What happened to all the money that he took in?

Fair enough. If he then used the btc and has no product how does he intend to pay everyone back? I have no interest involved other than curiosity. If what you say is true then in my opinion legal action may be a good course of action to protect ones interests.

If he intends to pay everyone back, then people may want a judgement to secure that promise. If he is paying back everyone, what is taking so long if he did in fact hold all the btc?

Did he file for bankruptcy protection?

This thread has 179 posts with 7080 views to date. Why is there only 12 votes total in the poll? I'm finding this tidbit rather odd.

Can't the bitcoin clients make it impossible to make transactions of less than, for example, 1/10 of a cent worth of BTC.
IMO it wouldn't make much difference for the daily user and the limit can be lowered gradually in steps as BTC rises in value.
Or am i missing something?

Friedcat said in his last update, the only reason for giving samples to the community is that it has been promised before. There used to be technical and economical reasons, but those are gone. I simply have to say "because it has been promised before" is no valid reason to give away value owned by shareholders for free. A lot of things that have been promised had to be adjusted to unforeseeable situations. Can you really make an exception here? The one and only appropriate way to give away free sample boards is, because it creates vale for shareholders and definitely not "because it has been promised before".

Why do you think this is so?  Taking $1000 from somebody who makes $1000 a month and can't buy food if it isn't returned is of course an entirely different moral situation than taking that $1000 from somebody who makes $20000 a month and to whom it would be merely a minor inconvenience.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getblocktemplate#Decentralization Sounds good. If thats not fakeable then this should be Standard for pools i think. At least if the >50% attack problem is taken serious. I mean in internet its easy to have fake-accounts and so on. If it can be prevented with this technique that a single person becomes a threat because he silently owns some pools or maybe even hacking could be a possibility. So if the minersoftware would automatically check if it works on the real thing and stops the work once something is wrong then this should be done.

But i wonder if it isnt fakeable. I mean mining means only hashes, salts and so on. And these things are presented from the pool as a solominer. I believe to remember that the groundhash was something like the last hash plus the transactions that are taken into the new block. If all transactions are given to the miner so that he can calculate the hash it should be safe. The salt wouldnt matter then. But im not so deep into it. Maybe im incorrect here. But at least it sounds like an interesting thing. So if its secure than bitcoin foundation should enforce this...

Seeing as SHA1 has already been compromised I expect we'll live to see SHA256 compromised, that if unless you happen to be 80+. It could take 10 years, or 10 minutes but I'm quite convinced I'll live to see it.

I disagree. If the standard previously was to include all sources of tx, then the change would be to refuse to include some tx based on the source. This is not the previous standard behaviour.

I'm not pushing one point of view over another. If you have a serious suggestion about how to name the category- for example "source filtering" would be ok - then try again.

This is the tx fee as recommended by the standard client. I didn't make that at all clear, sorry about that.

Could you clarify that response? It presupposes I know what the hell you're talking about

p2pool is the only decentralized pool. How is this even a discussion?

Until you let miners exclusively add/remove what transactions they mine in your pool, you're not decentralized.  Last I checked, that isn't available on your pool.

some small exception


eloipool works perfect but sometimes above message appears in log file

Regarding the pools i still think they are a bigger risk. Of course the hashingpower is temporarily given. But thats enough to combine the hashingpower and make an attack. The miners wont notice that you use the hashingpower to make a for.
You wouldnt be able to attack constantly anyway so it doesnt matter when the poolminers are taking away their power after the attack. Because an attack only can work once. After that its noticed and the accounts are closed where the btc should be sold or similar. The same goes for a single person with asics. Bitcoin foundation would simply change the algo and the asics are useless. So i still think that pools are the easier way to attack. Simply create or buy silently some pools, attract miners with a good offer and you could attack if you wish. The pool miners only would notice when it already happened.

Luke, BFL's updated protocol document 2.2.0 (March) added ‘Z0X’ to ‘Z5X’ FAN control commands. Any plans to support these in BFGMiner? Run-time fan speed control for these devices would be a nice feature.

Unfortunately this is not how things work in the real world.
The bigger bitcoin becomes the more we get into a situation where majority vote will be the only realistic option because it become more and more impropable that you can even ask everyone for consent, never mind get an answer.

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.

actually the FTDI drivers isnt a "standard" usb driver, which is why it needs to be installed for many, if not most windows users.

from their driver page (the one BFL links to): http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm


if anything, seems that driver would break stuff, as it treats the that specific usb chip as serial device, not usb device. if anything else used that chip in a standard usb way, it would break.