I hope people will get their moneys worth. Once it's not worth mining anymore the ASICs will be worthless and useless as well.
GPU mining weren't as risky. You could use them for other purposes or resell for a fair price.

Keep calm. Dont panic. Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.Keep calm. Dont panic.

That page gives me an error/test page, some sort of 'Parallels' advert.

We hit $4 for a long time this year, actually we broke $3 for a while, why didn't you buy then?

I wasn't exactly comparing them, as BFL does not make chips.  They sort of implied they do but now they claim they weren't referring to the chips.  They admit their chips are made in Asia.  Taiwan if I'm not mistaken and that's where most of them are.  You can probably count the number of high end and/or custom chip manufacturing plants in the world on 2 hands.  It's just that they sell to one company that sells to another that sells to another that sells to BFL.  The same goes for Marvell and Phision and SiS and even Samsung for example.  I think maybe Nvidia owns their own chip fab plant but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually didn't.

you are the .01%!

The guys wearing tinfoil hats never consider that everyone thinks they are crazy because they are crazy; it is always part of some grand scheme to suppress them.  You seem to be assuming that because I disagree with you, I'm working for "the man" and trying to stifle legitimate dissent.  I'm not, I just point out crazy when I see it.

See, unlike some people, I made my judgments of those posts based on the contents of the posts, not on their support of the foundation, or lack thereof.  If it makes you feel any better, most of the support for the foundation is vague too, but those guys aren't crapping up the forums.

I personally have not seen even one single post that was anti-foundation that wasn't full of nonsense (gox is going to pay Gavin to steal all of our coins!), or vague claims (someday, in the future, the foundation might be so big that it may do or say something that isn't good for the community).  If I missed one, please do point it out to me.

Paying salary to developer/s seems counter productive to the whole open source methodology. Once you have a boss so to speak, you will not be making the same coding decisions you did in the past. Like it or not your future decisions can or will probably be influenced by the board. IMO the people writing code should not be members of the board. There is nothing stopping people and or the foundation from donating to developers via their Bitcoin addresses.

I like that it could be used to promote Bitcoin.

I'm not opposed to the foundation, just to having any of its members writing code for Bitcoin (not that my opinion really matters, I'm just one person in a great big sea of other people).

Yeah, that would be a really world altering change!

Bill Gates   $61.3 billion
Mark Zuckerberg  $21 billion
Larry Ellison  $37.9 billion
Sergey Brin  $18.7 billion
Larry Page  $18.7 billion
Carlos Slim  $60.6 billion
Kevin Rose  $160 million
Vlasimir Yevtushenkov  $9 billion
The Late Steve Jobs  $7 billion
Azim Premji  $15.9 billion
Satoru Iwata  $7.8 billion
Mark Zuckerberg  $4 billion
Larry Page  $17.5 billion
Masayoshi Son  $7 billion
Jeff Bezos   $8.7 Billlion
Pierre Omidyar  $6.3 Billion
Eric Schmidt  $5.9 Billion
Ronald Burkle  $3.5 Billion
Mark Cuban    $2.6 billion
Peter Thiel   $1.3 billion
Peter Cashmore   $95 million   
and on and on and on and on...........

We EMC?
you really should pull on your bfl sock when answering as them, or put just a tad more info in your post so that people know you are a rep.
I know who you are, to ppl that don't your statement means nothing
best
Graet

There's always a better product coming or possible. These aren't static. I mean when Apollo launched the computer it used to go the the moon and back is overpowered by modern watches now. In a couple of years these will be paperweights. In 10-15 years we'll have some sort of personal data device/phone/watch/whatever than can do circles around anything we have now.

The only real question is will you get a return on your investment? It's a game of chicken.

We are often asked what our official policy is towards testing the ASIC equipment prior to shipping it to customers.

Our official policy is that we will burn in/test your equipment for a minimum of 24 hours on what is called "Testnet-in-a-box." This will allow us to verify that you equipment is working and able to sustain operations at normal operating conditions for a minimum of 24 hours.

we just need to get gavin off the board. the others can stand as is but we cannot have the lead developer's hands wrapped up in politics.

Though I'm not sure I can picture reaching your "end of November" max numbers, I'm 100% with you on the minimums.

This is bullshit.
If not bullshit, see a doctor, find out what's actually wrong with you.
Regardless, nobody wants to buy a "solution" to something that's not a problem.

satoshis paper

I wonder if there will be a BFL ASIC 2.0 upgrade path for ASIC 1.0 owners

we will not forget our customers and will make every effort to transition you, the customer, to the second generation ASIC as easily, quickly and in the most cost effective manner as possible.

If you buy stuff with it count it as selling.

if you hold them for 3-6 months and then sell them, consider that as selling.

Examples, please.

Please visit the Foundation website for details, and please keep in mind that nothing is set in stone; the structure of the Foundation can be changed by a vote of its members, and exactly what the Foundation does will largely depend on who is willing to step up do the work to make things happen.

Despite the slow return to health of a sickly world economy, oil fetches a lofty $75 a barrel, which Saudi Arabia, OPEC's most influential member reckons is "ideal".
source

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. There are 12 Federal Reserve Member Banks.
A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank.
Member banks, do however, elect six of the nine members of the Federal Reserve Banks' boards of directors.[31][76] From the profits of the Regional Bank of which it is a member, a member bank receives a dividend equal to 6% of their purchased stock.[17] The remainder of the regional Federal Reserve Banks' profits is given over to the United States Treasury Department.
source

"Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York"

"many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy"

"It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank."
source

Indeed, Ron Paul noted recently that one-third of all fed bailout loans – and essentially 100% of
loans from the New York Fed – went to foreign banks.
source

However If history is any guide, having some sort of central bank may have been better than none. Out of 100 years of Fed control, the country has had 22 recessional years, including one depression. The 100 years before the Fed saw 44 recessions and six depressions.

What's left is this: until someone thinks of a better idea than the gold standard or handing the economic keys to the Treasury Department, or just leaving a void, the Fed will probably have to stick around—flaws and all.

"I think most of the rhetoric is political blather and adds to a degree of uncertainty around the world, hurting all aspects of growth," says John Allan James. "It may make good media copy, but the chances of the Fed being dissolved are totally unrealistic."

Source