Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 32 results by vdek
I'm currently developing a services based site where one major feature is an escrow service to connect a buyer and a seller in order to guarantee the safety of funds.
My Scenario is essentially
User A requests to buy an Item/Service from User B
User A sends 1BTCto my Escrow address, User C
Now it branches ->
If User A successfully receives the Item/Service from User B, User A clears the funds.
User C sends the 1BTC -fee to User B
If User A does not successfully receive the Item/Service he files a dispute
User C investigates the issue and sends the 1BTC-fee back to User A or to User B depending on the findings.
That's the jist of it, a fairly basic Escrow/dispute system. However my main concern is with the FinCEN ruling interpretation: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-what-us-businesses-need-to-know/
In my view I'm essentially offering a service, but technically I am transmitting BTC from one user to another... How would I stand? My business idea could survive without the escrow service, but it would negatively harm the service IMO. If I could use multifactor authentication, I could probably avoid the notion that I'm sending money from one user to another, but I'm not sure how I would do web based multifactor transactions... I'm currently planning on using the blockchain.info API for handling transactions.
I saw this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=275397.0 thread, however im not looking into cashing out specifically and will be working entirely in bitcoins/litecoins.
My Scenario is essentially
User A requests to buy an Item/Service from User B
User A sends 1BTCto my Escrow address, User C
Now it branches ->
If User A successfully receives the Item/Service from User B, User A clears the funds.
User C sends the 1BTC -fee to User B
If User A does not successfully receive the Item/Service he files a dispute
User C investigates the issue and sends the 1BTC-fee back to User A or to User B depending on the findings.
That's the jist of it, a fairly basic Escrow/dispute system. However my main concern is with the FinCEN ruling interpretation: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-law-what-us-businesses-need-to-know/
Quote
- Individuals who merely exchange bitcoin for goods and services (and vice versa) are merely users of a virtual currency, not money transmitters.
Businesses that accept bitcoin from one person and send it to another are money transmitters, and are not exempt from money transmission regulation simply because they do not deal in fiat currency.- Individual bitcoin miners who convert their created coins to fiat are money transmitters, even though they never act as a business, nor accept value from one person to transfer it to a third person.[
- Any business that exchanges fiat currency for virtual currency or even one virtual currency for another is a money transmitter.
In my view I'm essentially offering a service, but technically I am transmitting BTC from one user to another... How would I stand? My business idea could survive without the escrow service, but it would negatively harm the service IMO. If I could use multifactor authentication, I could probably avoid the notion that I'm sending money from one user to another, but I'm not sure how I would do web based multifactor transactions... I'm currently planning on using the blockchain.info API for handling transactions.
I saw this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=275397.0 thread, however im not looking into cashing out specifically and will be working entirely in bitcoins/litecoins.
He paid me back the 100LTC and fixed his wrongs and as I told him I would delete my old messages and amend my posts.
I tried to facilitate a trade to purchase 5000CNC for 100LTC on 5/2/2013 from Liberty Payout https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58854
You can see my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192892.msg2009622#msg2009622
Along with his reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192892.msg2010001#msg2010001
Transaction from me sending him 100LTC from my LTC Address: LLvyrjqVPqPJtS31nsaAT8fg1t2HR6YGNH
Status: 4185 confirmations
Date: 5/2/2013 17:52
To: Bitcoin Talk Trade for VDEK for 5000 CNCoin LRnienoGP9XPofQ8cgua9F83paoQzkQAHY
Debit: -100.15 LTC
Transaction fee: -0.10 LTC
Net amount: -100.25 LTC
Transaction ID: c06ee405ca26543564b6e99de24c03704d0d66b50daf5453fbdd3c0080735bb8
My CNC Wallet: http://cnc.cryptocoinexplorer.com/address/CU91UGWbPGYrgoeScoouJjB43TTWDAvjwN
The only amount of CNC I received from him was from the initial 2.00 deposit up to the 4.29 deposit, everything else was from mining.
He claims his Mining Pool was DDOS'd and is a scam pool. Quite frankly that doesn't and shouldn't matter, when you facilitate a transaction you should have the coins on hand, not in some pool you don't control. This is his last chance to return my 100LTC, otherwise I would like him to be labeled as a scammer.
