To me the last road block (now successfully cleared) was simply the fact that all my play dough was tied up in other projects.  I suspect this is the case with most interested investors at this moment. Other than that, it seems to me that Bakewell is among the most transparent and least risky opportunities out there - and after meeting Ian in person last week, I feel even more strongly so.

I disagree. You'll have to pick the battle, and focus all resources on winning it. Otherwise you'll end up second or third to deliver (missing the short-term, exclusive asic mining window) and second or third in terms of performance (missing the long-term efficiency battle).

Here is an interesting counter-point: IE iswas not vulnerable to CRIME attack; Firefox and Chrome arewere vulnerable until recently.


I don't use IE, but things are not black-and-white, especially not today. Don't base your views on years-old information.

Thanks, it all makes sense now. Thread locked!

Right, I was only thinking about the time span of one block. In the case of low-risk, low-value transactions (a coffee shop, for example, that wants to immediately accept zero-confirmation transactions): Is it fair to say that the merchant should always be listening for network transactions, and checking for double spends when accepting a payment?

I like the attitude of D&T and koin shown above, but the user does not have much control over what nodes relay and accept/refuse their transaction, right? It's the miners that can decide. Therefore, I don't see how choosing the higher-fee transactions over earlier transactions and ruining their reputations (in my eyes) would hurt them in any way. They can still keep going.

I don't think this is a big problem - a merchant would simply need to wait for one block (instead of waiting a few seconds or minutes nowadays to reduce the probability of simple double-spend (I am talking about small-value transactions, of course)). Still, it's something to consider.

Presumably the fees will become the main driving force behind mining in future. Miners would then have an incentive to include in the block the spend with the highest fees, even if it is obviously a double spend against an earlier transaction that is already broadcast.

Is this correct?

I've said this before: let them be stupid, and don't ridicule them. Use Bitcoin, explain it to others in practical and technological terms, and let everyone decide about political implications for themselves.
Direct confrontation is not a good idea in asymmetrical warfare. The more we grow under the radar, the bigger we will be once we ping the radars.

First of all, glad to see this discussion going. Next, I stand corrected on calling your friend a loud know-it-all pundit. I say this because from your posts I judge that I can trust your judgement. Finally, this community (myself included) usually doesn't take criticism well, even when well founded.

Now, with all this in mind - your friend's main point is valid for as long as "warriors" (or dogs and idiots, depending on your perspective) are willing to accept their own debt as a payment. The current system quite successfully relies on the inability of most people to see that far - it is really a neurological issue, and political aspects only build upon it. The war profiteering of the few at the expense of an infinite, exponentially growing debt of the public is still not recognized as a problem by the public.

On the other hand, Bitcoin does not necessarily endanger the current system. In fact, it is much more likely that it will co-exist as an alternative store-of-value and a system for international transfers. Most people would still happily and short-sightedly accept debt-backed fiat payments. Perhaps even the "elite" cannot think that far as to recognize Bitcoin as an actual danger? To help the inevitable but slow adoption of Bitcoin, perhaps we should slow down with all the "revolutionary" anti-government yelling, and simply focus on using Bitcoin and pointing out its practical advantages where they exist? I certainly think so, and I dislike btc businesses that are vocal about their political views. Offer the service, explain the technology, and let people decide for themselves about the implications.

Does your friend think the current elite would actually recognize Bitcoin as something that endangers them?

Hello, and welcome to the forum. You can find most of answers in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1088043#msg1088043 There you will see that the IPO is finished. You are still welcome to buy shares on glbse.

Also, it seems that you are impatient with your coins, and not willing to spend time researching and learning. If you are looking for a quick fix, your coins will be gone before you know it.
Take care and take time.

All the previous (and old) discussion aside, I cannot find a list of currently trusted vendors available on Mt.Gox Website. The way I see it now, anyone can put a logo on their Website and link to https://mtgox.com/press_release_20120705.html

How does this "improve confidence in Bitcoin businesses for consumers"? A consumer cannot easily verify that a business is verified by Mt.Gox as trusted.

Duracell is a brand of batteries manufactured by...






...Procter & Gamble.

Also, he'll get to choose the best ASIC product based on actual performance, not promises.

Can't you log out and then have a look?

^has an iron rod stuck through his frontal lobe.

Man, that stuff is destroying your memory! Seriously, though, sending and receiving coins is easier than ever.

Are you sure you got that right? If you did, there may be fake, bloated chains out there in the wild!

matauc12, I suggest you help us by providing a better analysis.  I would definitely appreciate it.  Thanks.

Bumping this, and adding safer-networking (spybot).