📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 166.

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Yogafan00000 on March 14, 2013, 10:46:19 AM

Quote from: Equilux on March 14, 2013, 10:19:40 AM

Quote from: Blank on March 14, 2013, 08:23:24 AM

Im not so sure buying some more Singles is the best decision right now, i think it would be better to hold it as a liquid asset for now until a better opportunity become clear.

I agree. Perhaps batch 2 (3 ?) from Avalon would be a decent option, since we are already quite heavely dependant on BFL.

I concur. The invective coming from the BFL communications officer lately is causing me alarm. It's not the kind of thing I like to see. Perhaps a delay is imminent?

However, I'm nervous about Avalon as well. Are there any other choices?

There aren't any other real choices at the moment. Not only that, but Avalon is larger and uses significantly more power than a BFL Single SC. Avalon is also a very small operation and I think they're going to struggle to get out orders in the volume of BFL. In my opinion, BFL is the only choice that makes sense. It would be my advice to save enough funds to purchase 2 more BFL Single SCs using our 25% discount and then begin saving for whatever next generation ASIC comes out after that.

Yogafan00000

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 251

Quote from: Equilux on March 14, 2013, 10:19:40 AM

Quote from: Blank on March 14, 2013, 08:23:24 AM

Im not so sure buying some more Singles is the best decision right now, i think it would be better to hold it as a liquid asset for now until a better opportunity become clear.

I agree. Perhaps batch 2 (3 ?) from Avalon would be a decent option, since we are already quite heavely dependant on BFL.

I concur. The invective coming from the BFL communications officer lately is causing me alarm. It's not the kind of thing I like to see. Perhaps a delay is imminent?

However, I'm nervous about Avalon as well. Are there any other choices?

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: Blank on March 14, 2013, 08:23:24 AM

Im not so sure buying some more Singles is the best decision right now, i think it would be better to hold it as a liquid asset for now until a better opportunity become clear.

I agree. Perhaps batch 2 (3 ?) from Avalon would be a decent option, since we are already quite heavely dependant on BFL.

Blank

newbie

Activity: 43

Merit: 0

Im not so sure buying some more Singles is the best decision right now, i think it would be better to hold it as a liquid asset for now until a better opportunity become clear.

l3sny

hero member

Activity: 859

Merit: 1000

I think this is the best option to buy 2 SCs. The sooner the better. Poll?

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: poly on March 14, 2013, 12:56:52 AM

Quote from: OgNasty on March 13, 2013, 08:15:10 PM

Quote from: Equilux on March 13, 2013, 06:04:20 PM

Thanks you for the update! But about the refund, it's only a 80% USD refund, so are we expected to receive more in the future? And if so will it only be a maximum of a 100% USD refund or could/should it be a a 100% BTC refund, if bASIC kept their funds in BTC?

I've kept up on the bASIC situation and I think we should be happy that we got an 80% refund. The fact that we have now received a BTC38 refund is all I know.

But didn't bitcoin/usd increase a lot more than 20%? Was it 80% using the rate at the of payment or 80% now? If it's the latter, then props to cablepair.

We spent a total of BTC177.86 which at the time was worth $2,198.00. We received a BTC38 refund which is currently worth $1,818.30. Definitely not the way I would have liked to see things go, but it gives us a good head start towards ordering 2 more Single SCs from Butterfly Labs.

poly

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Weighted companion cube

Quote from: OgNasty on March 13, 2013, 08:15:10 PM

Quote from: Equilux on March 13, 2013, 06:04:20 PM

Thanks you for the update! But about the refund, it's only a 80% USD refund, so are we expected to receive more in the future? And if so will it only be a maximum of a 100% USD refund or could/should it be a a 100% BTC refund, if bASIC kept their funds in BTC?

I've kept up on the bASIC situation and I think we should be happy that we got an 80% refund. The fact that we have now received a BTC38 refund is all I know.

But didn't bitcoin/usd increase a lot more than 20%? Was it 80% using the rate at the of payment or 80% now? If it's the latter, then props to cablepair.

silverfuture

legendary

Activity: 947

Merit: 1008

central banking = outdated protocol

How long is the current Nastyfans poll open for? Is there a clear policy yet for how retained coins will be spent on new hardware as far as further preorders go?

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Equilux on March 13, 2013, 06:04:20 PM

Thanks you for the update! But about the refund, it's only a 80% USD refund, so are we expected to receive more in the future? And if so will it only be a maximum of a 100% USD refund or could/should it be a a 100% BTC refund, if bASIC kept their funds in BTC?

