That doesn't work after the post is cached (or something like that). And, that's not a legitimate solution.

I'm very confident the vast majority of the popular Bitcoin-related deposits are legitimate, in the sense that they will pay back every last satoshi of deposited principal.

I'm moderately confident that the interest rates which are unthinkable in traditional banking terms will stay with us for a while. Bitcoin is a whole new world, in rapid growth, full of real and perceived opportunities which honest people wish to act on. The rates might go down to the 1% weekly range and there may be a few defaults which give people pause, but there will still be very lucrative offers.

It doesn't make sense to make an offer now that is less lucrative in comparison, on the grounds that "eventually there will not be high-interest opportunities". When the opportunities dry up you can try your luck, right now people have no reason to choose you.

Members of the Bitcoin community don't have the collection infrastructure of established banks in your country, so most would not put too much weight on your company's history. So you should not expect to receive low interest rates for the smaller perceived risk.

Because I don't want to get emails about forum posts. I want to know about new posts when I'm reading the forum.

I'm not much of a subber myself, I have the opposite problem - often I innocently post in a thread, and then when it grows to 200 pages my watchlist keeps getting hammered with threads I'm not interested in anymore. That's why I'm using this account when I foresee a problem.

If you're concerned about the currency risk of accepting a BTC loan with USD expenses, you can take a leveraged long BTC position. I don't think bonds tied to USD will be popular.

You'd need to pay about 2% weekly interest (280% annualized) to compete with other offerings.

Getting people to trust you with 25000 BTC won't be trivial.

I don't think GLBSE currently has a feature to message all bondholders, but they might add it sometime. I doubt it will allow you to know whether anyone is still holding their bonds.

All in all I'd say that as long as you can get loans from your bank, you'd need very good reasons to go the GLBSE route.

There are some updated translations, is it possible to include them?

As mentioned, end users will not need the entire blockchain. Just the headers and transactions that involve them specifically, which is a tiny part.

The question was about how many bitcoins can be produced. If someone (be it Gavin or anyone else) releases a piece of software that generates more than 50/block + retarget for 2016=14 days, whatever it generates isn't Bitcoin.

Double-spending isn't spending to 2 merchants. It's spending to a merchant and yourself, or sending to an eWallet and yourself (e.g., send to an eWallet, wait until it is confirmed, withdraw and get some other coins, reverse the original transaction).

Or he can prevent any transaction from confirming.

>50% at the hands of a malicious entity really is pretty bad.

Never said they aren't. But the effect is likely to be strongest around the time of the actual halving.

Can you provide a screenshot where you are asked for 0.049 BTC tx fee? It shouldn't ask for more than 0.0005. Make sure you set the tx fee option in the settings to 0.

Were your addresses created on bitcoin-qt or in Bitcoin <= 0.4? Earlier version had a somewhat confusing but well-known rules for generating new addresses automatically, I don't know what policy, if any, bitcoin-qt has.

You've basically contradicted your argument with the My Wallet comment - everyone can create a wallet GUI according to their vision, and everyone can use whatever software he thinks is best.

The reward drop will impact the price even before it happens, since speculators will buy in preparation for the price increase.

deego talked about a tight spread.

The make-or-take model doesn't improve liquidity, it just gives the illusion of it.

See for example this comment where I try to explain the equivalence.

I have issued 5000 new bonds. They are offered at 0.28 BTC each.


Most of us have heard about Butterfly Labs' announcement of an ASIC unit coming in October, producing 1 TH/s at a cost of $30K.

When I started PureMining what I had in mind was a world where mining equipment performance grows at a steady and more or less predictable rate as new technologies are developed and enter the market. The eventual advent of dedicated ASIC products was of course no secret, but I always assumed a gradual pricing strategy. People would know how much hashrate they can get for their bitcoin, and would rather substitute physical hardware purchase with a deterministic bond investment that would remove the hassle and shift some of the risks to those in the best position to evaluate them.

I did not envision a company offering a product that overnight vigintuples the available price/performance, much less a trade-in program that renders the hashrate of one company infungible with the hashrate of another company. In this scenario a deterministic bond is much less directly entangled with the underlying hardware, and much more reminiscent of a speculative instrument.

Once the dust settles PureMining will once again shine in the role it was intended for. For now there is uncertainty about BFL's ability to deliver on their promise, and given this there is no logically obvious way to price the bonds. I do however wish to increase the total count to 20000, a nice round number which matches my current capacity. I am offering new bonds at 0.28 BTC, a price which acknowledges the recent depression in the mining bond market on one hand, but avoids excessive devaluation of current investors' holdings on the other. If you believe BFL will deliver a product with the stated specifications, on time, and with sufficient production capacity, you should not buy the bond at this price. If you have no such belief you are welcome to consider this offer. I will not offer bonds at a lower price until the ASIC situation becomes clearer.

Personally I do intend to try to take advantage of BFL's trade-in program, and I may consider offering a complementary asset to those who do want to invest in its ASIC equipment.

This is a very strong assumption which I don't think is warranted.

You only need to backup wallet.dat, it's the only file with critical information.

Though, backing up the entire directory can help you get up to speed faster after a crash by removing the need to download the blockchain.

If anything it should be square-root, definitely not logarithmic.

If we assume the miner has a target function with linear factors for expectation and variance, his optimal difficulty doesn't depend on his hashrate, only on his net worth. If we assume his net worth is proportional to his hashrate, then the optimal difficulty grows by the square root of the hashrate.

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to review sections 7.5 and 7.6 of AoBPMRS. Having different difficulty shares for different miners is fairly straightforward from the reward method perspective.

Stale rate is measured as a percentage, and as long as the percentage remains the same it doesn't matter what difficulty the share are.

And, the share difficulty should have absolutely no effect on the stale rate.

This got me thinking about a different model: The glove game. BFL has the right glove and each of its potential customers has a left glove (BFL doesn't have a left glove because it doesn't want to speculate on Bitcoin). With n customers, the Shapley value for each customer is 1/(n(n+1)) of the total reward, and for BFL it is 1-1/(n+1). Meaning that with 100 customers, BFL should be getting about 99% of the reward.

Again this is highly simplified, but it does indicate that BFL may have more leverage than we'd like.