No such thing as a "normal" ounce. They're either troy (1 oz = 31.1g) or avoirdupois (1 oz = 28.35g). Troy is used for precious metals (and gunpowder) and avoirdupois for everything else. Avoirdupois is the more modern measure but Troy ounces were kept intact to avoid confusion since gold/silver/etc were still in use as money at the time.

It would be much better for the world in general if everyone simply used grams for everything, but that probably won't happen any time soon (at least not here in the U.S.). So he chose the wrong version of the ounce to represent precious metals in, at least he told us which ounce he was using. That's better than I can say for 99% of the gold/silver/etc related sites on the internet.

Of course the timespans in which the waves complete seems to increase logarithmically/exponentially so it makes sense that this flatline should last longer than the ones which preceded it. If BTC ever does see use as common currency it will likely be within extremely long flatline periods so it's probably a good thing to see log/exp increases in the cycle length.

Also keep in mind that TBX can be mined effectively on regular everyday hardware, no special GPU requirements, which means that a lot of folks with free electricity just got the ability to mine. I for one would like a Java/JavaScript miner so that I can dedicate a core or two in the background while I'm at work.

This is the jist of my complaint. I don't argue against having mint marks, web site address, company name or any other such thing on the coin, I argue against it being so prominent! Look at any U.S. coin for example, there's stuff all over it identifying where it was minted, what country minted it, etc. but the face and reverse of every coin is a portrait, building, or some other image. The image is prominent both heads and tails, not the minting information.

Practically every .999 silver coin in existence carries adequate markers that you can identify the mint, quality of the coin and some other data easily, but most do not carry giant advertisements for the mint on an entire side. This coin is supposed to commemorate Bitcoin, not your company.

Any plans for a TBX<->BTC/IXC/I0C/NMC/ETC exchange?

No you can't, that question is closed since it's not really appropriate for the StackExchange site. Glad to see you're getting the feedback you were looking for elsewhere though

I seriously considered buying these but the pics ruined it. I refuse (REFUSE) to buy an item which carries a blatant advertisement for its manufacturer. It would be one thing to have a small mint mark somewhere, or perhaps the name in small text around an edge but giant letters all across the entire back of the coin is ridiculous.

So I'm just curious, I've dealt in 999 silver rounds/bars before and I've dealt in the old 90% silver US coins and I've never had many difficulties finding someone to buy or sell at or near spot/melt prices. I've recently obtained some of the pre-1971 half and dollar coins which are about 40% silver. I've never bought or sold these before and I'm not a coin collector, just interested in precious metals. So my question is this: In your experience, how hard/easy is it to find a buyer should I want to liquidate some of my 40% silver coins, relative to finding a buyer for 90% or 999 silver?

And perhaps sipa's mod can make it into the next release so we can all stop using pywallet? No offense to jackjack, it's an excellent tool, but frankly it's a tool that shouldn't exist considering there's been a pull request that duplicates its functionality for quite some time now.

Are you from the past?

Also, thanks devs!

OK so maybe the scale is arbitrary and perhaps I shouldn't have even drawn the black line, but you can still see my main point: When we started climbing into the $31 bubble, price was going up while profit was going down. As you said, ROI should increase when the price increases and yet here we are at some of the lowest ROI ever despite the fact that bitcoins are worth MORE at the end of the chart than at the beginning! As the spread between price and ROI increases in one direction, we MUST be over-valuing the commodity, and when it increases in the other we MUST be under-valuing it.

Since we're posting interesting charts...



This is from http://tvori.info/bitcoin/charts/ - the historical data image.

Green line is mining profitability, yellow line is MtGox price. If we look at Bitcoin as a commodity rather than a currency it's not hard to imagine that it would go through the typical cycles of being over and under valued. I have no data to support this hypothesis (Bitcoin is just too young for there to be adequate data) but I believe that the relative positions of the yellow and green lines in this chart are as good a method as any to estimate the actual value of a bitcoin.



I've sort of freehand-drawn a smoothed line midway between the two to show where evidence suggests a proper valuation should have been this whole time - a semistable line between $2 and $4.

Pick a commodity and apply the same logic - it's profitable to grow wheat when it's over-valued, it's unprofitable to grow wheat when it's under-valued. The only difference is that the daily supply of bitcoins remains the same whether 1 person or 100 choose to mine. This is the predicament we're in - bitcoins were over-valued, which drew in a lot of new miners thus increasing the difficulty. Once the difficulty increased substantially it became unprofitable to mine - bitcoins were under-valued relative to their production cost and the market was unwilling to change its valuations simply because the miners asked it to. The value of a bitcoin has held somewhat stable for some time now, but difficulty lags these market dynamics substantially and so it has not yet self-corrected to the point where bitcoins are properly valued relative to their production cost.

That's my 2 bitcents anyway  

+1

And for the love of god, if you're not going to put significant values in the last couple digits, please use the next SI prefix up and call it 4.8 TH/s.

+1

I'm glad to see that the Raspberry Pi might not be vaporware after all. Anyone know what the power consumption is like? Might be an awesome portable hack platform if it can run a good long time on a small LiPo cell...

Since the Arduino doesn't have the processor or memory requirements to run a thin client you'd just be connecting to a bitcoind server via SSL, which seems simple enough. If that's all you need you don't even need an Arduino, why not code around something crazy cheap like the TI-MSP430? $5 for a dev board and 50 cents for the chip itself opens Bitcoin up to even lower-cost applications than the Arduino would.

Not that I'm discouraging development on Arduino, it's a great platform, I just think we need to encourage development on ALL of these platforms.

Indeed:

211 questions, 461 answers and 269 users - and that's just from the PRIVATE beta. Just went to public beta yesterday.

A big big thanks to ripper234 who proposed the project, David Schwartz, nmat, Mr Joshua, lemonginger and all the other helpful intelligent people who got this thing off the ground! Now let's see what the ENTIRE community can do!

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bitcoin Stackexchange Site is now in public beta!

After just 9 days in private beta, we’ve already got 193 users who have asked 191 questions and written 414 answers as well as a TwitterBot (http://twitter.com/#!/BitcoinSE)

StackExchange is a place for serious Q&A and will be more heavily moderated than these forums. No offense to the mods of course, forums are just a different kind of place, more conversational/casual 

Only had to go to page 4 for the best quote in the doc:


I would.

I would argue that governments do not have a right to track and trace a damn thing, regardless what I'm suspected of. I've seen this argument in various forms so many times it's laughable and I'm honestly surprised that, for once, they didn't throw "child pornography" into that sentence. It IS the classic scapegoat of governmental agencies who want more power/control after all.

Well if bitcoin's forums have hit their "Eternal September" then perhaps we can scrape a bit of data from that fact. Usenet's "Eternal September" hit in 1993 when AOL was released, thus giving access to the general populous. 1993 was a turning point for the internet and that year's explosive growth continued well into the future and, in fact, continues today. If we've hit our "Eternal September" then that probably means we've found our AOL, whatever that may be, and in any case we should be on the lookout for the explosive spread of the bitcoin medium.

Eternal September sucks for the original community, but it's AWESOME for the medium.