I've kept up on the bASIC situation and I think we should be happy that we got an 80% refund. The fact that we have now received a BTC38 refund is all I know.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: OgNasty on March 13, 2013, 02:18:23 PM

UPDATE:

We've received a BTC38 refund from cablepair for our bASIC order. It is only about an 80% USD refund of our order at current rates, but better than nothing.

I've also added a news stream to the OP that highlights some major events so you don't have to read the entire thread to see our progress.

NEWS STREAM:

06/12/12: NASTY MINING goes public.
06/23/12: First ASIC order placed.
07/19/12: First FPGA begins hashing.
07/27/12: First BTC donation from NASTY MINING.
10/05/12: GLBSE closes.
12/08/12: NastyFans announcement.
12/08/12: NASTY MINING reaches 1MH/s per NastyFans seat.
01/14/13: NastyFans opens to the public.
03/01/13: NastyFans distributes 100th BTC.

Thanks you for the update! But about the refund, it's only a 80% USD refund, so are we expected to receive more in the future? And if so will it only be a maximum of a 100% USD refund or could/should it be a a 100% BTC refund, if bASIC kept their funds in BTC? I haven't really kept up to date with all the bASIC developments, and I'm not sure if you could even have any more answers than what you've already stated

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

UPDATE:

We've received a BTC38 refund from cablepair for our bASIC order. It is only about an 80% USD refund of our order at current rates, but better than nothing.

I've also added a news stream to the OP that highlights some major events so you don't have to read the entire thread to see our progress.

NEWS STREAM:

06/12/12: NASTY MINING goes public.
06/23/12: First ASIC order placed.
07/19/12: First FPGA begins hashing.
07/27/12: First BTC donation from NASTY MINING.
10/05/12: GLBSE closes.
12/08/12: NastyFans announcement.
12/08/12: NASTY MINING reaches 1MH/s per NastyFans seat.
01/14/13: NastyFans opens to the public.
03/01/13: NastyFans distributes 100th BTC.

nonnakip

hero member

Activity: 633

Merit: 591

Very exciting past day! Bitcoin bug makes blockchain fork. Exchange price dive. 25 blocks orphaned. Who needs Hollywood? We have Bitcoin!

nastyfans backend updated to bitcoind 0.8.0. The new version uses a new database so the full blockchain must reindex. This was several hours time. Thank you for your patience for members using the auction. During reindex purchase orders were queued and purchase order status was not updated. A message was showing to explain this. Now everything runs normal again.

The best feature of bitcoind 0.8.0: It is friendly to my hard drive.

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: nonnakip on March 09, 2013, 07:03:57 AM

nastyfans distributions use 0.0005 BTC. The transaction size is 4.5KiB. So we use much less than the Gavin recommendation. nastyfans policy does not discuss tx fees for distributions.

For future distributions I will use the recommendation tx fee from Gavin. For the last distribution this is 0.00219922 BTC instead of 0.0005 BTC.

Indeed, the fees were (once again) too low...

Quote from: kuzetsa on January 25, 2013, 02:48:40 PM

Quote from: nonnakip on January 20, 2013, 01:57:58 AM

((...snip...))

For a distribution the current seat numbers are checked then the bitcoind command is generated then the command is executed. Since micro coin problems are solved the generated command is executed without problems and with only 0.0005 BTC tx fee.

The system is automated and works very well.

((...snip...))

((...snip...))

Ah, and 6 hours later, here it is:

Today's distribution 663f55206f0c54bbfbdcef6c991c5aa44ca6fdcae8c98a5bc5d250fb3f14bce0 - Size: 4337 (bytes) / 0.0005 BTC transaction fee

Considering the size, that fee is actually a little low. I suppose it was just high enough for the network NOT to outright refuse to relay it, though it might be a while before the first confirmation in a block.

Thanks again

poly

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Weighted companion cube

It should not be needed after miners increase the soft block limit.

nonnakip

hero member

Activity: 633

Merit: 591

Quote from: kuzetsa on March 09, 2013, 06:08:48 AM

(( Bitcoin Foundation: Blog -- Core Development Update #3 )) -- Link

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on or around Mar 08 2013

I got a few emails from people concerned that their transactions weren’t confirming after an hour or three

In the linked article from the blog:

https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on or around Feb 27 2013

Therefore, a rational miner should demand at fee of at least $0.0025 per transaction (1 cent / 0.0003 BTC per kilobyte). The current suggested fee-per-kilobyte for the reference implementation is 0.0005 BTC/kb (almost 2 cents).

nastyfans distributions use 0.0005 BTC. The transaction size is 4.5KiB. So we use much less than the Gavin recommendation. nastyfans policy does not discuss tx fees for distributions.

