This discussion would be much more productive and pleasant if people would stop with the personal attacks. Gavin and other developers are making this change because they think it is intelligent to do so, and they've given reasoning for this. If you disagree, then discuss your reasoning and engage in a professional dialogue.

If you care about Bitcoin, and about how it develops, then allowing your commentary to devolve into personal insults and hyperbolic rhetoric is counterproductive - you sabotage your own goals, unless your goal is just to be mean or cause superficial uproar.

The merit of your argument is diminished to the extent it is wrapped in anger. A wise person, confident in his ideas, needn't resort to shouting.

SatoshiDice never sends transactions under 5000 satoshis, though almost everyone forgets this, or never learned it. This new patch may require SD to increase the 5000 satoshi txs to 5430 satoshis.

Lots of good arguments in there, Timm.

SatoshiDice has paid more to miners than all the rest of everyone, combined. It pays for its usage of the blockchain, according to the rules of the game. If you have ever sent a transaction without a fee attached, you are spamming the blockchain more than SD.

Correct, the account-based version will not be replacing the original. Both will exist.

As soon as I can.

The expenses deserve explanation, my apologies.

Hosting/Tech
Self-explanatory. It runs about $500-$1500 monthly. There were recently some additional costs here as we changed hosts twice (once because the host was unhappy with the gambling aspect, the other because the host couldn't handle DDoS). Hosting is now done by more than one company.

Head IT April
This is the former head of IT. He is being replaced (for mutually agreeable reasons), though April/May will likely have overlapping costs as he continues consulting and monitoring the system. I'd rather pay two people simultaneously than be without proper skillsets in an emergency.

Systems operator
This is the new head of IT. Unlike the former one, he is full time SD. He's currently rebuilding much of the code, making it readable, documenting it, etc. He's also building a test server, and will then be building new features.

Legal
Self-explanatory. There will likely be ongoing legal costs for SD. I'm working with a lawyer near Seattle, one in Panama, and one in Toronto.

IP Rights to SatoshiRoller
Mentioned in my previous post. This was a one-time expense to own the rights to the desktop and android client IP outright.

As a heads up for next month, there will be a small cost for a PR/customer service person being brought on board as well as a one-time expense for sponsorship at the San Jose conference.

The IP cost mentioned in April's expenses was a one-time fee paid to the developer for all future rights to the IP of the apps. It is not a recurring cost.

I had previously paid for the apps to be built and used by SD, but not the rights (this enabled me to get an attractive price). I have plans for the apps, thus I wanted to close this loose end.

Litecoin offers no significant benefit over Bitcoin. I don't care to integrate it simply because lots of people are bidding it up. I believe that to be temporary.  I'm happy that there are cryptocurrency competitors, but LiteCoin doesn't excite me.

The agreement was 100btc with a cap of USD $5k in value. So the next expense will be significantly lower, and will be changed in the near future again as the new head developer takes over.

+1  I've heard rumors the bitcoin network will enable messages at some point, this will be extremely helpful for SD.

I would love for MPEx to add a feature that enables an asset owner to send simple, occasional messages to the shareholders (maintains anonymity and guarantees that only shareholders get access).

Please put (polite) pressure on Mircea to consider improving the MPEx platform in this way

Hey all, I apologize for my absence on the forum. I am indeed alive and well, and I am indeed moving forward with SD development.

- I am no longer employed with BitInstant, but have joined Ira Miller (who is also no longer with BI) to expand and grow Coinapult. More details on this in the future. Coinapult and BitInstant are strong business partners with a great relationship, but we needed to be separate entities, with Coinapult HQ'd in Panama for a number of reasons. So yes this means that I am not a US resident anymore.

- I'm still in the process of getting legal advice and working out the corporate structure for the SD entity going forward. I wish everything was as simple and elegant as Bitcoin itself, but hopefully this groundwork will set the game up nicely for the future.

- I've hired a full time developer and admin for SD, who started on the 15th of April. He's been building test servers, learning the system from the prior admin (fireduck, who is staying on to consult in various ways since he's done a great job with security). I've also hired a manager who has significant gaming industry experience. He'll be taking over my role over time so that my busyness is not adversely affecting the site.

