Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 52 results by jadair10
Re: anyone know when "N of 2N-1" paper wallets will be available?
Preview of an interview with Alan Reiner of Armory can be found in E54 - Towards a Bitcoin Future near the end. Full interview in E55.
No, they are not getting processed because the fees taxes attached to the transaction are too low.
A desktop bitcoin client such as Armory will transmit a transaction to how many nodes?
From my understanding the transaction will hang around for some time, but most miners ignore malicious transactions like this so it is essentially discarded.
I believe you could resubmit the transaction after funding, I've seen people modify stalled transactions to include omitted transaction fees.
Are you "missing" BTC because you tried to manually push an invalid transaction? I think there is a simple command that should make your wallet recheck all your addresses, which would make the coins "appear" again.
No. I've just seen unconfirmed transactions on the blockchain explorer (@ blockchain.info) which have hung around as unconfirmed for days because the address appeared to have insufficient funds at least that is why I thought it was marked as unconfirmed.I believe you could resubmit the transaction after funding, I've seen people modify stalled transactions to include omitted transaction fees.
Are you "missing" BTC because you tried to manually push an invalid transaction? I think there is a simple command that should make your wallet recheck all your addresses, which would make the coins "appear" again.
In my opinion, the blockchain explorer should note the transaction as invalid or invalid with reason listed; maybe it works this way, but I suspect that it is just discarded. Are invalid transactions propagated through the whole p2p network even if invalid?
Re: 300 BTC Coding Contest: Distributed Exchange (MasterCoin Developer Thread)
This thread is devoted to the current MasterCoin contest (this thread was originally for contest #1).
JR,
Can you add a link in the OP to where the discussion begins for *this* contest so people can jump right to the new discussion? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292628.msg3381794#msg3381794
Private keys are used to sign Bitcoin txs to "prove" the tx was created by someone with access to the private key.
Public keys are used to verify Bitcoin txs are properly signed by the correct private key.
Public keys are used to verify Bitcoin txs are properly signed by the correct private key.
When you say Bitcoin txs are signed, what exactly is signed? I mean, is everything signed? the outputs, the inputs, and any other parts making up the transaction that I might have missed
Re: Getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations - Community pledge
As for picking fruit... Wikipedia is no Rosa Parks; it lacks both the Power of Strong Ties & the Power of Weak Ties in my opinion.
To learn more about this concept of Strong Ties & Weak Ties, which was outlined in The Power of Habit by I found this video: http://youtu.be/u8B6_e8SnRs
To learn more about this concept of Strong Ties & Weak Ties, which was outlined in The Power of Habit by I found this video: http://youtu.be/u8B6_e8SnRs
If you don't want to contribute bitcoin or money, then contribute some time making their pages reflect the truth, an arduous task I know given the amount of Wikiganda that occurs.
Gentlemen, please see also this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270255.msg3313546#msg3313546
Gentlemen, please see also this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270255.msg3313546#msg3313546
Re: Getting Wikipedia to accept Bitcoin donations - Community pledge
Most of us will agree that having the Wikimedia foundation (known for operating Wikipedia) accept Bitcoin donations could be a very important milestone in Bitcoin's adoption. They are famous for having refused for a long time with obscure reasons, but I believe they are warming up to the idea, and that it's high time we take concrete action about it.
Why is Wikipedia accepting bitcoin so important? This detail needs to be quantified and qualified. Is there not any other lower hanging fruit than Wikipedia?In a recent discussion on Quora, Jimmy Wales has stated a few reasons to reject Bitcoin donations, and surprisingly they were all quite tangible. By this point it is already assumed that the donations will be immediately converted to USD via a provider such as BitPay, to help with accounting and make it easier to use the funds. The main objections were:
1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.
This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about.
2. Adding more donation options is known to create "choice paralysis" and decrease the total amount donated. They have a process of A/B testing for measuring the effect of adding new options; this testing will increase the cost of even considering to add this option.
To this Jimmy suggested that they could add information about Bitcoin donations in a separate page not linked to from the main donations page. I find this to be a very acceptable compromise; we'll be able to donate, and we'll be able to tell people Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin donations.
3. Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do.
I believe this can be alleviated with proper framing, and that making this available only from an orphan page will further reduce the perceived impact.
It seems out of your list that item 3 is the real reason for their concern: "Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do."1. The amount that would be donated via Bitcoin is too small to be worth the trouble.
This objection is the easiest to refute; all we need is to demonstrate the quantitative aspects of our willingness to donate, and this is what this post is mostly about.
2. Adding more donation options is known to create "choice paralysis" and decrease the total amount donated. They have a process of A/B testing for measuring the effect of adding new options; this testing will increase the cost of even considering to add this option.
To this Jimmy suggested that they could add information about Bitcoin donations in a separate page not linked to from the main donations page. I find this to be a very acceptable compromise; we'll be able to donate, and we'll be able to tell people Wikipedia accepts Bitcoin donations.
3. Accepting bitcoins can be perceived as making a value judgement about Bitcoin, which they are hesitant to do.
I believe this can be alleviated with proper framing, and that making this available only from an orphan page will further reduce the perceived impact.
Item 1: Apparently, we need to quantify how much "trouble" it is to accept money. I am serious. This not just an issue at Wikipedia but will be an issue for any charity/organization. Quantifying the "worth", well, what is the worth of Wikipedia? That is a "value judgement" about Wikipedia and is best left to each individual, but I can say, Wikipedia's worth is probably much greater than the amount of donations they receive. Don't get me wrong, I think a community pledge has its merits.
Item 2: "Choice paralysis"... a study should be conducted to quantify this claim; possibly a similar study has already been conducted and has been published somewhere. But on the surface, it seems that Wikipedia does not worry too much about this as they already except payments through moneybookers.com (Skrill). In other words, this argument is a smoke screen. As a community, we should incur the cost of this study (i.e., testing), not Wikipedia. And this study should be unbiased and published appropriately.
Item 3: Being switzerland is just good policy... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it. And you may never really know the real reason why. It may be that buying Linden dollars on Second Life with real money makes some people's stomachs churn.
It may be more valuable to target lower hanging fruit and use the resources on conducting studies to prove our point.
As for Wikipedia, I proposed a different approach here... which is basically to use the fundamentals of Wikipedia (i.e., to document history) against itself approach. We can not put Wikipedia in the history of bitcoin right now, but we can put them in as the quintessential charity that does not accept bitcoin.
Thoughts?
The solution to getting Wikipedia to accept bitcoin is as follows:
I would not be surprised if the FAQ page suddenly got revised and the bitcoin question removed entirely.
- A formal response needs to be published to Wikipedia's statement listed on their FAQ page:QuoteThe Wikimedia Foundation, as a donor-driven organization, has a fiduciary duty to be responsible and prudent with its money. This has been interpreted to mean that we do not accept "artificial" currencies that is, those not backed by the full faith and credit of an issuing government. We do, however, strive to provide as many methods of donating as possible and continue to monitor Bitcoin with interest and may revisit this position should circumstances change.Reference: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en#Why_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_not_currently_accept_Bitcoin.3F
This response needs to meet Wikipedia's requirements for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and should also address the importance of Wikipedia to bitcoin (i.e., Why is Wikipedia accepting bitcoin important?), also the incorrect use of the word "artificial", possibly address the "not backed by the full faith and credit of an issuing government", along with explaining that the donations could be liquidated instantly rendering the implication that accepting bitcoin would cause them to not meet their fiduciary duties incorrect and that by not accepting bitcoin, one could claim that they are actually doing just the opposite.
It may be wise to have the response(s) come from people who are notable. - Then update the wiki page on bitcoin referencing both the formal response and the Wikipedia FAQ page.
- Let the dust settle (i.e., there will be some dispute on the Talk page as to if this information should be on the bitcoin wiki)
- Then, write a formal letter requesting them to revisit accepting bitcoin claiming that the circumstances have changed.
I would not be surprised if the FAQ page suddenly got revised and the bitcoin question removed entirely.
