No, it is quantum.  It is an on/off/maybe switch.

So, make an argument that isn't circular then.

No one here believes that but you (and maybe a couple of others).  It is hardly an established fact.  It is, I think, the central question here, and you can't claim it as evidence of it's own truth.  (To do so would be to beg the question.)

Parts of this are very unclear because he talks about two different constraints using the same terms.

I think he's saying that you have at least 58 different molecules, and you do work on all of them.  The order that you do the work is defined by the the hash of your potential block.  Then, for your block to be valid, the difficulty is computed as the sum of the change in least action of your proposed paths on all of the molecules.

What he means by "decreasing difficulty order" is a mystery to me.  The ordering obviously can't satisfy both the hash bits, and the change in difficulty at the same time.

Just my guesses and attempts to make it clearer for everyone.  I'm sure he'll correct me when I'm wrong.

Anonymity is hard.  And the software can't help that much, and still act like people expect it to act.

One thing that I would like to see is if the client could try very hard to make all transactions to two or three addresses in roughly equal amounts.  Right now, if I send 1 BTC, it ends up being 2 outputs, with the second one being very obviously change returning to me.  But, if I went to send 1 BTC, and got 1 BTC back as change, or 2 transactions of 1 BTC each as change, it would be slightly harder to understand and track.

Another option is making an automatic mixer in each node.  Sit up and pay attention, this might be good.  (Or it might be crap, you tell me.)

Say I want to send 1 BTC.  Right now, my node makes a transaction that redeems some inputs and makes two outputs, one to the destination address, and one back to itself.  What if it knew that someone else on the network was collecting transactions for a mix.  The node advertising the mix would collect a bunch of outpoints, build a sendtomany using the appropriate modifiers, then send it back.  The nodes that wanted to participate would get copies of that transaction back, verify that the outputs it wanted are in it, and sign on with their amount.  When the ad hoc mix node got all of the signatures back, it broadcasts.  It would need a somewhat short timeout so that it can try again if someone fails to sign.

Everyone can see that a bunch of people all pitched in to make a bunch of payments, but no one knows who was paying for which output.  Be careful with change, and use tor.

The problem as I see it is that the legal system isn't deterministic.  Doing everything right seems to be a necessary condition for not getting screwed in court, but not a sufficient one.  Defense in depth seems to be the key, be a responsible landlord, but don't assume that your tenants are going to be responsible back.  Losing in court may not be likely, but it sure would suck if that wiped you out.

Nevada's corporate laws are very lopsided in favor of asset protection, and ease of use.  There are costs to be sure; the trade off is one that you have to decide on your own after researching the implications (tax and otherwise) thoroughly.  I've seriously considered setting up a Nevada corporation to own my car for me, if that gives you some idea of my personal feelings on the matter, but I can see how just about everyone else would consider that overkill in light of the meager assets that I would be protecting.

S-corps are generally preferred for federal tax reasons, but they have limitations in ownership that might matter when setting up a more complicated structure.  As in, I think that all shareholders must be US natural persons, not other corps or trusts or whatever.

Just make sure that the funding is available for inter-tenant periods.  If you are thrifty by nature and have a lot in savings, you won't mind having that money in a designated account, and doing so will remind you that if you ever use it, you are dipping into a fund with a purpose, and that you'd better be pretty certain that the purpose won't show up when you least expect it.

The incorporation part isn't about taxes.  And actually, depending on your state, will probably make you pay more in taxes.  The real purpose is that you have unlimited liability for things that happen in your property.  Insurance policies have limits, possibly leaving you on the hook for the overage.  Having each property owned by a different corporation helps shield your other assets.  If someone falls in a house that you own personally, you could lose everything you own, including other rental properties and your personal assets.  If the corporation owns the house, and you are careful, it is hard to pierce the veil and expand the scope of the losses to the other corporation's assets, or to your personal assets.  It also provides some protection in the other direction, but is harder to set up properly.  In theory, it should be possible to get sued personally, and have your ownership in the properties shielded from that judgment.

