Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 119. (Read 482537 times)

Are there any errors in the javascript console?

--
(new TypeError("g.addr.substring is not a function", "https://blockchain.info/Resources/wallet/wallet.min.js", 1)) @ https://blockchain.info/Resources/wallet/wallet.min.js:1

Uncaught TypeError: Object  has no method 'substring' wallet.min.js:1
buildSelect wallet.min.js:1
buildSendForm wallet.min.js:1
$.on.FB.init.appId wallet.min.js:1
f.event.dispatch jquery.min.js:3
f.event.add.h.handle.i jquery.min.js:3
f.event.trigger jquery.min.js:3
f.fn.extend.trigger jquery.min.js:3
e.extend.each jquery.min.js:2
e.fn.e.each jquery.min.js:2
f.fn.extend.trigger jquery.min.js:3
buildSendTxView wallet.min.js:1
buildVisibleView wallet.min.js:1
$.ajax.success wallet.min.js:1
f.Callbacks.n jquery.min.js:2
f.Callbacks.o.fireWith jquery.min.js:2
w jquery.min.js:4
f.support.ajax.f.ajaxTransport.send.d

Another wallet bug report, I think...

I created a forwarding address on that page and it worked great.  What happens if someone sends more funds then what is available in the mixing wallets?

Can't seem to send transactions - stuck at "Loading transactions" or "Saving wallet". Just me?

I couldn't see anything that looked overly wrong. Are you looking at the "advanced" addresses page? e.g. http://blockchain.info/address/1SyrzeDxhDeB8eML9YnRPMefH6veyJHaS?show_adv=true

Normally address pages hide some inputs and outputs which are not considered relevant and hence the API output will be different.

With the anonymous send service couldnt a person who is following the blockchain still follow it by calc the fee and seeing what address a few blocks down gets that value? Perhaps adding a customizable delay and even multiple output addresses would help. Allowing customizable %'s for multiple outputs would be fantastic!

I just want to praise blockchain.info for both its features and its site design. I can't think of a website that is such a joy to use.

i'm not sure if this is a bug or not, but i'm getting some unexpected output from one of the API's.

the transaction hashes vs transaction amounts here:
http://blockchain.info/address/1SyrzeDxhDeB8eML9YnRPMefH6veyJHaS?format=json

does not seem to match the hashes / tx totals here:
http://blockchain.info/address/1SyrzeDxhDeB8eML9YnRPMefH6veyJHaS

any idea what's going on with that? or am i just reading it wrong.

they seem out of alignment like this:

A's hash with  A's total
B's hash with [some invalid tx data]
C's hash with B's total
D's hash with C's total
E's hash with D's total

When using Send Money and choosing "Custom" transaction type, the default for Return Change is New Address. 

However, that doesn't generate a new address and behaves as if I had selected Any Address.

With the anonymous send service couldnt a person who is following the blockchain still follow it by calc the fee and seeing what address a few blocks down gets that value? Perhaps adding a customizable delay and even multiple output addresses would help. Allowing customizable %'s for multiple outputs would be fantastic!

Taint display of this address doesn't works too, may be it was disabled to avoid high DB load.

Simply amazing work.  And I'm also very excited you finally started to charge for something. 

If you're charging a 1.5% fee for this anonymous send service, how are you going to withdraw your fees? It strikes me that it'd be very easy for you to create a block of coins tainted by every coin sent through the service, which itself, should it get into wider pools of coins like instawallet, would create tainted blocks of coins that would be quite hard to send through the mixer again... Limited by the 250 depth limit, but still. Similarly anyone can use the mixer a few times to create their own "ultra-tainted" coins, aided by the fact that the mixer will always give you coins that haven't been tainted by the total sum of the taint you already possess. This doesn't even need to be very expensive if you taint a small amount of coins each time, so the 1.5% fee isn't very high, and use them to taint a much lager amount which you then send to something like instawallet.

Given how thoroughly tainted the future could be it also occurs to me that what you will eventually see is miners selling their untainted coins to the mixer, which then leads to pools inserting transactions with unusually high fees, which then leads to pools conspiring to reverse said transactions. Not to mention the question of are mining payouts tainted by the coins which lead to their fees?

Note: for all the bad connotations of the word taint, imagine how much longer and convoluted the above message would be if we had decided to call it coins' provenance.

Is creating multisigs still not available ?

This graph is broken:

Also a spaceo: "With sufficient analysis it maybe possible" (may be)

and a puncto: "0.0002 BTC miners fee" (miners')

in that case there's also a 'grammo' (?):

taint-analysis calculations