For future distributions I will use the recommendation tx fee from Gavin. For the last distribution this is 0.00219922 BTC instead of 0.0005 BTC.

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

Quote from: Akka on March 09, 2013, 04:04:43 AM

Quote from: nonnakip on March 09, 2013, 03:35:57 AM

Are there nodes trying to disrupt Bitcoin network? Or are big miners/pools using new special rules to choose allowed transactions?

Yes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150405.0;topicseen

but I don't think so many people are applying this that it really has a affect.

Huh? Satoshi Dice?

... Sure, I suppose they're a major transaction source

Quote from: niko on March 07, 2013, 09:21:41 PM

(...snip...)

Your choice to block them over any other arbitrary group of transactions, under the false pretense of "avoiding blockchain bloat," is retarded.

(...snip...)

...WTF? ... just no. I'll pass on the censorship:

Quote from: Coinabul on March 08, 2013, 02:04:14 PM

Yeah, then we can blacklist Silkroad, and then maybe Wikileaks! And at that point we'll finally be the evil we set out to destroy.

There's an official, more long-term solution underway.
(more long-term compared to the censorship and filtering discussed in that thread)

(( Bitcoin Foundation: Blog -- Core Development Update #3 )) -- Link

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on or around Mar 08 2013

(...snip...)

I got a few emails from people concerned that their transactions weren’t confirming after an hour or three

(...snip...)

Akka

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1001

Quote from: nonnakip on March 09, 2013, 03:35:57 AM

Are there nodes trying to disrupt Bitcoin network? Or are big miners/pools using new special rules to choose allowed transactions?

Yes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150405.0;topicseen

but I don't think so many people are applying this that it really has a affect.

nonnakip

hero member

Activity: 633

Merit: 591

Quote from: kuzetsa on March 08, 2013, 08:59:21 PM

blockchain.info is unavailable right now so I'm posting this week's thingy

Thanks kuzetsa. The SSL configuration for blockchain.info is broken still so links on nastyfans.org do not work. But I guess they fix that soon.

Distribution 224929 needed many hours to be accepted. The transaction propagation time is also very long. It seems many nodes are not propagating some transactions. I also saw this problem with a nastyfans member purchase order. It was a very simple transaction with even large tx fee but needed 3 hours to propagate to my bitcoind. The result was a expired purchase order.

Are there nodes trying to disrupt Bitcoin network? Or are big miners/pools using new special rules to choose allowed transactions?

kuzetsa

sr. member

Activity: 369

Merit: 250

blockchain.info is unavailable right now so I'm posting this week's thingy
(The transaction has 93 outputs, numbered 0 through 92 so I'm assuming it means 93 fans are accepting donations this week.
...I don't have access to the actual nastyfans database, just able to view the transactions with my own bitcoin client like anyone else)

Code:

decoderawtransaction ...
Status: 0/unconfirmed
Date: 3/8/2013 20:21 (Local NY time)

"txid" : "29cf301ed39a3797520e2ebe62473358f7d026378d97544bc206679f5b846844",

(...lightly parsed...)

"value" : 0.03009821,
"n" : 0,
"addresses" : ["146YGY4NkzfQpuZAGi7Jokpn79MJk2VxK9"]

"value" : 0.00970910,
"n" : 1,
"addresses" : ["1HXxASKNBBt5s1dtEmBk85aFQB2iyn8Wik"]

"value" : 0.00194182,
"n" : 2,
"addresses" : ["17zbDCKtNozzCyQ3aG1TN2QVgobVTXHLxv"]

"value" : 0.13107285,
"n" : 3,
"addresses" : ["16Uo6MjFXhdu7JeeZEwyjQF7cyaZYapgV8"]

"value" : 0.10194555,
"n" : 4,
"addresses" : ["13tJL8tCnBoXQhjxd5qXjhtA256xNB4bYw"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 5,
"addresses" : ["15sQNELfzVGv6iLnZVhnVXZZP7myvkPjSp"]

"value" : 0.01650547,
"n" : 6,
"addresses" : ["1A1pFSZMZaoex4sec86EgGqydNjpZ6EcdA"]