Re: Why I believe Mastercoin should be encoded on the bitcoin blockchain
But in truth it is a competing alt-coin that uses the bitcoin infrastructure. Its like you said you are going "sailing" but are actually just sitting in your car on a ferry. MC is technically a service on top of Bitcoin but in essence it is a separate coin.
Bitcoin is more like an aircraft carrier named Honeybadger which was built for the masses which is in an ocean, owned by no country, and surrounded by sharks. And Mastercoin is like a small motocross track with 100 or so individuals trying to organize where to put in its first jump.The original honeybadger video if you missed it.
Re: OFFICIAL LAUNCH: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”
Here's an email I got from somebody worried about MasterCoin clones:
MasterCoin is vulnerable to clones, although the problem fades as the MasterCoin project continues to gain momentum.
It's helpful to try to imagine the uphill battle a clone would face. Who would launch it? The number of people who have the reputation to launch something like this isn't huge. Would anybody take them seriously? If you were an investor, would you send money to a cloned project with it's own Exodus Address?
A clone would have to offer some MAJOR innovations, and they would have to move very fast. In all likelihood, we would blatantly steal any innovations we saw in somebody else's clone, which I have said multiple times, in an attempt to discourage people from trying it
JR,Quote
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:28 PM, John ----- wrote:
Hi JR,
I just listened to your talk with the bitangles and am concerned with your current protection against being "forked", which is probably the wrong word choice, but provides a nice pun for what could happen with the introduction of alt-MasterCoins.
Bitcoin would not have the same first mover advantage if an alt-coin was created two months after Bitcoin. The moment someone sees any value to Mastercoin, then they will either consider buying Mastercoin on the open market, or copy the source code and create their own Exodus address.
Thoughts???
John -----
Hi JR,
I just listened to your talk with the bitangles and am concerned with your current protection against being "forked", which is probably the wrong word choice, but provides a nice pun for what could happen with the introduction of alt-MasterCoins.
Bitcoin would not have the same first mover advantage if an alt-coin was created two months after Bitcoin. The moment someone sees any value to Mastercoin, then they will either consider buying Mastercoin on the open market, or copy the source code and create their own Exodus address.
Thoughts???
John -----
MasterCoin is vulnerable to clones, although the problem fades as the MasterCoin project continues to gain momentum.
It's helpful to try to imagine the uphill battle a clone would face. Who would launch it? The number of people who have the reputation to launch something like this isn't huge. Would anybody take them seriously? If you were an investor, would you send money to a cloned project with it's own Exodus Address?
A clone would have to offer some MAJOR innovations, and they would have to move very fast. In all likelihood, we would blatantly steal any innovations we saw in somebody else's clone, which I have said multiple times, in an attempt to discourage people from trying it
You don't have to mask my name. I only send via email so not to sound like a troll, but more like a subconscious. I do accept tips if you value any of my opinions (a shot out to Adam B. Levine's Project Watershed).
Why do you think that MasterCoin's vulnerability to clones fades as the project gains momentum? I suspect you are right, but... According to BitcoinMagazine, Tonal Bitcoin, the first alt-coin, did not come out for 2 years after Bitcoin. I did not read why Tonal Bitcoin failed. I do not think Mastercoin will be granted anywhere near that amount of time before something nefarious is attempted.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this or other attack vectors that Mastercoin investors should try to protect themselves against?
Re: OFFICIAL LAUNCH: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”
And to top it all off, I made an animated intro video using the new logo:
https://vimeo.com/73592269
Tips of any sort are greatly appreciated! My address: 13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw
Depending on what you guys think, I can probably help out more with explanation videos/ branding.
Excellent work. Wow.https://vimeo.com/73592269
Tips of any sort are greatly appreciated! My address: 13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw
Depending on what you guys think, I can probably help out more with explanation videos/ branding.
I'm on the fence with the "build it before we paint it" view.
I agree that there is absolutely no point to marketing unless Mastercoin is worth marketing for. But certain things like logos and explainer videos can be helpful as long as they are targeting the right people. Specifically- developers who can build great things around this project. Plus, they can be worked on simultaneously by those who aren't developers (designers, etc.) So I would say at this point, some marketing can be helpful and won't be taking away from the main goal.
