Update: received a PM with the info. Thanks, admins.

I think that engageing in discussions with those who are cautious, critical or distrusting of bitcoin is a good thing. Sure, some of the criticism may be uninformed - and by not responding to it, you help these fallacies to spread - but some of it is perfectly valid, and will help you see things better. We now have sensible answers to most of those criticisms and questions, but if no one hears these answers, bitcoin will never grow. I've said this many times: bitcoin wiki has a great page dedicated to Public relations. Go out and use it. Don't explain bitcoin from your narrow perspective, always try to understand their position, their fears, their biases, and educate them with this in mind.

I used to stay logged in for months, but in the past few weeks it happened three times that my account was logged off. I haven't changed anything as far as handling cookies, etc. Does curent forum software enable users to review IP addresses their account was accessed from?

A class-action suit against linkedin inititiated in US federal court in San Jose. The plaintiffs allege that the company was not securing the user database per industry standards.

I find it disgusting that LinkedIn still claims that "users' accounts were not breached as a result of the leak." I started receiving spam invitations to connect from total strangers- which never happened before the leak. Pathetic.

The bright side: someone just learned about Bitcoin. I'm thinking about leaving behind paper wallets in public transit, just to see if anything gets spent eventually.

True, but an average user might not have control over their coins at that level. I wasn't complaining - just pointing out it would be a good exercise to try and extract some info when this game is done. What percent of partcipants bothered to keep this game insulated from their other activities, and how successful they were? What can we learn about those who didn't bother (that we don't already know)?

I've never considered putting an address in my signature, and long time ago I changed my settings so other user's signatures are not displayed. Having said that, I'm sure many users include their addresses without giving it much thought, simply because they can, and because they are excited by the novelty of it. Novelty wears off, I hope. I also hope they will start thinking a bit deeper about what good or bad things might be brought into their lives by Bitcoin.

Other reasons might include wishing to build a reputation based on openness (forum identities linked to their wallets), or simply begging for money.

You may all laugh at Bruce Wagner, but he is still scamming around and bringing bad publicity to Bitcoin. Once (if ever) Bitcoin becomes widely adopted, this will be the same as bringing bad publicity to cash - irrelevant - but right now it can really do damage.

This thread might be an interesting source for data mining experiments - those who used their local wallets have just publicly linked their forum identities to their addresses.

 1NRvYU8RvanoWVPvPwuLYh4TQQH8WFhuv2

Lots of substance comes out of it: bullshitters are discredited. For one reason or another, there are still occasional waves of people or sock-puppets showing up out of nowhere and spreading fact-free, panicky bullshit.

I put this user on "ignore" until things are worked out.

Folks, calm down. If you observe depth in real time, you'll notice that huge moves happen in unison. One or few persons behind this manipulation are having lots of fun reading theories about buying or selling pressure, or about any other attribute of a real large market. Don't get me wrong, I am an optimist, but the vocabulary here is delusional at times.

This is true. Cloon, would you please try and explain again with this in mind? Also,shouldn't you account for btc being generated every day?

Please elaborate. Are you a robot?

Seems well done, even at this beta stage. Looking at volumes at all but the top three exchanges, it's  a mistery to me how they all keep running - obviously not operating at a profit yet. Kudos for the enthusiasm, stubbornness, and anything else it takes!

The liver of polar bear contains lethal amounts of vitamin A.

These are interesting and important issues, albeit not very pressing at this moment. Much of it has been discussed extensively (compression, pruning, supernodes). I am not nervous at all about any of it.  Bitcoin seems to be robust, no serious flaws in the algorithm have been identified, even now that the stakes have become serious (most "fails" in Bitcoin world were so far related simply to hacked accounts and stolen wallets, none of it had anything to do with the Bitcoin network itself). So far, so good. It's an experiment that is already resulting in some real-world use, and is growing - as evident from the blockchain.

Why do you think it's natural? It's just an arbitrary convention, and a habit - just like some languages follow the subject-verb-object structure, and some follow the subject-object-verb. Which one is "right" or "natural"?  In case of units and numbers, doesn't it make more sense to provide the context (the unit) first to the reader, and then the number?  That way you avoid the suspense of having to wait (read) to the very end to find out the actual value.

I suggest you PM members of the forum you find eloquent and in line with your way of thinking about Bitcoin, and ask for help with specific Sites. I wouldn't want search results on certain topics or articles leading to threads in the forum where we appear to conspire to spam comment sections.

I've gone through this three-step dialectic process:

1. In most places (but not all) the symbol of a currency is written before the numerical value. We should stick with this convention: $6,013.44, BTC40,049.5104.

2. Bitcoin is new and different, and we have no reason to perpetuate the weirdness of the old school. Outside of the realm of economics, units are written after the numerical values, and monetary units should be no exception: 13.7kg, 55BTC, 3 apples.

3. Units-after-numbers is just a convention, and a silly one for that matter. The problem is that we are so used to its silliness that we fail to notice it. In this case, the weight of the quantitative statement is only determined at the very end, which can confuse, distract, tire, or disappoint the reader. I've lost over... 2,000 (ohohshit!!)... mBTC (whatever). On the other hand, when units are stated first, the reader is able to evaluate numbers in the correct context immediately, as we provide them. My BTC0.02.

That, and the BTC symbol should appear in regular, not bold font. It stands out too much like this.