"value" : 0.01941820,
"n" : 7,
"addresses" : ["1QBcGaBMpNRPcwvw7xccYENVceFtUvUzcK"]

"value" : 0.01456365,
"n" : 8,
"addresses" : ["18VyeE5MLQYqrnkuU49SGZcgiVfDbuPUhj"]

"value" : 0.14952014,
"n" : 9,
"addresses" : ["1Ju55fRAosH79uS1esNhvhE7Q8bnku1HTL"]

"value" : 0.01165092,
"n" : 10,
"addresses" : ["1DqnWoASirE3jA5RaPeK1Yg6NiRi9tX3Ys"]

"value" : 0.01165092,
"n" : 11,
"addresses" : ["1Acx3Z4L7hnaChmC9GULTQrvTB5RiRqjy8"]

"value" : 0.06019642,
"n" : 12,
"addresses" : ["1JRycWdtVaLUv8yhD25dbZ3N4Pv3NgFcjX"]

"value" : 0.00582546,
"n" : 13,
"addresses" : ["136S9AEN3ZhPgRYvd6V45mBX8e9SHHvb8Z"]

"value" : 0.07864371,
"n" : 14,
"addresses" : ["1GAFgLxYtyBujzhEYJHwkX3DaMCP93eDVu"]

"value" : 0.00194182,
"n" : 15,
"addresses" : ["1GqPXsFpzgSNmaDZm2DGrSMDj6jniEcoBp"]

"value" : 0.00485455,
"n" : 16,
"addresses" : ["14U2krSi8vgRmj7PQdrwhUvP7Ny2Eu1WDX"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 17,
"addresses" : ["1LT8a8QZdu3T72ckGvozyMc9McGzSxwswu"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 18,
"addresses" : ["16CLdHcoSN3aipVXL8HGpM7bayxpv3gNDQ"]

"value" : 0.02524366,
"n" : 19,
"addresses" : ["12YRv8UEago9Aug9JS9VYmss5KRrh49qXb"]

"value" : 0.02427275,
"n" : 20,
"addresses" : ["17QM9LAKHjHCjT4bopw2nqf1QWcTubsmDz"]

"value" : 0.00388364,
"n" : 21,
"addresses" : ["1GSU378ft2GY7YjWmynsAhvNe3rgQyc4D6"]

"value" : 0.00970910,
"n" : 22,
"addresses" : ["1KGXFBfN6iLkdVfw8TPQ7PjvpM5KLdcLD1"]

"value" : 0.11650920,
"n" : 23,
"addresses" : ["1DsPbq3dxezodQkojKwx8UbtrcZytzHqok"]

"value" : 0.00291273,
"n" : 24,
"addresses" : ["14ga5u17C6BDHuYsMgf46cosHtheWhdDwD"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 25,
"addresses" : ["1LJSyr1Z8mgbZ8kMHf5LLwJGhFwcSWjvVy"]

"value" : 0.01941820,
"n" : 26,
"addresses" : ["17iqXQcGfjjHSsJK993mu75sPBnLFSEp8F"]

"value" : 0.00776728,
"n" : 27,
"addresses" : ["16G9exTaqVfTMEPg1Y9Ymi8mXuwc2q7QiM"]

"value" : 0.03883640,
"n" : 28,
"addresses" : ["16iB3nKHoi5tWwe16hnFyUw9r4DddHr36u"]

"value" : 0.08738190,
"n" : 29,
"addresses" : ["1C8q9ZbuyULGsjsUKpRPfXPTSaYeB7VSkG"]

"value" : 0.09806191,
"n" : 30,
"addresses" : ["14gx3CCGA2jDosYN6Z67hgiizDHQxsPLoS"]

"value" : 0.05922551,
"n" : 31,
"addresses" : ["1PoHREauh2BszTpiVKShvxqF6yepQK9sWh"]

"value" : 0.01504962,
"n" : 32,
"addresses" : ["1BGK9ThhJq1Gt5L7YqaBaJ6HMbQkDDh4Zz"]

"value" : 0.00485455,
"n" : 33,
"addresses" : ["1PnAbtTnQJTiZ1N1RVHLq2vop77PWwsCoC"]

"value" : 0.03689458,
"n" : 34,
"addresses" : ["1KmRkry1sxs5uurkZSKt8vP2JfjwZu7MrF"]

"value" : 0.38836400,
"n" : 35,
"addresses" : ["19nHa3Muf3xbRK4Q9fZoVcaKuTsHVUAGr3"]