I'm a graphic designer, so my MO is to jump in when I think I'll be helpful, and then get out of the way asap.
I think, the biggest issue with marketing is making sure
1. It doesn't get ahead of itself. It should be appropriate for whatever stage Mastercoin is at. It needs to take the backseat.
and
2. It's factual- There is good communication between the developers and anyone who wants to 'spread the word' so there are less headaches.
I agree that there is absolutely no point to marketing unless Mastercoin is worth marketing for. But certain things like logos and explainer videos can be helpful as long as they are targeting the right people. Specifically- developers who can build great things around this project. Plus, they can be worked on simultaneously by those who aren't developers (designers, etc.) So I would say at this point, some marketing can be helpful and won't be taking away from the main goal.
I'm a graphic designer, so my MO is to jump in when I think I'll be helpful, and then get out of the way asap.
I think, the biggest issue with marketing is making sure
1. It doesn't get ahead of itself. It should be appropriate for whatever stage Mastercoin is at. It needs to take the backseat.
and
2. It's factual- There is good communication between the developers and anyone who wants to 'spread the word' so there are less headaches.
I agree with your point above about "explainer videos". In an earlier post I suggested some kahn academy style videos such as this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzDO44oZWtE.
And here is a great video on "how to make a khan academy video". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZJAhfaZnUA; not that I need to tell you how to make a video.
Re: OFFICIAL LAUNCH: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”
I am the official forum user for http://www.BuyMastercoin.com.
We launched BuyMastercoin on Aug 31st in order to provide a safe and reliable place for people to exchange Mastercoins since after this date you could no longer buy Mastercoins through the exodus address.
Our current format is over the counter yet we plan to launch a real-time Mastercoin exchange soon. We will allow people to buy and sell Mastercoins using dollars, euros, litecoins, altcoins, ripples, bitcoins and more.
We want to help build the Mastercoin ecosystem, especially now that the client is not yet developed and has some time to go. We also look to provide valuable information to the Mastercoin community such as MSC/BTC price charts, and tools for Mastercoin derived markets.
Visit us at http://www.BuyMastercoin.com and subscribe for news updates and to sign up for our beta.
For up to date pricing information or to receive an exact price quote please email us through our contact form.
Thank you.
-BuyMastercoin.com Team
We launched BuyMastercoin on Aug 31st in order to provide a safe and reliable place for people to exchange Mastercoins since after this date you could no longer buy Mastercoins through the exodus address.
Our current format is over the counter yet we plan to launch a real-time Mastercoin exchange soon. We will allow people to buy and sell Mastercoins using dollars, euros, litecoins, altcoins, ripples, bitcoins and more.
We want to help build the Mastercoin ecosystem, especially now that the client is not yet developed and has some time to go. We also look to provide valuable information to the Mastercoin community such as MSC/BTC price charts, and tools for Mastercoin derived markets.
Visit us at http://www.BuyMastercoin.com and subscribe for news updates and to sign up for our beta.
For up to date pricing information or to receive an exact price quote please email us through our contact form.
Thank you.
-BuyMastercoin.com Team
No thank you. I think your unsolicited self promotion is of benefit to this project, regardless of what the other forum members may say. I too am an entrepreneur. I think we all are. In fact, this whole project is based on "hiding MasterCoin Protocol Data in the Block Chain" which other people disagree with doing.
Cheers.
Re: OFFICIAL LAUNCH: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”
In the interest of full transparency, here is the updated expenditure list I sent to the board just now. Hopefully I can process refunds tomorrow.
If you are expecting a refund, please check the spreadsheet linked above and make sure it looks correct. Thanks!