By the way, I normally despise HOAs, but it sounds like yours could be great for what you want to do.

I don't think you are going to win this one.  He made a mistake by promising something that wasn't his to give.  Suck it up and be a man, either accept the buyback offer and make a profit on the deal, or keep them with the knowledge that they may vanish some day (I hope not, as I posted before) and will probably never be worth anything.

I'm sorry that you thought that you were part owner of the exchange, but you weren't, and it wasn't a scam, just an honest mistake.

Is this what you are looking for?  http://bitcoinarmory.com/index.php/using-offline-wallets-in-armory

-w tells p2pool what port to listen for miners on, not what port to connect to.

try --bitcoind-rpc-port 10332 --bitcoind-p2p-port 10333

I'm just looking at main.py.  I don't know if specifying the --net litecoin option changes the names of those two options or not.  It doesn't appear to.

Your occupancy rate seems high, and your annual repairs numbers seem low.  (Not based on any hard evidence, just what my gut says, but my gut is very conservative.)  Also, you need to pay for management, either in the value of your time, or as cash to a service.  If you have good friends in need of a home to rent, and you don't mind losing them as friends, the management cost can be reduced considerably.

More on the occupancy rate.  A 95% occupancy rate doesn't mean that you earn 95% of the rent income each month, it means that you need to make the mortgage payments out of pocket for an average of 12 months over 20 years.  That means that you need $34k to close, not $22k, and you need to be vigilant about not spending that contingency fund on anything but mortgage payments, and you must replenish it first, before taking profits.  You must assume that those 12 months that you have to pay out of pocket will come at the absolute worst time, when you have both lost your jobs and don't have outside cashflow to make the payments from your regular income.

Also, you have to resist the temptation to dip into the repair fund for non-repair costs.  If you spend less on repairs for a few years than you planned for, you can bet that the water main under the front lawn is going to pop the following year and wipe you out, or a storm will send a tree through a wall, or something.  Don't expect to use your insurance policy to cover things that are really repairs.  You should probably also put a few years worth of repairs into the fund up front, further increasing your closing costs.

The good news will come a few years down the road, when you have multiple units and you can start to make reasonable expectations that the law of averages will be working on your side instead of against you.

Oh, and for the love of god, incorporate.  Hopefully a different company for each property.  Nevada has no corporate income taxes, and it is super easy to incorporate there.  Plus, you get to fly to Vegas to apply for bank accounts in person, which is always fun.  This may be futile though, since your state may hit you with corporate income taxes on the basis of the property under rental being in the state, even if you try very hard to properly establish a nexus in Nevada.  Check with your lawyer (and get a lawyer).  Take the corporation seriously, follow all of the procedures and your bylaws to the letter, do all of the paperwork by the book, don't commingle your funds.  When you get to multiple properties, have a corporation that owns the corporations that own them, and let that holding corp manage the pooled repair and vacancy funds.

Make sure that your accountant takes you out on the boat that you are going to buy him on the installment plan for keeping your books straight.  (And get an accountant.)

Meh.  Just re-list them, with a big notice on the details page that they are only collectors items with no inherent value, and not actual shares in any company, certainly not in the exchange itself.  Then when GLBSE goes public, they can take the ticker GLBSE2, as a history lesson, and a reminder that mistakes can have long lasting and far reaching consequences.

Many of us that are involved with bitcoin are doing so because we find depriving people of their rightful property distasteful.  GLBSE should consider very carefully what messages they want to send to their customers.  Some of us are already uncomfortable that all shares are held in street name.  Well, worse than street name, actually, since a single entity is acting as both brokerage and exchange.  This is an opportunity to show that GLBSE respects the ownership of the properties that it is custodian of, even when it hurts.

Also, love your loaded phrasing.  Classic.

Two insanes don't make a right.