You can see my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192892.msg2009622#msg2009622
Along with his reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192892.msg2010001#msg2010001
Transaction from me sending him 100LTC from my LTC Address: LLvyrjqVPqPJtS31nsaAT8fg1t2HR6YGNH
Status: 4185 confirmations
Date: 5/2/2013 17:52
To: Bitcoin Talk Trade for VDEK for 5000 CNCoin LRnienoGP9XPofQ8cgua9F83paoQzkQAHY
Debit: -100.15 LTC
Transaction fee: -0.10 LTC
Net amount: -100.25 LTC
Transaction ID: c06ee405ca26543564b6e99de24c03704d0d66b50daf5453fbdd3c0080735bb8
My CNC Wallet: http://cnc.cryptocoinexplorer.com/address/CU91UGWbPGYrgoeScoouJjB43TTWDAvjwN
The only amount of CNC I received from him was from the initial 2.00 deposit up to the 4.29 deposit, everything else was from mining.
He claims his Mining Pool was DDOS'd and is a scam pool. Quite frankly that doesn't and shouldn't matter, when you facilitate a transaction you should have the coins on hand, not in some pool you don't control. This is his last chance to return my 100LTC, otherwise I would like him to be labeled as a scammer.
We need to make it so there is a minimum moving target that one must have in order to receive any coins at all.
This will be calculated based off of the distribution of miners and overall networking hashing power and approval by a central authority, call it a centralized difficulty if you will. If you do not have the minimum mining ability then you will receive 0 Commies.
This will be calculated based off of the distribution of miners and overall networking hashing power and approval by a central authority, call it a centralized difficulty if you will. If you do not have the minimum mining ability then you will receive 0 Commies.
Yeah I'm a little confused myself, I changed some of my settings, from a thread concurrency of 21792 to 8960 on an AMD 7950 and my hash rate went from 500Khash/s to 150Khash/s... However my Accepted shares went through the roof, in a span of one hour with my dual cards running a grand total of 200Khash/s I've gotten just about 18,000 accepted shares, meanwhile before I would be lucky to get 1000 accepted shares in 6 hours!
Something is wonky!
Something is wonky!
Everyone of you fucking idiots are going on my ignore list. LOL at all the people with under 100 posts "investing" in feathercoin and calling each other scammers. Ignore you go.
Feathercoin = scam and that's why the majority of you have under 100 posts is because you don't know shit.
Feathercoin = scam and that's why the majority of you have under 100 posts is because you don't know shit.
LOL, get off my lawn all up in this thread
And another idiot under 50 posting... ignore.
Someone's got his feathers ruffled up.
I've been having a rather odd issue with mining feathercoin... I have dual 7950s and they get ~550Khash/sec, however I've noticed that sometimes one gpu will have over 2x the accepted shares compared to the other gpu(same amount of stalls). Has anyone else noticed this? I've tried pointing each gpu at different servers and separate wallets, but the same issue persists... I haven't had this problem with mining litecoin...
Didn't even get a chance to have fun just immediately "you're dead" even though I played 30 times with "free play" without hitting a thing. Nice rigged game haha
The game doesn't seem rigged to me, double my FC before I promptly lost it all to my carelessness
Re: my XFX 7950 can't reach 500-550kh/s each, also some visual glitches when mining.
You should have a clock ratio for GPU/MEM clock of at least 0.7, best
results with 0.57 (0.57 for example GPU 900MHz --> MEM 1,580 MHz).
Also if you are having problems with artifacts, i am sure you are using
the Catalyst 13.x Driver. Try for example 12.6 to get rid of artifacts while
mining. (worked for me at least)
Edit: Try 825 GPU and 1,450 MEM clocks at I 19. That should give you
almost exact 500KH/s
results with 0.57 (0.57 for example GPU 900MHz --> MEM 1,580 MHz).
Also if you are having problems with artifacts, i am sure you are using
the Catalyst 13.x Driver. Try for example 12.6 to get rid of artifacts while
mining. (worked for me at least)
Edit: Try 825 GPU and 1,450 MEM clocks at I 19. That should give you
almost exact 500KH/s
The Catalyst 13.1 drivers have artifacting issues, I upgraded to the Beta 13.3 drivers and all artifacting went away.