Mine have been running at 90-95 degree celcius for over 10 days straight. I really don't think temps damage a card unless their heading over 100 degree celcius. Cards tend to scale back processing as they hit that temp so there's a built in failsafe. Or they might blow up.

Agreed.

I think it stems from the fact that people perceive Bitcoin as a "finished, final product" instead of the evolving open source project that it really is. It'd be like criticizing the first automobile because "it doesn't have a stereo system" or "there are no seatbelts or airbags."

It's the core invention of Bitcoin as a decentralized commodity currency that is revolutionary. The convenience and features that come later will be benefits but their current absence should not be overstated.

I like what you said. A couple comments:

1) It's unreasonable to conclude the meteoric rise of btc has much to do with a falling dollar at this stage. If gold and silver were rising substantially in this short timeframe, then one could make such an argument. The more likely reason btc is skyrocketing is because thousands of new people are discovering it every day, and deciding that it's a damn cool thing and worthy of marginal investment. Further, there will be nothing remotely close to btc replacing the dollar or other currencies until the system of btc is smooth, easy to use, reliable, and convenient. We need bitcoin credit/debit cards, bitcoin banks, bitcoin insurance, etc. We need to be able to buy food at the grocery store and gas at the pump with a direct btc payment. These services will be built by entrepreneurs but it will take a while. The terrible fiat currencies will never be fully replaced until we have this.

2) The most likely way the US would outlaw BTC is by making it illegal to accept BTC as a form of payment, because it's easy to find and prosecute vendors who advertise this. Let's remember, though, that the US is not God of the Universe. There are dozens of other countries that would have to make it illegal as well for btc to be totally screwed. I doubt politicians are effective enough to coordinate such a global attack. Further, I think the kind of political environment where that attack could happen is the kind of environment where sh*t has hit the fan, fiat currencies have collapsed, and the public is panicking. I doubt many people will CARE if governments outlaw btc at that point. Rebels will be plentiful!

3) Yeah I agree the whole deflation concern is silly. BTC is always increasing in supply (though at a diminishing rate) and thus there is technically never deflation, anyway. And besides, a world in which money increases steadily over time in value is nothing to be scared of. Us Austrians aren't too concerned =)

This whole issue is very easy to understand with the simple distinction of capitalism (properly understood free markets) and corporatism (which is what we have now). So long as those terms are respected and understood, it's easy to distinguish the good people and organizations from the bad ones.

And in a free society, "corporations" broadly speaking would still exist. Their liabilities would be limited via insurance as opposed to government. So, entrepreneurs could take risks without worrying about financial ruin, and anyone hurt by the entrepreneur could be compensated by the insurance fund.

And it'll all be done with Bitcoins =)

Bump... any other comments before this goes live?

Hi all,

I've been asked to write a piece about Bitcoin for the movie blog of Silver Circle (upcoming animated film about a dollar collapse dystopia =)

My working draft is posted on my blog here: http://evoorhees.blogspot.com/2011/06/bitcoins-and-separation-of-money-and.html

The intent is to be an overview of Bitcoin and introduce more people to the currency. I tried to avoid too much technical jargon, instead focusing on the big ideas. It will likely expose at least a thousand new people to Bitcoin once posted at the blog.

Would appreciate any of your comments/criticism on the piece. I wrote it pro bono, but production costs included lots of Starbucks =) If you like the piece and would like to contribute to my coffee fund, my address is 19aStAAG6q5LyknKvHzAdWGm47bQuaC4Vd

Also, please don't repost this anywhere just yet. Once it's officially published, then I'm happy for it to be distributed elsewhere - just please hold for now.

Not any more.

Actually, your statement is a crock of shit. I personally have not hired people precisely because I would have to pay the minimum wage, when the value to me as an employer of their labor was below that wage. I would have hired several people in the past couple years, actually, had the Government not made it unprofitable to do so.

Math is math. If expected revenue from Employee A is $5/hour of labor-time, and cost of wage is $6/hour of labor-time, then the hire will not occur. And of course it doesn't even need to be this precise. If I know a worker will cost $6/hour, and his expected revenue earnings will be anywhere from $4-$8/hour, I still may not hire him because of the cost of acquisition, opportunity costs, unknown risks, etc.

Minimum wage is immoral and unethical, and terrible economic policy. If two people are willing to work together at a mutually-agreed price, no other person in the world has the right to stop them by force. And the people it hurts the most are not the evil capitalists... but rather the poor who are prevented from working at a rate to which they would've voluntarily agreed.

"Hoarding" is a moot concept. It's not important. It's a bogeyman.

As money is "withheld" from circulation, interest rates rise as the demand for money increases. As these rates rise, it becomes increasingly attractive to loan out "hoarded" funds and thus it's a self-correcting problem. ie- not really a problem at all.

Current recipients of SS money are paid by new entrants into the system, contrary to the popular belief that when you pay SS taxes, they're going into a savings account for you.

The system will require more and more entrants (increasing population), because A) medical costs are rising and will continue to do so (mainly due to US policies) and B) people live longer and longer yet the payout age of 65 remains the same.

Without an increasing population, the system must renege on benefits that were promised. Thus it requires an increasing number of entrants to prevent promises from being broken. This is about as ponzi as something can get.