"value" : 0.10000373,
"n" : 36,
"addresses" : ["15RfHTzVkLC354QSisxjMc7f6KENtyRcLp"]

"value" : 0.00194182,
"n" : 37,
"addresses" : ["19TkMEt7nd9h7GMxysD1HPDQzYSpEi9CwS"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 38,
"addresses" : ["1G6poS4J3hKHZpHc27rtsJPTCLc3M5H47f"]

"value" : 0.01553456,
"n" : 39,
"addresses" : ["1J4X7VFxUsDPDKLefyfJJFXyvCzdLrRPXy"]

"value" : 0.56021507,
"n" : 40,
"addresses" : ["12mwAvJywtQF5rJXHzdBQd4yq8EVD7NZqX"]

"value" : 0.05825460,
"n" : 41,
"addresses" : ["1P6wXCa5yWTu2oUw9TyMHJyY35u5HVxS84"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 42,
"addresses" : ["1HV6R2qGtm7xKnogd3FLicinQ6dUEwWyDo"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 43,
"addresses" : ["1rabbitDmWWDExJsZ4oQedjxGUqZRnsYy"]

"value" : 0.01359274,
"n" : 44,
"addresses" : ["1ByohJYGMW19aA3sbfgFrTWkynhJ1pkTa8"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 45,
"addresses" : ["188NZ4wigrM4d7J19A3etAczc7NSfb36uJ"]

"value" : 0.02427275,
"n" : 46,
"addresses" : ["1L2V1pJSiLDGaUGxqwgdenmrBc2N62SSLr"]

"value" : 0.05825460,
"n" : 47,
"addresses" : ["1ACTe5wfGKjvHYWMRk7m2EAmczLQaX5ted"]

"value" : 0.02038911,
"n" : 48,
"addresses" : ["1FjAVJatNfP1SxBHz15kWV9b2PKz11rLpT"]

"value" : 0.07281825,
"n" : 49,
"addresses" : ["1Q5iWXpmfWoVXagk6a6zpGtY8cNYJy94sF"]

"value" : 0.00388364,
"n" : 50,
"addresses" : ["14e9aJJjcsyqNsK82QoPhLTNWYyBhAfCtS"]

"value" : 0.05437096,
"n" : 51,
"addresses" : ["1NeRjTidKKvjhPmtbWJFkbNdh6WXVgoLF"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 52,
"addresses" : ["1AkofkCF6cwJUp9uRWywq6vWUD4jyb8oW"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 53,
"addresses" : ["12GWxAYCJcX2N2VfxhWaoUBLtAqFusnGAi"]

"value" : 0.46603680,
"n" : 54,
"addresses" : ["18qVuDSTdCzr9EDY4rbD6Sb78sFeYKnRpe"]

"value" : 0.01359274,
"n" : 55,
"addresses" : ["1JPWgw4DrUEpzYMQvTTneXkWgrMS2pKjbZ"]

"value" : 0.00873819,
"n" : 56,
"addresses" : ["15DTrHkSmuNNxPD6eq75g5J77wt14Sbpje"]

"value" : 0.13010194,
"n" : 57,
"addresses" : ["1Q2YoMpJgEuuRjRJsqLUG5oxNPV9QV7H4t"]

"value" : 0.19709473,
"n" : 58,
"addresses" : ["19rBGCdQ41F5u4PyxtWLGQKQZ6DyEgT1CD"]

"value" : 0.21942566,
"n" : 59,
"addresses" : ["1P5SzMc9dNzpVbDx7q8ffubWS1DfbuunRR"]

"value" : 0.07087643,
"n" : 60,
"addresses" : ["1KVwdgXnQeYPiqccSBFnP1w4NimDtFMUAn"]

"value" : 0.00194182,
"n" : 61,
"addresses" : ["1JWSDsYxeFEfcoUY6CAizzWs4SyoDkncpG"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 62,
"addresses" : ["1Kpg7LNpXF5Dav4qUrZaq8kfjf6C6dVaXq"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 63,
"addresses" : ["1ERbdXozeEkwa8fS8kFqEseBG2yFCFyP2s"]

"value" : 0.00582546,
"n" : 64,
"addresses" : ["1PRx8wS76aYqssAirRJC55LEG6s2nWP2i7"]

"value" : 0.79614620,
"n" : 65,
"addresses" : ["1EcWnU55PLuxnzNQD65Kj41cMVNAFqzwM5"]

