People do realise this - but I reiterate that no one would be stupid enough to accept a contract where they would have to compensate someone if Bitcoin fell. From a logical standpoint, it means you'd have a hedged bet whereby if Bitcoin goes up you profited nicely and if it fell you were compensated. Either way you win - which is great for you as the seller, but shitty for the buyer.

As to lawsuits - there are people who always feel they a served an injustice when something goes wrong. It doesn't mean they are right or justified in suing - nor does it mean they will win.

It is not a guarantee - but I have more reason to trust doog than I do dadice by a huge margin. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but I trust doog enough to the point where I'm happy to invest and call it a day if I turn out to be wrong. All of it is just a part of due diligence and doing some research before you take on any risk - to ensure that you minimise your risk.

Thanks, didn't see the post.

I'm well aware of the need for trust - the problem is that dadice is incredibly new with no history in the community (whereas doog is well respected and trusted through his actions). Hence I'm curious whether he/she has any plans or means of indicating they won't run away with funds tonight.

If you agree to sell you house for a potato and sign a contract to that effect, then as long as the buyer gives you a potato you cannot argue about it later on. There is no way in a majority of legal systems that you would be able to reneg upon your agreement unless it was stipulated in the contract that in the event Bitcoin falls to a certain level you are entitled further compensation. The reality is that no one is stupid enough to sign with a clause like that present so you'll never see a scenario like this.

I'd be interested in potentially investing in this site, however I have a couple of questions that I would like answered:

1) Is there any statistics/information I can find which shows the sum of daily BTC bets and the current amount earned by investors?
2) Is there any way you can allay concerns regarding the possibility that you disappear overnight with funds?

Bitcoin's usage has definitely spread to other things - for example I use Bitcoin to pay for a majority of my servers and web solutions - but we're still quite a long way away from reaching the point where you can use Bitcoin to buy anything you need (where fiat is currently).

The problem I fear is that in reality these retailers are just using Coinbase/Bitpay to convert it back to fiat - meaning to them their just considering it as a foreign currency transaction. This isn't really that useful - wha you'd want is for them to keep the Bitcoin and use it to pay for wages and shipping etc. making it an actual currency rather than just a commodity. Unfortunately it is a catch-22, someone has to be willing to go first and have the gall to keep Bitcoins rather than converting them back, but no one wants to do that since nobody else has done it.

No. For the reason that if you did you'd set a precedent that people with power could choose to delete someone's coins meaning that as a store of value Bitcoin would be worthless. Nobody would be willing to keep and buy Bitcoins if they knew that one day someone could just remove/delete them all.

I personally use mine for various purchases (trying to improve the merchant acceptance of Bitcoin). Everyone that accepts Bitcoin I use it for - the only problem I have is that in most cases that merchants themselves convert it back to fiat (usually via BitPay/Coinbase) which is rather frustrating. On the plus side, hopefully having a larger user base for Bitcoin convinces them to just keep it one day (although I doubt it'll happen anytime soon).

That is a process that was stopped a long time ago. Scammers are no longer tagged or banned - it is up to the community to give negative feedback and the trust score to indicate to future users not to deal with this user as has happened with TomatoCages feedback.

While I agree with the assertion regarding Bitcoin's open source nature, theoretically the original creation of Bitcoin could have been a move to find all of the people with anti-government sentiment/criminal activity (as it seems to be a logical candidate for criminal payment) by another government entity. This is really kind of tin foil hat level (so I don't really believe it), but we can't know for sure if Bitcoin and its movement and transactions aren't being monitored on a regular basis.

Can I use this for my own account (i.e. I provide the accounts details and you upgrade it)?

I would honestly suggest using neither - there is a much higher probability of you being hacked and your coins stolen. Using a desktop client is best - if you can't remember to backup your data - then my advice is to suggest you use Electrum or another deterministic wallet. It means you can back it up once, and after that it doesn't matter what future transactions you do - they'll be stored if you ever need them in future. Not to mention it doesn't need the blockchain (so you don't need to download the blockchain and keep it updated regularly).

I would tend to agree - being on a Bitcoin forum it shouldn't come as a surprise that it'll have a large userbase that has some degree of fanaticism regarding Bitcoin. First off, there is no conclusive proof that he hasn't spent his coins - that is pure speculation - for all you know he had additional addresses that we are unaware of and that he has spent them. Or he could've remained (non-officially) and mined coins without suspicion. Next, I would argue that Bitcoin hasn't really done anything thus far - ideologically wise I see people thinking it's some sort of savior (i.e. it'll free us from oppressive governments and greedy bankers) - when in reality it hasn't done that at all. Right now, it acts very poorly (in terms of merchant acceptance and the tendency for people to convert it to fiat) as a currency and that's about it.

Even that isn't really a viable option - there will undoubtedly be some people with multiple accounts on these online wallet services (which by the way you shouldn't use unless you want to lose those coins) and some of these people may even overlap between services. Unless you were to somehow get the ID of everyone on top of a complete list of what addresses they own you'd never be able to properly document the number of users - just guess. Personally, I think even 1 million is a little high but it's all speculation without any hard evidence.

The problem is that without selling them the retailers are assuming risk that the exchange price will fall - meaning their value falls. Not to mention they don't currently have a means of using the coins they earn, a majority wouldn't accept BTC as an alternative to fiat for their pay packet, mainly because they don't know what it is or don't have an easy means of spending them in comparison to fiat (let's be honest here - nearly everyone accepts fiat, very few accept BTC).

I would like to enroll in this campaign.

User: Light
Address: 1Light1BN9Lu38Jab9iqVmJXt4Rc66WAoB
Posts (including this one): 1715

Thanks.

I think you guys are missing the problem with 'buying' keys. You can't actually know if the person you bought them from has retained the key - so you don't actually know if your the sole owner. That being said, I personally wouldn't buy it (except for a profit) - nothing really special I can do with it aside from a signing messages I guess.

PD wasn't an example of the beginning but rather when they became much, much larger. PD at one point held a majority of signatures to the point where there were Meta rants daily. And yes, I was around for the Inputs campaign (and coinchat - which marco should remember) and the whole subsequent scandal and saga. I've been here for an incredibly long time - mostly lurking and taking hiatuses now and then, but I can say with surety that I've found things are vastly different.

From my standpoint, there just isn't anything left to say for us - there just isn't the conversation to be had that there once was - a lot of the new threads and posts are just fluff with little thought or insight.

Not sure I entirely agree on that point. I do know some users on other smaller forums who don't get paid (there isn't anything like a signature campaign there) but post because they love the interaction and are genuinely interested or provide unique perspectives, and post in much larger volumes than 50 per day. I don't think you can necessarily set an arbitrary absolute value as the maximum posts people can do before creating spam - instead maybe assess them on the quality of each individual post?

TBH though, the way I see it, it is incredibly hard to continuously moderate people who don't have constructive posts per se, but do post in length. Even then length isn't always a determining factor - sometimes short witty responses have themselves been thought provoking and useful.