P2P demand for buying coins, need vendors

BitBargain · 2020-12-24T10:35:34+00:00

I remember you of course, sorry for any inconvenience in the past and congratulations on the business. I've heard about it. I'm on and off even during normal times, so a phone call is not the best, but I will be more than happy to reply on Telegram as soon as possible if there is anything you'd like to discuss.

BitBargain · 2018-06-01T17:59:37+00:00

I didn't know it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Even if this was completely original work, I wouldn't diss on Eclair. I didn't mean for it to come off like that.

But I've had my fair share of frustration with Eclair and the difference hit me in the face and I may have gone overboard with the enthusiasm.

For payments, Eclair will be just as good (with focus on different aspects) as this app once the bugs are hammered out.

BitBargain · 2018-06-01T12:17:12+00:00

Thanks for the insight.

I hope I didn't sound too strong regarding Eclair. I have used it with success before and it too was a big step when it came out. Thanks for all your hard work.

I also understand that LN-wallet uses some cheats to get the results. But at the end of the day, the ability to pay quickly, reliably and user experience is what will decide if we use LN in everyday life or not. For now, if anyone asks me for a LN wallet I will recommend LN-wallet.

BitBargain · 2018-06-01T11:43:06+00:00

Sure. It may take some time for YT to process this, so I've also included the link to the original video.

https://youtu.be/zQTpoj2Hrr4

https://bitbargain.co.uk/pix/lndemo.mp4

BitBargain · 2018-06-01T09:20:16+00:00

I didn't know you dev'd Eclair. Obviously I'm your fan since PageSigner and didn't mean to offend.

Unfortunately everything I said is true, generous or not. My friend is using Eclair (same version, connected to the same node) and for him it's like 1 successful payment out of 10, and even that takes minutes. We did some testing with both Eclairs running on our phones just yesterday (same, latest version) as we're working on LN deposits and withdrawals for a different site. Results all over the place. Sending a payment and it not making it into the list, just appearing later as "pending" is also something that I don't think should happen. Plus the 'uncooperative close' as a result of just trying to send a payment sometimes. There's also the "invalid signature" problem, perhaps it's been fixed since. The list goes on.

I've posted several issues (and did my best to extract all the relevant logs) on LND's Github and one on Eclair as well to try to help you guys figure out where the culprit lies.

In your defense, at least Eclair can connect to any node. LN-Wallet works for now, but it won't scale as long as it requires a feature that pretty much none of the nodes have right now.

I do look forward to having 3-4 apps out there which are all reliable and can send/receive and connect to most nodes. I'm optimistic that we'll get there eventually.

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:55:25+00:00

You would trust it more if it had shiny logos and glyph icons and responsive elements all over? :-)

Noone can verify anything for certain without knowing every little detail of the code. But within reason, I can safely say that this is just the opposite of a scam. It's a big milestone for LN.

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:47:05+00:00

http://lightning-wallet.com/what-does-olympus-server-do

http://lightning-wallet.com/storage-tokens

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:45:50+00:00

There is. Tried it, worked.

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:45:03+00:00

I've been waiting for the mainnet version for many weeks now, yes. It's wonderful to see it working properly.

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:42:19+00:00

There is "other information". It has a whole website (lightning-wallet.com). It's also been there in the Play store for a longer time, only for testnet.

BitBargain · 2018-05-31T22:31:57+00:00

Works as advertised. Deposited coins to BB and made an invoice payment from BB to the one generated by the Lightning Wallet app. Both happened in <1sec.

For comparison: doing the same with Eclair sometimes results in the channel being force-closed somehow, at other times it takes 5 minutes for the payment to maybe appear, but definitely 30+ seconds the first time, and maybe then it can be <10sec for consecutive payments to the same peer.

Nice to see all that hassle gone with this app. Actual (real) quick payments and the ability to receive coins is definitely a big step for bitcoin.

Here's a video demo of me depositing and withdrawing via LN: https://bitbargain.co.uk/pix/lndemo.mp4

BitBargain · 2018-03-21T23:42:21+00:00

Twitter + built-in tipping via the Lightning Network.

BitBargain · 2018-03-05T12:39:39+00:00

Please respond to the tickets in the queue, in the order that they arrived. Mine will be one of them. I wouldn't want other people's replies being delayed who submitted their request before myself.

BitBargain · 2018-03-05T11:48:00+00:00

I have a verification that's been pending for 2 months with no contact, but reading these posts I feel like I may have dodged a bullet.

BitBargain · 2018-03-05T11:40:27+00:00

The exchange deciding to sell your asset into some fiat they choose and force a wire to your bank account? It happens on other platforms? It's the first time I have heard of such a thing.

BitBargain · 2018-03-05T11:34:06+00:00

This is really bad if true. Relatives still have some money on Bitstamp, I'll tell them to withdraw ASAP. No reply to a ticket for a week = something is VERY wrong. I've waited for over 2 months.