- The satoshidice.com domain had expired several days ago (thought it was auto-renewed but clearly not). Problem was sorted immediately and no lingering issues there.

- The developer's main initial project is undisclosed right now for competitive reasons, but I hope to have it ready in a month.

- SatoshiDice is a leading sponsor of the Conference in San Jose next month. Look for considerable brand exposure there.

- I am quite satisfied with SD's handling of attempted double-spend attacks. This took some work to fine-tune, and we continue to monitor it, but it's a well-contained issue at the moment.

- I do not actively monitor this thread, though I probably should. I apologize.

- I agree SD needs a formal PR/customer service rep. I will work on this. If any of you think you'd be good for this role, please contact me on skype. You cannot be a US resident.

- To those of you who have contacted me to convey potential security issues or have other types of recommendations, thank you sincerely. It is inspiring every day to be part of this community that continually, and charitably, builds and improves the various projects and companies that constitute Bitcoin. This movement gets stronger every day.

- I've never been more bullish on Bitcoin. Things are getting out of control, in a good way

As always, people are welcome to contact me via email or skype (skype is preferred). My skype ID is the same as my forum name.

Kind regards,
-Erik

Thank you guys for the happy birthday wishes   What a crazy year. Bitcoin has become a fucking freight train.

It was a great piece! Nice to hear real journalism for a change.

Thank you very much elux. So sick of scammers in this world!!

SD's engineer is on this, and we're contacting the hosts to get this scam site removed asap.  I really appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

Wow Mem, where should I start?

First of all, there are not any "paid trolls" of SatoshiDice. You are simply trying to get a reaction out of people by making such claims. In fact, you are lying, because such people don't exist.

Second, to the more important point of Mircea's post. This issue flared up a couple months ago when some people found that post. Then, like now, there were some people outraged over it. I read it back then (not having seen it before), and re-read it just now, and both times came away with the following opinion: It is inaccurate and indeed ignorant to label Mircea racist from that post's content. The fact that someone uses the N word doesn't make them racist. A racist is someone who believes certain races are inherently better or more worthy than others. Let me quote a very important point, made in that blog post [bold emphasis added]:



That statement indicates quite clearly that Mircea is not a racist, as he does not believe one's genes are a basis for merit.

And further, more nuanced,


He is saying that blacks tended not to do so well historically (an arguable historical observation), but that one should not link any individual of this race with this historical failure. Stated differently, a black individual today shouldn't be linked to that failure merely due to his skin color. The skin color one is born into is irrelevant, and people should be considered on an individual basis. Not only is this non-racist, but is the root of what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about, "...judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

I highly recommend everyone actually read the blog post, for while it's certainly incendiary and I think unnecessarily provocative, it is not the writing of a racist. I've seen racist writings, this is not it.

And yet, what really bothers me here is you, Mem. For while the main moral problem with racism is in the "fault by association," I see that you are succumbing to that exact fallacy. You are associating SatoshiDice, and myself, with "racism" simply because you believe Mircea to be racist.  And your hipocrisy is outlandish here, for you use the Reddit platform to post this, yet you know how many real racists there are using Reddit to spout their filth?? There is REAL racism on Reddit, yet you are fine utilizing that platform for your purpose in order to discredit me for utilizing a platform of one person whom you allege is racist. Further, your entire post is incendiary, worded specifically to get a rise out of people... and this is the exact same thing Mircea did with the N word, for which you fault him (and me by association).

Honestly, Mem, it sounds to me like you have deep insecurity about your own thoughts on race. For I find many people who harbor deep seeded racist notions overcompensate by engaging in obnoxious racism policing. Germany is a great example of an entire nation doing this, for it is actually illegal to speak in favor of Nazism there.

Again, I recommend everyone read Mircea's post, slowly and carefully, and come to your own conclusions. Mem, feel free to remove SD from your list. I'm not sure I want it to be associated with witch hunters.

I don't think anyone can say, "I'll never sell any BTC for fiat"... but indeed I will do very little of it. I cashed out of USD into Bitcoin, and that's the currency I prefer to both use and save with.

When I heard about this yesterday, I thought it was a joke.

It is appalling that Roger Ver and Jon Matonis, two of the most professional and eloquent public proponents of Bitcoin, would be removed from a press list, merely because they don't cater their discussion to the lowest common denominator of public perception.

