Interested in launching a charity-related for-profit based on the premise that workers should be paid hard cash (BTC) instead of trinkets to help justify their time spent. The idea focuses on creating BTC jobs able to be done at home, opening up charities to indirect "hands-free" BTC adoption, and maintaining or improving charities' general perception through ethical and polite advertisement (no cold calls). We'd charge charities dramatically less than what most (if not, all) spend on in-house fundraising. Willing to divulge more to someone relevant and do have some documentation. I've tried a couple regional charities, but I don't think anyone's taking me seriously, possibly attributable (aside having absolutely no data from previous charities) to being told there would be interest of an international community of geeks donating to a relatively small and local charity. I need a charity willing to be the first in a test run. With hard numbers, I think moving forward will be a breeze, but we have to get over the initial hump. I have a primarily-RoR developer on standby, ready to work on the back-end, but unwilling to put time into something unless there's an interested charity.

I need the charities to be relatively local to Southern-central MI (in the US) since I'd really like a representative (ATM, only I am willing) to visit with a representative of the charity before anything moves forward as partnership. If I can't get a charity, I have family members running very small charities, mostly church-related (I could probably get some halfway houses on-board, though), which could be used as a last-resort, though I think community interest would be particularly weak for a church, and I'd hate to only have sucky numbers on-hand when contacting future charities.

PM or Skype me. (going to be away until late tonight)

Yes. The scammer tag is removed once reparations are made, but AFAIK, there isn't some type of arbitrary time period. If a defaulter comes back with a plan and is trying to make amends, the scammer tag is not usually applied.

(running off memory from information Theymos gave something like a year ago. Dunno if policy changed or memory's failing, but pretty sure that's how it works.)

(ETA: oops, replied "no" to a question in the OP instead of the topic. Fixed.)

~2-3 months ago, I asked someone involved. No tangible progress.

A lender of last resort can still exist without being able to print money, though if dealing with "raw Bitcoins," it would mean governments must be more up-front about how they keep "the economy" working as they want it to (needs "real" loans [government would basically be a co-signer at that point] or cash-on-hand to lend). Gox is pretty much the de facto BTC bank (though it hasn't been very..... "creative"). With BTC address whitelisting, cooperating businesses could even make "GoxBTC" more valuable than "raw BTC" with instant availability of funds when a user pays with "GoxBTC" and the merchant has Gox addresses whitelisted. Simply by this, Gox has justification to charge for withdrawals and even storage.

Banking hasn't yet been done "right" with BTC, but if enough creative minds had or secured enough funding for implementation, "mainstream Bitcoin" could quickly become radically different than what we currently know it as. And, with such a change, we could again see fractional reserve practices become commonplace. You probably remember when Gox was being charged with engaging in fractional reserve practices when GoxUSD was considered less valuable than physical USD (or "claims on USD" created by other entities more able to process withdrawals quickly)...

Unlike you, most probably don't understand all the reasons why USD is debt, though it's more difficult to comprehend now that USD isn't backed by something tangible. US Dollars were effectively bond notes issued by the US government which could be redeemed for PMs. "Modern public economics" is brilliant enough to combine this with the idea of covertly inflating bonds issued without fundamentally increasing the total value of the bonds issued, minimizing public awareness (and slowing "tangible" inflation) by not just dumping the money onto the public. The USG effectively issues debt and makes the BUYERS pay the interest, and for US residents, they MUST accept US debt due to legal tender laws, so US citizens are practically locked into this. It's awe-inspiring how they've pulled this off, and even managed to drag widely-respected governments into "dollar traps." I don't see any reason these same people could not be dragged into something like a "GoxUSD trap." Or, perhaps a "USGBTC trap." ... It will be interesting to see whether or not the majority of the community accepts the risk of accepting "BTC debt notes" like GoxBTC when Gox or a similar business starts advertising the perks. Will we fall for it again?

(edit: I'm not at all sober. Please forgive me for egregious errors.    )

I really shouldn't be the one making this thread, but I'm constantly hearing of devs and designers being needed, and devs/designers needing work. It's silly. Meet here if there's really no better venue.

Here, all relevant are encouraged to post a resume, portfolio, and whether or not you'd be willing to work for equity (or per milestone, hourly -- whatever) - along with any other stipulations or relevant info (for example, you may want to include spoken languages you're fluent in, too). As possible, include references, preferably people the community's aware of. Thumbs up or down (so long as it isn't unbased flaming) are permitted in this thread. If there are more than five applicants, I'll get a table up and update as I have time.

ETA: job postings are fine, too, and will also have a table if there's interest.

Governments have, and will have more tools at its disposal as more large businesses adopt or are born from Bitcoin. No-fly-lists, bank holds... Vitalik did an article I enjoyed reading in #5 of BTCMag regarding information oligarchies. Amazon could refuse to share their data with businesses the USG doesn't want them to. None of this necessarily needs to be written into law to happen. For all we know, governments could be actively sabotaging many Bitcoin businesses, though it's probably incompetency, not malice.

