|
1262
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Faucet
|
on: June 09, 2011, 12:11:31 PM
|
|
I'm going to keep the main Faucet closed until the 0.3.23 client with default 0.0005 fees are in place, and I'll drop the reward to somewhere around 1 millibitcoin (which, at $30/BTC, is 3 cents).
|
|
|
|
|
1263
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: json-to-csv.py: a handy tool for wallet transaction analysis
|
on: June 08, 2011, 11:46:56 PM
|
I think I meant to post my version and just got busy and forgot... #!/usr/bin/env python
#
# Reads an array of JSON objects and writes out CSV-format,
# with key names in first row.
# Columns will be union of all keys in the objects.
#
import csv
import json
import sys
json_string = sys.stdin.read()
json_array = json.loads(json_string)
columns = set()
for item in json_array:
columns.update(set(item))
writer = csv.writer(sys.stdout)
writer.writerow(list(columns))
for item in json_array:
row = []
for c in columns:
if c in item: row.append(str(item[c]))
else: row.append('')
writer.writerow(row)
|
|
|
|
|
1264
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Theoretical attack by a central bank
|
on: June 08, 2011, 02:13:43 AM
|
|
Buying lots of bitcoins with dollars, driving the price up (and maybe creating an expectations bubble), then waiting for the price to stabilize before selling all you've bought (hoping to create panic selling) would, in my humble opinion, be an effective attack by anybody who had a lot of money to spend, didn't mind making the owners of the bitcoin exchanges very wealthy, and wanted to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the bitcoin market.
Of course, if there was somebody with a lot of bitcoins willing to sell on the way up and buy on the way down to stabilize prices...
|
|
|
|
|
1268
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Faucet empty again?
|
on: June 07, 2011, 12:11:47 PM
|
How much is it giving right now? If it's still 0.02 BTC (~ 40 cents), that's probably a bit too much and should be lowered.
I would be willing to donate to fill it a bit after this is explained (please join me and donate as well).
40 cents per visitor is definitely too much; I've set the Faucet to "down for maintenance" again, and will keep it that way until two things happen: 1. I change the amount awarded. and 2. bitcoin version 0.3.23 is released with lowered fees, so people can actually SPEND the bitcoins they get from the faucet. |
|
|
|
|
1272
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Senator Charles Schumer Pushes to Shut Down Online Drug Marketplace
|
on: June 06, 2011, 02:55:08 PM
|
urthermore, I don't think any of us would mind helping law enforcement or in fact anyone to help and find real criminals behind real crimes. Bitcoin is not anonymous - you have to go to great lengths to make it such.
Exactly right. I will to do what I can to help the police catch scammers and crooks who want to steal from people. The police might use those same tools and techniques to help catch people who use bitcoin to pay for drugs; I can't stop them from doing that. I personally don't think drugs or gambling should be illegal, because I believe you should be free to do whatever you like with your own body and your own money. But I also believe those are separate issues from bitcoin, and if I felt really strongly about it (it isn't one of my own personal hot-button issues) I would be donating money to, or volunteering to work for LEAP and NORML, not mixing "bitcoin is a great new technology" with "drugs should be legal." |
|
|
|
|
1274
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Senator Charles Schumer Pushes to Shut Down Online Drug Marketplace
|
on: June 06, 2011, 11:35:38 AM
|
|
Ian:
Great letter! I agree that the "stop campaigning for bitcoin's destruction" message might backfire, and the message should be "we're an innocent bystander here." You might even offer to help law enforcement better understand bitcoin so they can develop tools and techniques to catch criminals who use it.
I've been thinking of how to react to this story, and am tempted to appeal to people's greed/fear with a message of "your country may miss out on a huge new opportunity and be left behind if you try to stamp out innovative new technologies like bitcoin."
|
|
|
|
|
1278
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [RFC] Responsibility of transaction fees
|
on: June 06, 2011, 01:57:55 AM
|
|
RE: Fee sheet: won't work, miners will lie to get higher fees.
RE: analyzing previous blocks to determine fees: I think it could work. Keeping track of how long transactions take to get into a block and looking at what transactions are in past blocks would, I think, work pretty well. Until/unless the criteria for including transactions gets really complicated. And new clients that haven't seen many transactions (and so can't tell how long prior transactions had to wait before being included in a block) might be an issue.
When we have multiple client implementations one of the ways I imagine they'll compete is to have smarter calculate-the-optimal-fee algorithms ("Use SpiffyBits(tm) and pay 2% lower transaction fees than the original bitcoin client!").
RE: hashcash for transactions: that is exactly equivalent to fees (because you could be hashing to earn block rewards instead of hashing to get your transactions accepted).
RE: limiting number of small/free transactions that can go through a node in a given timespan: we're already doing that.
RE: canceling transactions: are there really people who would rather have their transaction tied up for half a day because they don't want to pay a half-a-penny fee?
RE: randomly dropping low-priority txns: interesting idea. I've been thinking that dropping the connection to a peer that is sending you "too many" low-priority transactions might be a good idea (where "too many" is maybe N standard deviations away from the number your average peer is sending you... or something....)
|
|
|
|
|
1279
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [RFC] New TX fee: 0.0005 BTC
|
on: June 06, 2011, 01:33:07 AM
|
Couldn't you almost instantly have a "non-trivial" amount of the network converted by just getting [Tycho] and Slush (and maybe a couple other 500GH/s + pools) to have committed to being updated? And perhaps check with Vladimir or a couple of the other big solo players?
No, because you're probably not directly connected to those pools, and the nodes you are connected to will drop transactions if they don't include the 'right' fee. Also, on a side note, I would personally like to see the ability to include smaller transactions in general included in a release very soon (at least 3 decimal places, preferably 4 especially if that is the transaction fee limit. I think one should be able to see and work with those fractions of coins in other ways as well if they can be used for fees.)
That's my .0005 BTC.
Bitcoin already supports showing and sending less-than-0.01 BTC amounts. It is just smart and only shows 2 decimal places instead of always showing lots of extra zeroes. |
|
|
|
|
1280
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It's already somehow inconvenient to use BTC as a currency
|
on: June 06, 2011, 01:22:01 AM
|
It costs the bitcoin network something like 0.001 US cents to process a typical transaction, so transactions less than about a cent don't make sense. RE: using market forces for transaction fees: I agree 100%. But that code has to be written and thoroughly tested. The hard part is figuring out how miners communicate their "fee schedules" to clients (you can't just ask miners "what's your fee schedule" because they have an incentive to lie to try to get higher fees...). So in the very short term fees are being dropped from 0.01 BTC per kilobyte to 0.0005 BTC per kilobyte. I'll say it again: expect more growing pains like this. There will be more of them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
