Bruce has some great ideas!
Like in his last show from Tokyo when he suggested a Bitcoin charity - We send him the coins, then he donates it directly to the orphanages he works with in the Far East. I can't see how anyone could possibly disagree with a kindhearted chap like that! Truly, the first BitSaint of our age. Satoshi be praised!
Yes, let's let someone who has been recently commanded to pay several hundred thousand dollars in judgments, someone who has been nailed for fraud in a court of law multiple times, hold charity payments in "escrow." That can't possibly go wrong. Depends on who defines "wrong". |
|
|
|
"merged mining" (=try to see if a found hash that doesn't work for one chain, might be the right one for the other).
That's not how merged mining works. You don't find hashes, you find nonces. A nonce that doesn't work on one chain doesn't have a higher chance than a random nonce to work for some other chain. http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining |
|
|
|
Also: one of you buyers are lucky, I sent 0.001 BTC to one of the already used addresses for testing purposes  which address? it might be me! Lol, go check your addresses, I'm not telling. Maybe I should make it more I ruin about 1 in 10 of the stickers, so they may have gone to nobody. I asked for the strongest adhesive and the most tamper proof hologram and that's exactly what I got. At least 1 in 10 times, I ruin the sticker just peeling it off the original backing, exposing the "honeycomb" tamper-evident grid, as the tamper evident pattern is literally hair-trigger sensitive. There is absolutely NO FREAKING WAY anyone is going to get those stickers off without making the honeycombs visible, and if I have to throw away a sticker, the address is thrown away too. So, at least 1 in 10 chance you may have sent 0.001 BTC to the bees. I made sure I used an address that already had 1 BTC on it. That saves me from that problem, right? |
|
|
|
Also: one of you buyers are lucky, I sent 0.001 BTC to one of the already used addresses for testing purposes which address? it might be me! Lol, go check your addresses, I'm not telling. Maybe I should make it more |
|
|
|
By making them, I really just want to tell the world that this is possible, that bitcoins don't have to be purely digital, and that they should copy me. Here you have me in the rare position of begging for competition, sort of the same odd way I promoted mining months ago when common sense would say that I should help keep the difficulty as low as possible.
But you're doing such an awesome job. I don't know what potential competition could do better. Also 0.20 BTC per coin seems reasonable. I predict you're not going to get serious competition any time soon. |
|
|
|
PGP-signed list of a portion of addresses I pre-generated for this project (all coins made thus far are within this list). http://pastebin.com/XebW67V4Did some checks: 231 of the addresses had 1 BTC sent to them. The other 3589 have nothing sent to them yet. So I'm assuming you fill them up with BTC just before you send out the coins. Makes sense. None of the addresses has any money redeemed as of now (block 144449). Also: one of you buyers are lucky, I sent 0.001 BTC to one of the already used addresses for testing purposes |
|
|
|
Why would you buy this given the current state of the Bitcoin market/economy?
This is physical bitcoin money, not (merely) some investment token. No. It is NOT money, for if it were, the maker would get his ass tossed in jail. Ok, I agree. Let me rephrase: "These are physical tokens for access to a virtual commodity". Well, this doesn't sound as exciting as "This is physical money", though |
|
|
|
1 - How does one verify that it was you who made the coin?
1 - I chose a hologram with the name Casascius on it, because that would be prohibitively expensive ($thousands) for someone else to duplicate. And if they're going to go to the effort, they may as well make their own legitimate coins (clearly there's a demand) rather than perpetrating a fraud that would get quickly found out. I don't completely agree here. Say this runs for a while and the coins gain a lot of trust and are maybe even used in real life in some community as a local currency commodity of value-exchange. Some thousands of $ to counterfeit the hologram would then be negligible. Your argument that the counterfeiter could instead just make his own coins is weak, because of all the trust your coins have already gained (no incident of money missing from coin addresses, usage over many months, you being a responsive and respected guy over a long period of time), that cannot be as easily reproduced as the coins themselves. I think you did a good enough job with the holograms for now, though. It'll do for quite a while. Thanks for a great job! Any news on international shipping? If I wasn't going on vacation soon I'd offer to be european shipping hub... |
|
|
|
|
cascascius, I can't find where you say this and it's kind of important, but you destroy all existing copies of the privkeys, right?
How do you ensure all copies are destroyed. Are you giving them out to be printed on the back of the hologram or are you doing this yourself?
|
|
|
|
Good point. Looks to me like he didn't spend 20 seconds to even read the wikipedia article about bitcoins. The most directly false statement was:
"Bitcoin has [...], in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via the printing press."
Maybe he saw that it would be fixed at 21 million bitcoins, but mistook the tense for present and stopped reading there?
I think he saw bitcoin, looked at it and thought: This is awesome support for my thesis that a new gold standard is BS. Bitcoin is used as an argument here, wrongly, as I think, because our little experiment is in no way over and it's not used as currency for an established economy. This guy seems to have an agenda and bitcoin is being instrumentalized. |
|
|
|
|
If they attack bitcoin it'll probably not be out of self-interest, but because people from the banking sector pressure them.
|
|
|
|
Thats quite amazing. Probably talking about Bitcoin gives them a lot of hit, otherwise they would not create an article out of a forum quotes.
Actually I think it does make sense. After all, we have no centralized voice that could answer to anything, so if a journalists wants to establish the communities reaction to something, there's not much else to do than to scan the forum, right? If he'd call a single one of us or two he'd likely get a different or at least partial picture. We're quite a diverse crowd nowadays. |
|
|
|
Dropping prices are good for FPGA-miners What? Why? Because FPGA-mining is a lot more power-efficient. My 100MHash/s FPGA uses 6.8W. my 800MHash/s GPU uses 375W If the xchange-rate drops to, say, 1 USD, a lot of GPU miners will stop mining, difficulty will drop, FPGA-mining might even become profitable (still unlikely, though). |
|
|
|
Of course it will be censored. By calling your opponent childish you are automatically excluding yourself from any serious debate.
Yeah, that was a mistake. EDIT: It's a bit sad really: still 0 comments. Surely the topic would be cause for some discussion even amongst his crowd, right? |
|
|
|
It's really up to you, he's trading a 1:1 value (shipping aside), in my opinion this is a method of cold storage or, as you said, face-to-face trading. (Possibly not face-to-face, if the trades sole purpose was to hide the exchange of a large number of bitcoins, eg. dark net trade.)
If used for transferring bitcoin, it would be awesome if we could send money to the address on the coin. Why is only the first 8 digits on there? You could try first bits. That doesn't satisfy me. Another address could've been generated intentionally using a vanity address generator or by chance. |
|
|
|
Krugman is known for censoring comments he does not like. In fact, he was getting schooled in his own blog (even by other keynesians) so he lowered the size allowed for the comments so people could not elaborate a propper answer to his posts. Krugman's blog at the NYT is more of a political propaganda platform than anything else.
This probably means my comment will be censored. Here's what I wrote: Mr. Krugman,
I'm not a regular reader of you, so I don't know how you spin things or maybe I'm missing some irony here, but I had to jump in.
You're pretty childishly jumping to conclusions, I must say. The bitcoin experiment is in no way over. We're in the "money distribution phase". We have no substantial economy built around bitcoin and our traditional economies do not use bitcoin. It's premature to proclaim failure of the experiment. It's childish to deduct anything about a potential new gold standard from bitcoin at this point.
Please think again.
|
|
|
|
|
I posted a comment. No off-topic or abusive content. Well, I call him childish, is that abusive?. Hope it gets approved.
|
|
|
|
|
BTC is rock-steady. That friggin USD fluctuates like hell lately, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