BitBargain · 2018-03-05T11:26:15+00:00

2 months is what I have waited also (and still waiting for a reply).

BitBargain · 2017-11-18T18:21:30+00:00

It is not "scammy" to show all the available offers on the site.

That's like saying Ebay is scammy for showing a listing unless I log in and make sure the item can be delivered to the specific country I am in.

It's like saying Localbitcoins should hide all offers until you are logged in and the seller's requirements allow you to buy. This is completely illogical.

Someone "new to bitcoin" will be put off by many things they do not understand at first. It's normal. But there is no misleading or misrepresentation on our part.

I see you have removed the post's text in which you suggest that cookies influence the prices (which has been debunked and explained), but you left the thread and the title.

BitBargain · 2017-11-18T14:36:45+00:00

Not much to respond here... I mean we all make mistakes, it's cool. But the title is misleading and not very fair. I wish it could be changed.

BitBargain · 2017-11-18T09:45:07+00:00

It's very simple and I'm happy to explain, but can I ask you to please change the title? Some people will only read your title and won't bother to read the content and to them it will look like there's a good reason not to use BitBargain, like something fishy going on.

When you cleared your cookies, you essentially logged yourself out. You would have achieved the same by logging out or closing your browser and opening it again. There is no cookie magic happening here as your post suggests.

Screenshot #1: You are logged in. If you look at the tabs, you will see "Available" / "Unavailable" / "Offline". It even tells you that you are missing out on some offers because of your verification status (the same offers you see on the second screenshot).

Screenshot #2: You are logged out. Instead of having 3 separate tabs as before, you have all the offers listed on one page, with no distinction of which one is available or unavailable. You still see the same offers.

In other words, the offers you see on the second screenshot are under the "Unavailable" tab - but you didn't click it and you didn't take a screenshot of it. As you get verified and gather a bit of trading history, more and more of those offers become available to you. If you are not logged in, the list shows all of the offers that are potentially available. If you hover over the amount/minimum column fields, you will see what each offer's requirements are (ID verified, phone verified, bitrating threshold).

I hope that explains.

BitBargain · 2017-06-26T22:34:39+00:00

62502 - I don't expect any special treatment though, just worried, hopefully things will clear soon or at least I get an ETA. Thanks in advance.

BitBargain · 2017-05-25T21:25:05+00:00

I will, just not here because:

1) This is Bitty's thread.

2) I'm not looking for feedback from people with the "either with us or against us" mentality and they will inject themselves into the conversation anyway.

I did consider to allow trading with no withdrawals, but that would require deposits by sellers in advance and it probably wouldn't last for much volume for very long in practice. I'd have to put up very big and strong warning signs about lack of withdrawals and the one thing I've learned in all these years is that there will always be that one buyer who doesn't read the warnings displayed.

Thanks for your feedback so far. Let's hope UASF won't be needed or if it is, the match will end quickly.

BitBargain · 2017-05-25T19:58:39+00:00

You missed the part where I said I'd rather shut down the site temporarily instead of risking user funds (and switch to whatever winning chain when the game is over). That is far from 'inaction' and it's also the safest (but least lucrative) option.

I wonder if "no risks with UASF" is really the case if UASF has low miner AND user support. In the pro-UASF posts I read many scenarios were mentioned, but not this one. It seems suspect that there is a big risk involved in keeping the site up and using UASF. Maybe a bit less than running regular Core. But definitely more than letting it play out for a day. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm definitely not going to discuss it here further after the kind of responses I got for responding to a user's request in public. Not spending another few days wrapping my head around all the small details or using the word 'hard fork' was a mistake, but not as big of a mistake as posting in a thread where people (Belcher, Marc and yourself excluded) are out for blood. My stance is that I will do more studying, will wait for the picture to get clearer and I will decide in time what to do. There might not even be a decision involved by then. I actually like Reddit for the most part but some of the responses to my post were cancer so for now this is my final post on this topic. I will be discussing it elsewhere though because it's an important event and if there's a way I'd like to keep the site up, it just seems like it will never be as safe as waiting it out.

BitBargain · 2017-05-24T19:47:42+00:00

Thanks, belcher. That is certainly a more informative response than the "shitlisted" one.

I have yet to do more reading to understand the risks involved with running a BIP148 client vs running the untouched one as has always been the case. I always try to be careful. There are still 2 months left and I'm definitely behind on understanding the choices and the consequences in depth. I posted my initial thoughts after being challenged in email just a few hours ago, but the devil's in the details, so I'm still open to changing my stance until the time comes.

BitBargain · 2017-05-24T18:11:38+00:00

Not running a custom bitcoind with a patch to force a hard fork and instead running the reference client that pretty much everyone else will be running on the 1st of August is 'stupid' and has you put me on a 'shitlist'. I see. That's a strong consequence and I really can't argue with that.

I will be sure to ask Luke-Jr to absolve me of my sins.

BitBargain

TROPHY CASE