Bitcoin's not some tiny $10m/yr basement project anymore.... Truly p2p, government doesn't have much recourse. Once businesses are so large, they must comply with filing regulations or risk having officers imprisoned, it's the businesses without much recourse. Until a certain point where the tables turn utterly (see HSBC), governments have registered businesses by the balls. BitInstant, BitPay, Gox -- those would be the ones I'd worry about facing unfair challenges. The coffee shop down the street which takes BTC, though? Naw - probably not. It'd be seen as a larger war on privacy governments have been waging since cryptography and the public's access to it (the Internet) really took off, which is part of an even larger war against "peasants" trying to live as they will. Particularly with the USG, they frequently won't declare war on something (or declare something illegal) before going after it with all resources at their disposal.

I looked at Switzerland for someone in PMs. Netherlands should be pretty similar.

"To get one or both there in 1-3 business days, $93 for one or both.
To get one or both there in 3-5 business days, $41 for one or $50 for both.
To get there in 6-10 business days, $37 for one or $45 for both.
To get there "whenever" (2-8 weeks), $18 for one or $31 for both.

Gox rate is something like $14 per BTC, fwiw. Those aren't definite shipping prices, but should be pretty close ballparks. I'd refund you the difference if it were to end up costing me less."

ETA: Looked up Netherlands specifically:

1-3 business days, $72 for one or $86 for both.
3-5 business days, $42 for one or $50 for both.
6-10 business days, $35 for one or $41 for both.
"whenever," $18 for one or $31 for both.

ETA: If someone International needs something specific in declarations on orders, lemme know in PMs. Intend to use bid price (excl. shipping) as declaration value.

A) It would be illegal. Gavin & associates probably don't want Zimmerman-style criminal investigations and rectal probing (with a chance of detainment) each time they take a flight.
B) It's a non-issue. Iranians just need to download the Bitcoin client from a mirror or download through VPN or Tor.

The law's ineffective, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be dumb as Hell for public figures to violate the law as publicly as possible.

They do ~380MH/s (+- 20MH/s, changes each time miner boots). Didn't test power draw.

I stopped mining with them ~1 week ago when BitMinter went down. I'm too lazy to configure CGMiner to work with them again, and since BitMinter went down for a couple days, now get a runtime error every time I try with BitMinter for a reason I can't figure out (not specific to Icarus boards - detaching didn't help).

I emailed cablepair a couple days ago about this since he wanted the chips... but uhh... I'm assuming that's not going to work out, now. 

Make an offer (above 3BTC each). Shipping's from lower-central Michigan - $15 for both, or $10 per unit in continental US. Ask if elsewhere. So I don't get confused, bid amounts and shipping price are separate (so if you bid 4BTC for one in the continental US, you'd pay 4BTC + $10 equiv.). If you just want the chips, lemme know, since I can repurpose the fan and power supply.

Comes with:
*Original generic box with bubble-wrap protection
*One last-batch Icarus board (the changes he made on them elude me ATM)
*DC barrel power supply
*Probably some dust. Can't afford a new can of air. 
*Mini-USB -> USB adapter

Icarus link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51371.0

Bidding ends "when I wake up" 5pm EST on January 18th, 2013 (top two highest bids both win one each unless bid was for two units) or buy them both now for 50BTC.    Up for escrow (but you pay any fees). I reserve the right to void or "discount" bids as suits my whims.

Anonymity is generally bad for business when there are two-way obligations. You can't file suit against "fogducker666" unless you know his name and location. It's generally also a bad idea to do major amounts of business with someone far away, because again, you lose the ability to file suit. Maybe more importantly, you lose the ability to threaten filing a suit. Moral or not, the government is force, and nobody wants to be on the receiving end.

It's kind of funny, though, because Bitcoin's fairly small, and there's a large forum community. Bitcoin's advertised as "zero-trust," and I guess people expect mods and admin to review and remove scams pre-emptively, or maybe just for the community to be pretty close-knit, not scamming each other. So, "fogducker666" shows up selling LSD behind a Tor website, and a good few people will send him their BTC before it's realized he's scamming.

Killing ego and implying he's going to kill "self" again, knowing the first time at least hundreds of $ in public resources were used after other private individuals were concerned enough to take time out of their day to report him.

Sounds reasonable. There are only so many times you can make suicide implications before the local gov't determines it'd be cheaper (and safer) to force hospitalization. There's pretty much 0% chance dank would be released without a caseworker after mandatory evaluation.

It might be good for the company, and in principal, it seems sound, but finding new work is generally a resource-consuming process itself (not just for the worker himself, but the economy as a whole as consumption possibly drops). Overall, it may be an economically destructive action to "give up" on employees rather than trying to "salvage" them (whether that means keeping them on-board assuming they'll be profit-makers later, or repurposing them to work in a similar role). Not taking a side either way, but it'd be interesting to read studies on the true impact of letting employees go.

