I know one thing that would happen is that many more folks would be interested in their campaign.  I, for one, wrote this off entirely when I realized all the onerous hoops they wanted us to jump through in order to do this contract work.  I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

If I understand this correctly, the best thing would be to match not just a small subpart of the signature for blocking, but to go ahead and match against the entire string of code  (or, as long a string of text as you can find in the case that it's not possible to get the actual code) in the signature you want to block just so that you avoid the false positives you are talking about.  I'm sure the devs realize this.

However, again, I would expect that if this is a tool that's implemented server-side then surely there's no problem to get the actual bbcode markup for any given signature.

I think most people did.  I actually never got mine.  However, it was only 38KSat so I'm not worried about it (and Micon has promised me 1mBTC on the new site to make it right---once they actually develop a proper client for the new site so that I can log in and try it).

I think that the more you claim, the longer you have to wait between claims but I may be wrong on this.  Does anyone know for sure?

The interesting side question of why rewards aren't reduced in a different scheme is in another thread and this OPs question was about why block rewards don't go up over time rather than down.

I hope everyone (including the OP) can see that this leads to an absurdity where no one wants to be the early adopters because they get paid a lot less than late adopters, which leads to a case where everyone else is waiting for someone else to start.

This is like a funny game you might have played as a kid, the backwards race where the last to the finish line wins.  Everyone who has tried this realizes that it doesn't work.  No one has any incentive to move at all.

This seems to echo or sit well with what EvilPanda was saying.  Most folks who do win tend to win small for just the reasons he outlined.

Indeed, there have been instances of bitcoin businesses who announced here and then rarely check in.  However, it usually turns out that this was a mistake, the owners of the business underestimating the importance of this forum for reputation and information distrubution.  You're also right that we should wait a few days before feeling too sure because, of course, emergencies do crop up in people's lives.

I have looked for the ability to edit the transaction fee in multibit and as far as I know, it's not there.  I also started combing through the java code but never really got far---I just used bitcoind to send as I pleased (if I recall correctly).  This is, in my opinion, one of the features which is lacking in multibit.  I can't recall where, but I believe the multibit authors have essentially replied to this by saying "nope, you need to send the standard transaction fee because if you don't then you risk not getting confirmed then we, the multibit authors, risk getting too much mail complaining that our software isn't working when in fact it's the lack of fee".  So they simply want to enforce the standard fee in their software.  As I say, it's open source so you can mod it yourself if you want.  Or you can use RPC commands on bitcoind to generate a transaction without a fee (or with a lower fee), should you wish to do this.

You guys never got back to me or answered about whether your coin has any official ties to the navajo nation.  I really think that if it does not, you should reconsider the name for two reasons:

1) History of malignment from european colonizer society against first nations of Americas, this includes cultural appropriation without credit.
2) If your coin is actually successful in the long run you will eventually be sued for trademark/name infringement by the actual Navajos.

Just my opinion, I wonder why you guys don't reply to this point.

Interesting.  I mean what you say has logic because they pay the same for all sigs all ranks.  Nevertheless, if I had known this while I was participating in this campaign, I would have probably used the full member signature simply because it's smaller and less intrusive.  If they are paying the same for all sizes, I would choose the smallest size (personally).  If everyone took the same approach, it actually might force bitmixer to pay more for larger sigs (which would be a good thing, IMO).

Exactly.  As far as I can tell, they have zero incentive to reopen in 3 months (now 1 month, I guess) and allow us to withdrawal all the money they stole.  No one is going to leave fundage with them if they reopen and allow us to take our money back.

Right, but now you see that why that's not really good, yes?  You don't want to reward the later more than you reward the former because you can make a race to be the last in.  That would, of course, lead to an absurdity: no one wants to adopt bitcoin first because the later adopters are better rewarded so no one ever adopts it at all.  Obviously the better course is to make a race to be the first to  adopt and this is the sane thing which happened.  You understand this now, yes?

Yah, this actually brings up a good point.  The fact that they don't pay more for the higher ranks means there's no real incentive to wear the biggest signature possible for your rank.  I wonder if their bot is careful to check this.

That seems smart.  I can see the utility of this for sure.  You never really know what's happening on someone else's system.  And don't make me comment on the sorry state of security on public systems like you find in a library or something.

Indeed, you're absolutely correct about this, I believe.  However, if you play for fun then your objective might not be to actually win money but just to have a good time and break even.  I really believe this is actually the healthy way to approach gambling.

What's more, if the person who defamed you turns out to be a notorious asshole, you might even end up proud of the negative feedback.  I got neg-repped (speciously, I hasten to add) by tradefortress back in the day.  Now I think it's a kind of mark of honor.

Wait, isn't that the only client? 

I think your question is intersting.  The answer I quoted seems to have most of it.  Also, consider this, if you're trying to kick off the bitcoin project, who do you want to reward more: the early adopters who invested time and possibly money on something which wasn't so clear whether it was a joke?  or the late bandwagoners who are just doing what everyone else is doing?  I think if you think of it that way, it's clear that you want to reward the early adopters and then they have incentive to bring more value to their greater holdings by getting more and more people involved. 

As nearly everyone is saying, or perhaps merely hinting at, the altcoin world is a circus of lies and deception and pump-n-dump scams and schemes.  There's no doubt that some people are making money at this but mainly by fooling others.  Unless you're ready to compete with these shady folks, it's best to stay away.  Why not buy some bitcoin (even a little) as the price is rather low nowadays.  I'd say you have a better chance to make your money back that way (in the long run) than you do by trying to stay ahead of the altcoin circus on reddit/twitter whatever else they use to communicate.

Well, that's a very good point, if he's not sole owner then he couldn't make the decision to sell the whole thing no matter what the price.  However, he could decide to sell his share (and I still think he's the only one who can decide that ).