I've always found this conspiracy particularly interesting for some reason.  I don't know what to believe, and don't really care anymore at this point.  What happened, happened, and if it truly was a conspiracy, it will someday be revealed.  Evidence points both ways.

I have an interesting hour-and-a-half video from the conspiracy side that I'll upload if anyone cares to watch it.

More importantly, why hasn't someone written up a thread to give him the scammer tag?

I only participate in crowd-funding if I have a reward for it (in this case, a free copy of the completed game), and when I see a project already partway to completion, with "something to show for it".  So, if I were to help crowd-fund your endeavor, I'd want to see you complete it partially in your own spare time, then ask for further funding to focus on it full-time and bring it to completion.  Have some screenshots, a basic demo of it, a really detailed design doc, or something of that nature.

So here's my idea:
Multi-player sim city with satoshi's as the base currency, you have to pay to start your city (i.e., fund it with 0.01 BTC or something to get 1,000,000 credits to start building with).  Cities are placed on a world map.  People can view each others cities.  Cities are constantly in motion - in other words, the gameplay doesn't pause just because you exit the game.

Here's where the money-maker for you comes in, and the challenge/reward for the players comes in:
- A base tax is levied over real-world time.  This is a fixed credit tax.  500 credits/day or something.
- A land tax is levied over real-world time.  This is a variable credit tax, dependent upon how much land you use.  5000 credits/sq mile or something.
- The experienced player must attempt to build a city large enough to sustain itself while paying the taxes.  Anything beyond that is icing on the cake, monies that they can actually withdraw if they like.

It should be difficult to successfully create a large, thriving city, but this is the only way that a person would actually be able to "make money" in the game.  Those monies would come from taxes on cities who don't turn a profit.  The difficulty should automatically adjust according to how much money is brought in from failed cities vs how much money is given out from successful cities.

Hmmm, this actually turned into an intriguing idea as I wrote it.  I kind of like it.

The tipping point is when > 10% of the people of the world know what Bitcoin is, why it is useful, and advocate for its use.

http://www.trendsspotting.com/blog/?p=2123

I apologize in advance for the troll, but I can't help this one:

Nyhm: What do you guys want to see in a Bitcoin-centric game?
People: This.
Nyhm: No, this is not what this is focused on.  But srsly guys, what do you want to see in the game?
People: That.
Nyhm: No, that is not what I want to build.  For real though, what do you want to see in the game?
People: The other thing.
Nyhm: Sorry, I don't think the other thing will fit well into this project.
Nyhm: Ok fine, I'll tell you what I intend to make since you can't read my mind!



But seriously, I applaud you for your efforts, and hope you are able to create something epic.  I myself very much enjoy the economic/tycoon type games, so I am looking forward to what you come up with.

I wonder if it would be possible to integrate it directly into Second Life using SL's API?

Exactly.  There may be regulations put in place on 3rd party companies that process transactions (exchanges, payment processors, etc), but that won't stop people from transacting directly with each other, just like people still transact directly with each other with cash.

Hah, I did the whole "buy and resell real estate" thing.  I'd look for the cheapest large plots I could find, then subdivide them into the smallest plots possible and sell them just below the going market rate, ensuring a quick sale.  I'd just about double-up every time I did this.  Unfortunately, they changed the sorting on the real estate listings when they introduced leasing (or renting?), which meant that those leased properties always showed up as the lowest price/square meter compared to everything else, making it impossible to find good deals on real estate actually for sale.  It was fun while it lasted, and I made $75 for doing almost nothing.  I wanted to invest in an island and do the same, but it was too large a chunk of money for me to risk at the time.

Interesting comparison of Bitcoin to Second Life.  One of my favorite aspects of Bitcoin is just watching it.  Watching the services pop up, and either dwindle and die, or experience wild success.  Watching what activities people take place in in a truly free economic environment.  It is extremely fascinating to me.

I'll vouch for yochdog as having done a successful multi-thousand dollar deal with him a few months back.

I lol'd.

SHHH! Stop being reasonable - I'd rather have everyone think that we'll be at 900TH in two months and stop ordering more ASICs!

My apologies - I DID skim over the post too fast and missed the cASIC reference.  I noted the thread title as having to do with an FPGA.

Yes, I have heard of cASIC already though!  And I too am excited that there will be competition (more excited if they aren't delivered before the BFL units are though).  Not sure why the Jalepeno can't be considered a "real ASIC" though.

I really don't care if BFL quoted specs from simulations (which, I agree, I am sure they did).  They are purposefully holding back on power draw until they can be certain of what it is, so they do not make the same mistake as last time.  And for me, as long as the specs are at least as close as they were for the first-gen units (which was 4 times the power consumption and 20% less hashing power), I'll be happy.  More importantly, if they ship out before anyone else's ASICs ship out, I'll be extremely happy.  Anything more is icing on the cake.

Bitminter has already stated multiple times that they will have support for BFL's new miners by the time they ship.  That's good enough for me.

Alright gene and JoelKatz, after giving this some further thought, I do agree with you that what was done here, including by those operating the pass throughs, was wrong.  Ultimately, it was an illicit redistribution of users' funds (with pirate and the PPT operators taking a cut of it), and those who ran the PPT's helped it happen.

Thanks for the discussion. 

Again, Joel, why are you targeting the PPT operators themselves if that is the case?  It sounds as though EVERYONE who received funds from the ponzi more than they invested should be labeled as a scammer, based on what you are saying.  And everyone who received less funds from the ponzi than they invested should be labeled a victim.  True?

Ok, I highlighted the important part.  It's still the case that pirate didn't do what he said he would do, but the PPT operators did do what they said they would do.  Or, if they didn't, then they should be labeled scammers just like pirate.  I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that just because they thought pirate would eventually stop paying out, they are scammers for being involved.  I DO subscribe to the idea that whenever someone doesn't hold to their word, they should be labeled as a scammer.

If I said, "I'll steal any coins that you send to me at this address," then am I a scammer?

If a PPT insisted that it wasn't a ponzi when he full well knew it was very likely one, then I'd hand him the scammer tag in a heartbeat.

Oh, I am sorry - I didn't realize we were handing out scammer tags based on whether people would be indicted under common law.  I thought it was based on whether one person scammed another.

And no, it's a forum about Bitcoin.

Nice find lame.duck, thanks for posting!  I stand corrected.