"value" : 0.00485455,
"n" : 66,
"addresses" : ["1ErnyjydPmHVNfdCoh93rd1zfv31nYYJy2"]

"value" : 0.00873819,
"n" : 67,
"addresses" : ["1GMys8gSUi5L3JrqZNPRB4s87JCwiQURvX"]

"value" : 0.09709100,
"n" : 68,
"addresses" : ["16EuoSwPgjwrLYqMRAyjmTXqrDrdX88wtK"]

"value" : 0.26408752,
"n" : 69,
"addresses" : ["12YursV58dRT2c9iuZg3jEWfwgTDamBcnd"]

"value" : 0.25632024,
"n" : 70,
"addresses" : ["1ESYU8M62R19cHynPUNcezXFagoyhH1euP"]

"value" : 0.06116733,
"n" : 71,
"addresses" : ["18TwbWyPCcRyNENrGQoECgSBTSV9K3W7jH"]

"value" : 0.12718921,
"n" : 72,
"addresses" : ["1Bw5rNfb3nXv2xFX5yrc5WK4eU95V2wvzB"]

"value" : 0.24855296,
"n" : 73,
"addresses" : ["15tcWQKEjNGmY73GKQtvYDzMVywKfbvanY"]

"value" : 0.04272004,
"n" : 74,
"addresses" : ["1F1vUMwwCaPrckhy1rh5Fjq47zvPAr2Mkh"]

"value" : 0.01068001,
"n" : 75,
"addresses" : ["12iHFZXNv8JkgB5WsPMcrd41ADAMHiPiUW"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 76,
"addresses" : ["15GB6tuP1AfKUHyjetz5UagrbkJXLEZLnG"]

"value" : 0.00485455,
"n" : 77,
"addresses" : ["15DRuQuwwdx68m2GYcRZRULfJTbPdUDJ2w"]

"value" : 0.04174913,
"n" : 78,
"addresses" : ["15kN4RRGAWapscJjSg1VEKbrWtNf192pwk"]

"value" : 0.01262183,
"n" : 79,
"addresses" : ["157GE8tt7NsE8AMSvrSXZhBMxjVSaBNzMN"]

"value" : 0.00970910,
"n" : 80,
"addresses" : ["1JTmKbGMBsHMVbLJpxwLLEsdWqjbM5JJZs"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 81,
"addresses" : ["14aSPgYHesuGn6yKjcsUBPRRwXmatzLJ4i"]

"value" : 0.01456365,
"n" : 82,
"addresses" : ["1BH3JVtBsdZHC6Lce2hbvVkixcJFDsqi3A"]

"value" : 0.00097091,
"n" : 83,
"addresses" : ["1FcznMjGBFxD9YvcFfMCVbhkkKYSACCNcP"]

"value" : 0.03009821,
"n" : 84,
"addresses" : ["1FLawi75W4Z4w5e6quPe5znMgcHJYCFm3Y"]

"value" : 0.06116733,
"n" : 85,
"addresses" : ["1BcGzrN3eLbmTeHCF9wr7Y18owkNv5SaZX"]

"value" : 0.07281825,
"n" : 86,
"addresses" : ["1AwHzDhnCDYjhvBj1yeRTNTyTms2YzZaTq"]

"value" : 0.03495276,
"n" : 87,
"addresses" : ["1DVmqiahSWYjx1cHfWwEYsQbRAJXSgqMzL"]

"value" : 0.00194182,
"n" : 88,
"addresses" : ["1PN4ePKnoE7xfXCiQ2vYiCaBdgxmQV9kJH"]

"value" : 0.48545500,
"n" : 89,
"addresses" : ["12NhsV2L8KZm6NrT4ek3TMaazjR8Ch4i69"]

"value" : 0.11165465,
"n" : 90,
"addresses" : ["1CSw9Ji47ZjrEJD9VdsoKg4m35J7bKxYoW"]

"value" : 0.01941820,
"n" : 91,
"addresses" : ["1CVyBpciWam5ZxB5vmE5CVzDzYncKudsXu"]

"value" : 0.11650920,
"n" : 92,
"addresses" : ["1Ag5iuizsvgKn8juFWWHzkas14Mh7d9RqE"]

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: kuzetsa on March 08, 2013, 03:19:17 AM

... who is controlling the votes on these "seats" now that everything is on nastyfans.org?

I am.

Quote from: kroneko on March 08, 2013, 06:39:54 AM

any word yet to send in the FPGA units?

Nope.

Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 166. (Read 958997 times)