I couldn't find the original threads. There was a lot of drama back then between Goat and Nefario. However, here's a post where Goat notes I did hold the ID in escrow: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74975.msg896501#msg896501

BDK.BND is being transferred from the GLBSE datasheet to BitFunder. A modified list of who owns what will be sent to BitFunder on January 22nd (includes requested changes to BTC addresses, and removed info for those who didn't want info sent to BitFunder [their units will be paid manually]).

I'm expecting BDK.BND to "re-launch" on January 28th. However, there will be no IPO. This is merely a way for unit-holders to trade their existing debt-notes for immediate BTC, if they so choose. In addition, the transition to BitFunder makes repayment a bit simpler for me.

BDK.BND units, as of this writing (January 9th, 2013), have a FV of .093139BTC/unit. Keep in mind, BDK.BND (which is effectively a personal loan) is in default. It does not accrue interest, and payment amounts will not be regular. I will post here an expected amount to be paid on the 28th of each month, depending on my income and needs. Repayment will NOT be in the form of buying back bonds, but will instead be in the form of those payments ("dividends") on the 28th of each month. Thus, when a dividend is paid, it reduces the FV of BDK.BND. There is no longer valid expiration or contract regarding BDK.BND, outside of "the .093139BTC/unit will eventually be paid back."

Optimistically, I'll have BDK.BND fully paid off by the end of 2013. Pessimistically, by the end of 2014. It could be anywhere between and possibly even in the future, though. Aside from BDK.BND unit-holders being paid off on January 28th under special conditions, BDK.BND will be "perpetual" in the sense that I intend to make small "tithes" to BDK.BND unit-holders after the FV is paid off. There are absolutely no guarantees on what those amounts may be, nor regularity. It's an apology for making unit-holders have to go through all this.

-----------

Current Face Value (03/24/13) : 0.0911477753BTC/unitBTC/unit
Dividends held in reserve (set aside, waiting to be paid out): $0
(*NOTE* When dividends are paid, FV decreases!)

March 28th expected payment: $319.70 ($180.30 already paid)

If you have questions about the offering, ask me directly (see forum profile for Skype info), but please don't purchase BDK.BND units if you still have unanswered questions. If there are enough of the same questions, I'll make a FAQ.

Local rules: No posts in this thread permitted other than mine (but I don't want it locked). This thread is strictly information-only, and the "contract" section on BitFunder will link here.

Not trying to rub salt in any wounds, but this exchange made me laugh when reading the first convo posted... (paraphrased)

Lender: You owe me 10BTC.
Lendee: A taxi cab ran over my foot.
Lender: Well, I'm just telling you I publicly claimed you're a scammer because you're late, unresponsive, and blocked me on social media.
Lendee: Wtf! Imagine being in my (crushed) shoes!
Lender: Your shoes? Imagine being in MY shoes. I just lost 10BTC!

The university would probably be losing more with you mining than you would make in income. CPUs won't earn anything significant, and GPUs will lose usefulness (rather, cost way more to run than what they'd earn BTC mining) when/if ASICs ever arrive (currently 2-3 months behind delivery dates, and bankruptcy very possible for one of the manufacturers).

However, at least poclbm, phoenix and guiminer have Mac compatibility (no idea on others). For GPU card comparison in general in relation to mining, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison - best $/MHs will depend on what you buy the cards at, but 5xxx GPUs are generally best $/MHs (58xx series used to almost always be best $/MHs, but unsure now), with the 7xxx series having best $/Wh numbers.

Um.......

I don't think it's unreasonable for an issuer to be very skeptical of a payout list provided by someone who shut down an exchange without warning, in violation of company by-laws (or "by-morals" if you wanna gripe about it not being legal) with the blatant-"fuck you" intent to start a new "legal" company immediately after, removed users' ability to download their trade history, refused to include people who upset him on a payout list, has financial troubles, took an unreasonable amount of time to release asset info, and has been pretty unresponsive to emails.

At least one BTC address (for a fairly large-quantity unit-holder) in the list Nefario sent me for BDK.BND was wrong (the claimant said he emailed Nef to change it, but it wasn't). By acting skeptically and individually telling everyone the relevant info Nef sent me, that person didn't lose a bunch of BTC to an unknown address.

Taking it a step further, Giga gets to take out plenty of birds with one stone. Users will have plenty of time to review information before Giga starts payments, the new entity's legal status will allow new opportunities (and less risk), and having a more secure claims process would prevent possible unsavory doings by the list provider. For how large Gigamining became and how worried we were about the SEC watching us like hawks (though I now personally have zero faith in their ability to do anything), it would've been insane to have Gigamining on one of the recent pop-up exchanges, while just keeping Gigamining unlisted and paying manual dividends (ignoring the giant pain in the ass that'd be) probably would've pissed people off just as much as what he's doing.

Link to thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120218