Wait, what? You been smokin' son?

The only purpose of those ASICs is to mine Bitcoins. They are more power-efficient than GPUs & PFGAs.

Why would anyone ever stop the mining with them? How would the difficulty ever go back to pre-ASIC level?

That's only a small (and the only valid) part of the OP.

And, as I've posted before, there will be *technological* solutions for this, that don't require any kind of central authority or, for that matter, trust.

The multi-signing possibilities of the Bitcoin protocol are still *very* far from being used to their full potential, and everything that could ever be required in terms of instant transactions / confirmations / added security.

There is already a solution for what you are talking about. It's called the blockchain.



All that's needed will be provided by *technological* solutions, like 2 of 3 signing, not by trust.

I can't believe how this idea is even seriously discussed here. GTFO!

Wait, what?

There is no need for reputation, trust or anything of the sort.

If you don't do *very* big transactions, two confirmations is plenty. For really small ones, even one should be enough.

Why the hell would you go and turn something as ingenious as Bitcoin into a copy of the fiat system? I think you got something very wrong in your mind.

A high performance trade engine should be written in C/C++, simple as that.

But how much did you lose?

Well, there you go. He admits we are in desperate times.

Why would the stability of Bitcoins depend on exchanges at all in the future?

I also wrote them about accepting Bitcoin donations, as I guess that a lot of Truecrypt users are also familiar with Bitcoin and vice-versa. Haven't heard anything back.

I would suggest to direct all these replies to the original thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=166578.0

I applaud you for this update and must admit that I was one of the people to go a little overboard.

This kind of communication goes a long way and is something you should do a lot more.

I however maintain that you had a *lot* of time over the past months to get a more efficient trading engine up and - given that it should be *the* top priority - the progress on that front is simply not satisfactory.

I, for one, will be moving to another exchange until Mt.Gox meets the standards that I expect from the leader of the industry.

P.S. Just to have some basis to my claims: I have a strong background in computer engineering, especially when it comes to big & performance intensive systems. I can assure you, I know the challenges that come with hosting infrastructure, a good trading engine, massively parallel architectures. Still, if prioritized the right way, results should have been there a long time ago.

Their engineering team is a joke if they haven't fixed the lag and put online a decent trading engine after MONTHS AND MONTHS of time. They completely blew their lead in the field and will just become a mediocre exchange soon enough.

+3000

<3

I know I'm childish, but this just made my day.

It took 10 hours for a 1.5 BTC transaction of mine to be confirmed once without fees. It's variance. It can take a really long time depending on luck pretty much.

+1 confirmed no sense.

April first was 2 days ago dude.

Is it yesterday?

This is not a problem if you use armory or electrum, because they use deterministic address generation. You only ever need the seed or the first address of your wallet to recover all others.

I couldn't concur more with what this guy is saying. That's exactly why I am in Bitcoin.