Your essay answered it's own question. Why is all this energy being "wasted?"  It's not being wasted. Large energy use makes it hard to attack the network. If we all used 1% of our computing power instead of 100%, it would be substantially easier to attack the network. Simple concept, and rather than a great prisoners' dilemma example, it's a great example of Smith's "invisible hand." All us miners, in our selfishness, compete against each other to solve more hashes and earn money. By so doing, without conscious intention, we are making the network substantially more difficult to hack.

Energy use for energy use's sake would be silly. Energy use for security's sake is valuable, and thus not a "utter and complete waste" as you claim it to be.

A "pyramid scheme" requires a promise of payment or guarantee of some kind. It's fraud because the guarantee is impossible to sustain and the guaranteer knows this.  The guarantee must be something like "you give me X, and in the future you will receive Y" where both X and Y are specified and promised.

There is nothing in Bitcoin to suggest such a fraud. Nobody that I'm aware of has been guaranteed anything, at any point in time. On the contrary, these very forums are evidence of skepticism, critique, and constant debate. Rather than a ponzi scheme, Bitcoin is more accurately described as a commodity market - albeit a very volatile, dangerous, exciting, and perhaps revolutionary one.

If you don't want to sell your coins because you think Bitcoin is a ponzi scam to enrich the early adopters, there's an easy solution for you: sell your coins for $0.01 each or better yet donate them all to the Bitcoin Faucet.

And if you're truly worried about ponzi schemes, study the US Social Security system and alert the hundreds of millions of people who will be criminally ripped off when it comes crashing down as the promises to pay specified benefits are mathematically impossible to sustain. Madoff was nothing compared to the US Gov, and it's inaccurate to put Bitcoin in that hideous category.

I never claimed anyone had "full understanding of all information available." No person in any market transaction, ever, could claim to have "full awareness" of all variables.  Full awareness is not a prerequisite for a just transaction.

So long as someone voluntarily decided to engage in a behavior and nobody intentionally deceived or defrauded that person, then can we please let adults be adults and take responsibility for their actions?

And for goodness' sake, is there not an absurd amount of free, available information here on these forums and the wiki pages??  Anyone who jumped in blindly has no excuse to claim they were "unaware" of important variables. It's open source software! I'm more in the dark when I buy an apple from the grocery store.

I'd rather not refute that entire article in this post, but let's take a quick quote: "The problem is it does this not by offering dollar-denominated digital cash-transfers, but by bootstrapping an entirely new currency. The question to ask is why this would be at all desirable." It's desirable (in part) because this new currency cannot be printed at whim by a central bank. Pretty easy answer, which seems to have eluded the author entirely. The fact that "so many people voted him up" merely proves that many people agree with him. Many people also agree with Ben Bernanke and Kim Kardashian.

Regarding "honest justification" for the wealth of early adopters... I don't know what to say other than: they created something which subsequently became valuable because people like you bought it voluntarily. They didn't lie to you. They didn't cheat. They didn't deceive or defraud you. You bought in to their new invention, and that makes the invention more valuable... and now you're complaining that the inventors shouldn't have been so good at inventing something? Puzzling.

BTW I have less than a hundred coins, so please don't accuse bias.

There is absolutely nothing unfair, untoward, or unethical about any "unequal" distribution.

The idea of "distribution" in any free and voluntary market is irrelevant and frankly a silly topic of conversation.

Bitcoins are not "distributed," anyway. They are not allocated other than by completely voluntary production and trade. Producers are those who engage in processing and securing the Bitcoin network. Obviously, those who started doing so many months ago will have produced more than someone starting now. Should we also spend time discussing why it's unfair that water doesn't pump itself into our homes or that gravity adversely affects larger individuals?

IMHO - any talk of distribution in an open market environment is either borne of A) poor understanding of economic and natural principles, B) some collectivist notion of what constitutes "fairness for the hive" or C) thinly veiled jealousy. Usually it's a combination of the three.

Entertaining video, but there are some economic flaws in it. For example, the fact that all money is "created from debt" does not mean that humanity is in perpetual debt due to this system. The movie says that there will always be "more debt than money," but it forgets that each dollar of money can and will pay back multiple dollars-worth of debt. So, even if there is $1 trillion dollars in the economy, and $10 trillion in cumulative debt, each dollar need only be traded ten times to pay off all the debt.

As dollars circulate in trade, all debt can be repaid without a requirement of further dollars being printed.

There is thus no "debt-slavery," though many of these hyper-propaganda films portray such. They should focus on the true evil, which is the inflation itself. The fact that many people are stupid and take out loans they can't pay back is perhaps sad, but not evil or malicious.

Before I get flammed, let me disclaim that I'm as anti-fed and anti-government as anyone here. But, if you're going to critique the status-quo, it should be for valid reasons, as opposed to sensational fallacies.

So the great hacker empire has demanded what amounts to about $20/day in extortion money?  Geez they're really passed their prime 
 

Bitcoin only works when CAPS LOCK IS OFF

Didn't the difficulty just rise like a week ago? lol

Hahahaha  well hopefully the headlines will be more like, "Dollar edges down as humanity wakes up to the fraud of central banking and seeks refuge in Bitcoin"  Maybe it's too long for a headline =)