Quote
We've decided to set the cutoff date for investments a couple blocks later in order to accommodate some people who sent before the deadline, but did not get included in a block until after the deadline. Consequently, the expenditure list has changed slightly. Here's the final list of transactions which I hope to execute soon, probably tomorrow:
13.279 BTC in refunds to investors who missed the deadline (addresses and details here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnnInaIJVqrtdGMteFNOWjBpWTNqd3BYbWUzdGVLMmc#gid=0)
3 BTC bounty to bytemaster (1Nou27Zt2k3yTFHw6yePg3A1df2ohCTFFb per his PM to me) as a bounty for their work exposing a flaw in my spec. (details here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mastercoin/EQgEHvKJBh4/4VeE3a02I3QJ)
3 BTC to d'aniel as part of the same bounty. D'aniel requested that his prize go to forum member gmaxwell: 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB, request is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=284178.msg3041300#msg3041300)
2 BTC to mich for the awesome logo (13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw, verified by him)
0.1 BTC to Ron to reimburse his purchase of MasterCoin.org (1HfXDX3ALapNebQC8stTdd5zK7kiCgvX9n)
Total expenditures: 21.379 BTC
Aside from the changes to the refund list, this is the same list of expenditures as before, so I don't expect comments - I'm just keeping you guys in the loop.
Thanks!
-J.R.
13.279 BTC in refunds to investors who missed the deadline (addresses and details here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnnInaIJVqrtdGMteFNOWjBpWTNqd3BYbWUzdGVLMmc#gid=0)
3 BTC bounty to bytemaster (1Nou27Zt2k3yTFHw6yePg3A1df2ohCTFFb per his PM to me) as a bounty for their work exposing a flaw in my spec. (details here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mastercoin/EQgEHvKJBh4/4VeE3a02I3QJ)
3 BTC to d'aniel as part of the same bounty. D'aniel requested that his prize go to forum member gmaxwell: 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB, request is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=284178.msg3041300#msg3041300)
2 BTC to mich for the awesome logo (13x2dka6tVhjsNNNomGJjUPi2iJQCb67bw, verified by him)
0.1 BTC to Ron to reimburse his purchase of MasterCoin.org (1HfXDX3ALapNebQC8stTdd5zK7kiCgvX9n)
Total expenditures: 21.379 BTC
Aside from the changes to the refund list, this is the same list of expenditures as before, so I don't expect comments - I'm just keeping you guys in the loop.
Thanks!
-J.R.
If you are expecting a refund, please check the spreadsheet linked above and make sure it looks correct. Thanks!
I think you are making the right decision to include those transactions which posted prior to the cut off but were not included in the block chain until after the deadline as those people acted in good faith, even though the spec says "as determined by bitcoin block chain records". It is hard to enforce an ambiguous cut off time.
Re: OFFICIAL LAUNCH: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”
Wagner2014,
Just the act of sending coins to the address is all that is needed to purchase mastercoins. Coins received at that address and at what date and time before aug 1st is how your mastercoin total is calculated. The greasemonkey script is just to calculate the amount of mastercoins purchased(seems to be a little bug in it now).
Just the act of sending coins to the address is all that is needed to purchase mastercoins. Coins received at that address and at what date and time before aug 1st is how your mastercoin total is calculated. The greasemonkey script is just to calculate the amount of mastercoins purchased(seems to be a little bug in it now).
The unconfirmed transaction from the address ending with "enarfs" where there was another confirmed transaction earlier from the same address seemed to cause the greasemonkey script a little hiccup.
I believe that dust and non dust are handled the same, and also I think it is important to be aware that the definition of dust changes as the value of BTC increases (or decreases).
I would think the definition would take into the account the value of BTC changes as it relates to fiat as part of the definition.
The blockchain itself is just a list of transactions (grouped into blocks, with a header for each block).
Transactions are just a list of inputs that are being spent, and a list of outputs indicating what address now has control of the value.
There is no special handling of "dust" in the blockchain. They are just outputs.
Clients (or wallets) on the other hand may have special handling of "dust". Some wallets my refuse to display any dust outputs associated with your addresses. Others may handle the spending of "dust" outputs poorly and result in excessive transaction fees on any transactions you create. Some wallets may refuse to relay transactions that have "dust" outputs.
I understand. Can clients go transaction fee free? Say in the case that I do not care if it took a week to be included into the blockchain.
I am setting up a new install of MSVS on my home computer 64-bit. I have not bought the software yet. But does anyone have any experience on doing a build with MSVS 2012? I see the Windows Build Instructions were done using MSVS 2008 and that "other versions may take some tinkering".