Yes, some out there would be turned off by their ideology.
Yes, some press might try to target them personally and thus tarnish Bitcoin's reputation.

So what.

Bitcoin is not so weak and pathetic that it requires only tacit, cowed spokesmen who are more like politicians than real individuals with passion and ideology and, importantly, the character to stand up for that in which they believe. Bitcoin is not so fragile that it can only be advanced by grovelling to the very people who built the terrible systems it seeks to replace.

It is embarrassing to see Bitcoin reduced to sniveling permission-seekers, too cowardly to speak about the real issues and the real reasons why this technology is so important. There is not a global, passion-driven community around Bitcoin because it offers lower money transfer fees. We do this because of what Bitcoin means on a philosophical and societal level, and Roger and Jon are two of the best at conveying this sentiment in a professional, non-confrontational, level-headed manner.

And now they've been censored.

Bitcoin is a movement, and those trying to distil it into nothing more than a cute new technology are kidding themselves and doing a terrible disservice to this community. If you want to sell pre-packaged, politically correct PR, go work for Dwolla.

You guys need to read between the lines.  The authors are in the awkward position of explaining a way to make Bitcoin anonymous. They need a way to say, "see this could be set up so that the government could audit it" because this provides the "moral cover" to prepare the research in the first place.

But if you read between the lines, they've released the method for making this without such a backdoor, and that's all that matters.

Let me first state that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Ripple team, especially Arthur, Jed, Stefan, and JoelKatz.

However, here's how I see it in comparison to Bitcoin. My issues can be broken into three parts:

1: Functionality and Purpose
Ripple is promoted as a "way to send any currency to anyone." Yet it is not this. It is simply a way to send IOU's of fiat currency to anyone, and this is a very different proposition.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a way to transact actual assets - or more specifically, one asset called Bitcoin. It moves beyond fiat currency entirely, and because it moves the actual asset anywhere instantly, there is no need for IOU's.

Ripple may be a great way to trade in normal fiat currencies, but I don't really care to do that anymore, now that Bitcoin exists. Yes, it's true that Ripple has XRP which is a cryptocurrency with many similar features to Bitcoin, but it offers no advantage over Bitcoin, and thus why do I care to use it? I might as well use LiteCoin 

2: Security

Ripple supporters will say that XRP is superior because it doesn't require mining, but this is a seriously contentious issue - let's remember that the Bitcoin mining process is not arbitrary. It introduces a specific type of security based on proof of work. While Ripple removes the proof of work concept, it may not require burning CPU cycles, but it is thus not protected by any proof of work system. Maybe proof of work isn't necessary, but Ripple will need to prove that over time, whereas Bitcoin's system has proven amazingly resilient over four years in the wild, with every hacker in the universe trying to exploit it.

3: Centralization

Ripple is far more centralized than Bitcoin. I worry if it took off, it'd suffer the same fate as eGold. It's very unclear what power OpenCoin (the company behind Ripple) actually holds over the system. Today, OpenCoin holds basically all power. They claim that in the future OpenCoin will "release" this power out into the wild and the company will no longer be centrally important. I am extremely skeptical of this. I'm also extremely skeptical that OpenCoin can't/won't create more XRP's, and it bothers me that it's structured in a way to dish out the existing XRP's from a central postion (I see uncomfortable similarities with how central banks operate, though I'm not ideologically opposed to Ripple since it's voluntary).

Further, I think the following is a fair statement: Any company that enables private (non ID verified) person-to-person transactions will be taken down by the US government, period. I believe it is far more likely that OpenCoin/Ripple will be forced to submit to the regulatory apparatus, and will at some point (though its advocates will deny this) require ID verification and all the AML/KYC compliance that a company like Paypal faces. If they do this, the system is pointless. If they don't comply, they will have to close and Ripple will be on its own. I am unsure what kind of community is there to support and build Ripple in the future if the OpenCoin company shut down, as its early-phase development has been structured like a startup (with the founders earning salary and getting paid in "stock" ie - XRP's).


Now, none of my contentions mean Ripple will fail, but I am simply skeptical of its future. Frankly, Ripple may have been exciting before Bitcoin happened... but then Bitcoin happened.