huge number, just like everyone else on the network.

- Check the github tree.  The new 1.2.0 release was not submitted as a patch, the entire repo was replaced.  This was certainly intentional to try to make it harder to see what changed.  Both to hide how obvious the original trojan was, and probably to hide the new trojan that was added in 1.2.0.  There is likely no "correct" or "clean" fork, just a choice between two trojanned forks.

- The 1.2.0 release was committed by linked67, not the original dev.  Interesting.  Maybe he forgot to sign out of his real account and into his shill account.

- I lost money on this coin, but I don't blame Bittrex one bit.  They allowed people to buy and sell Ninjacoin, that is their role as an exchange.  Ninjacoin was a shitty trojanned product and there should have been no buyers, but lots of people bought anyway.  It's like blaming NYSE because Enron when bust.  Bittrex didn't force you to buy a shitty coin, they just gave you the opportunity to make a poor decision.  And in this case the source code was even out there for anyone to review and nobody did.

In summary if you bought this coin you bought a coin that was publicly designed to inflate the money supply at block 14000.  Bittrex allowed you to do that.  Congratulations on your purchase, next time you'll be more cautious about what you buy.  I know I will.

I'm not affiliated with Bittrex, just pointing out some facts.  Your hatred should be directed at the dev.