The shares were his property.  He needs no agreement to sell his property.  And you are pushing a double standard here, you say that Goat is guilty because he should have known that they were worthless, but the people he was selling to had the exact same information (unless some evidence is produced that says otherwise), namely a statement from Nefario, and you don't expect the purchasers to know that they are worthless.  If you want to show fraud here, show me a statement from Goat that he knew to be untrue at the time, not one that you, in hindsight, claim that he should have known to be untrue.

Goat might be a douche for wanting Nefario to buy them for 10 BTC each, but that doesn't make him a scammer, and more than Nefario's mistaken statement about honoring them makes him a scammer.

As far as I'm concerned, if Nefario would replace his forced buyback with a voluntary offer, at the same price, the matter would be fully and successfully resolved.  I'm not a big fan of forced buybacks, and I think that some people may want to hold on to the shares as collector's items.  Hell, I'd pay a couple of BTC for one, if I had a promise from the exchange board that they wouldn't be retracted or renamed, even if they are otherwise totally bogus.

But that isn't my call.  The exchange has considerable authority over such things, and they are in the best position to evaluate their options and the consequences of them.

Good luck man.  I think you are wasting your time, but I wouldn't mind being shown that I'm wrong about this one.

This seems to be an unfounded accusation.  Do you have some evidence that he acted in less than good faith?

If Goat had inside information that the Nefario would not honor his word, but that information wasn't also available to the people he sold them to, I could see it.  But your dislike of profit doesn't seem sufficient.

I'm sorry dude, I think you are confused about the properties of either SHA-256, protein folding, or both.  I've read a ton of threads on these forums started by people that wish that we could use a different algorithm, and so far not a single person, including you, has shown an algorithm that has the properties that we need.

Just a quick recap:

1.  The output must be provably linked to the input, and the input must contain proof of the block (the Merkle root).
2.  The output must not be guessable by any means other than doing the attempt.
3.  The chance of success must be scalable over a huge range (probably at least 128 bits, bare minimum, and that might even be pushing it).
4.  The output must be easily verifiable.

Protein folding seems to satisfy condition 2, and maybe condition 4.  But conditions 1 and 3 conspire against all of these efforts.

We can scale the difficulty of the SHA-256 problem over a huge range, with constant effort required to verify the results.  I don't think that protein folding has this property.  Actually, I don't think that any "useful" work has that property.

Ahh.  Found it.


Goat apparently paid something like 0.05 BTC each for them.  Nefario should offer to repurchase them from him at 0.05 or 0.06 BTC each, out of his own personal funds.  If he does, I think that everyone (except possibly Goat) would consider the matter to be equitably resolved.

The matter of the shares that people purchased from Goat is a different matter.  The good news is that it sounds like there are only 3 of them, and I don't think any of them have come forward, so they might be happy with their 10 BTC collector's items.

Basically, you create a transaction with no fees, and instead of broadcasting it on the network, you give it to the recipient directly (email, or whatever).  The recipient then creates a second transaction from it, exactly like they'd do if it came in over the network like what happens now, but the second transaction has a fee in it.  They then submit the pair of transactions to the network, and miners understand that the fee in the second transaction is intended to pay for the first transaction too.  (Also, they can't include the transaction with the fee in their block unless they also include the prior transaction.)

The mechanisms for this don't exist yet, but it seems like a pretty clever way to push the costs of a transaction to the recipient, so it should just be a matter of time.

Do you have a citation for the pricing?  I haven't seen anything to suggest that Goat purchased at the IPO price and then sold for a profit.  It sounds more like he purchased them for 10 BTC each, but I don't think he's actually said that explicitly.

The most equitable resolution to this would be for Nefario to make an offer of purchase for the shares, at his own expense, or if the other shareholders agree, at company expense, at the price each holder paid for them, assuming that such a price can reasonably be demonstrated.  That said, I don't think that failure to do so would be grounds for a scammer tag.  Sounds like an honest mistake on his part, and not ill intent.