Only stuff that conflicts with HTML such as "<" or sometimes JavaScript need to be translated. Normal characters should be no more than one byte each.
The forum doesn't use Unicode. All non-ASCII characters must be converted to the corresponding HTML entity (eg, "©" becomes "©" or "©") in order to be displayed correctly. Without conversion, "©" will actually be displayed as "©". You've probably seen this before on sites that don't perform this conversion correctly. Unicode should be UTF-8. Just a minor correction, as the forum does indeed use Unicode, but cannot encode most Unicode characters. |
|
|
|
Good job keeping up with the current hardware prices. Erupters and K1 nano already have their price drops reflected. My only concern is the profitability calculations I'm getting for 5 K1 nanos are very different from the BitcoinX calculator. Specifically it's saying I'll never make my money back, and actually lose 80 bucks. Where as the other one says I'll at least make some profit. I didn't mess with the difficulty increase predictions on either, as I'm a noob in that regard. I have both the calculators set up with exactly the same info, except bitcoinx measures difficulty increase different(Profitability decline as a decimal). I also removed any hardware costs to make sure they start with the same total hardware cost. For some reason the difficulty is defaulting to 26M, so I changed it to 31.26M to mirror what bitcoinx has. This is the info I entered: - 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
- Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
- 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)
Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit. Not sure which I should believe?  There is a default $100 allocated to shipping and PSU costs. Check to see if those are active. There is also a default pool fee of 2%. Try disabling that. Finally, set BitcoinX's decline per year to 0.003. It defaults at an unreasonable 0.61. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoinica debacle is full of accusations and blame. Nobody owns up to anything. I've been watching this entire thing for more than a year. I was a Bitcoinica customer. I truly believed that Bitcoinica was an amazing service—it really would have taken off, had not been for the thefts. But looking back, the entire thing is child's play. Blame. Negligence. "Not my fault, it's that person's." This started way before Bitcoinica closed. Here's a list of people or companies who have blamed others and denied fault: Aurumxchange: We were right to freeze funds because there is incontrovertible evidence that Zhou took them. We don't release them because they're not safe in his hands. Chen Jinghai: Genjix was at fault because he released the code. The money was there for the taking. Intersango/Bitcoin Consultancy: This was all CoinLab's doing. They used us as a scapegoat. The website leaked money, and we were used to patch the leak. Linode: The hack was not our fault. We have excellent security practice. Tihan Seale: Intersango/Bitcoin consultancy is wholly at fault for gross negligence. They were supposed to be security experts, yet they allowed the site to be hacked. Mt. Gox: It would violate our policy to release the coins we hold, or any of the "secret information" we have. Besides, we're just an innocent third party. Zhou Tong: I was framed. I'm just an employee. Chen Jinghai took the money. Intersango was at fault for the security problems. I used to believe this nonsense, or at least some of it. Now I understand: the whole thing is bologna. No party listed above is innocent in this debacle, no matter how much the beg and plead. How can you tell? Try this. Read only posts by one involved party in isolation of other people's. Look, it all makes sense. Clearly this person is innocent, and the ones he is blaming are at fault! Repeat for other involved parties. You'll soon see that the entire thing is a gigantic mess. Everyone has a share of the blame. And who is taking it? We should focus on Gox.
My confidence in the success of this erodes with every day. After all, none of the guilty really lost any money. Tihan is rich and can write the whole thing off. Zhou probably earned more from Bitcoinica than he paid out to the victims. AurumXChange and Mt. Gox are enjoying ill-gotten gains that will likely never need to be remitted. Linode, Intersango, Chen Jinghai, etc. have pretty much forgotten the whole ordeal. Who loses? Not the culprits, but innocent folk like Roger Ver. |
|
|
|
And herein lies the problem. Let's say you spent a lot of time writing an article. You expect to earn 1 BTC from that article due to advertising revenue or other sources. Now, someone copies your work almost word for word. Let's say someone's searching for foodler platform bitcoin... and your text comes up, but on a different website. Luckily, there's a link back... in tiny text that nobody will click, as they have already read the article. Now, you look at your coffers, and see only 0.5 BTC. Ouch. Plagiarism is serious. I know it's just an example, but "foodler platform bitcoin" has 0 searches. I make a living as a webmaster, basically I write for profit, and I do the technical stuff also, I do this exclusively since 2009 or so, what you're saying doesn't really work like that, it is really hard to put a number like that on a particular article, but that doesn't matter... I know some webmasters and bloggers that are obsessed with plagiarism, I really don't know why they lose so much time with that, it doesn't bring any profit, at least RIAA sue people and gain some money with that... In this business, if you are searching for people who copied your content, that means, you're not writing, not improving websites layout, not improving SEO, not learning new things, not optimizing ads, meaning, you are not doing any of the stuff that brings you money! Sure you can pay some service that checks that for you like Copyscape, and just another bill to pay... If your content isn't being scraped by some autoblog, you're fine! And you do sound like RIAA. Piracy is serious! Kanye West couldn't afford a 3 shark tank, he had to buy a 2 shark tank because of piracy! The folks at CoinDesk won't share that opinion, because they're not Kanye West. They need whatever profit they can get. In fact, I venture to guess the site is operating a loss right now. You probably have no idea what it's like when you spend hours working on a website that's leaking money—and then discover some lazy person did no work, copied your text, and is stealing your visitors. I license most of my text permissively because I do not expect to profit from the text. I provide it as a service to the community, and so encourage others to pass on the knowledge. But this is not the case for hard-working Bitcoin enthusiasts running an alternative medium. It's simply unfair for plagiarists to earn money off people who actually do work. |
|
|
|
Actually I follow that website, and what you're saying is true. The articles are simply rewritten or rearranged from other sources, but at least she has the cortesy of including a link back.  This is not legal. The responsible way of doing this would be to copy the text with little modification and state clearly that the text is copied. What she is doing is taking text and changing it up so it doesn't appear plagiarized. Maybe her readers don't mind, but I'm sure CoinDesk is not happy about this. Remember that these websites need to pay their writers, and they only get revenue if people read articles on their website. If their writers' work is simply copied, with no more than a "link back", then there is a problem. CoinDesk is losing money because of this. Note that the website also copied Wikipedia. Wikipedia's license requires attribution, i.e. the text must be stated to be from Wikipedia. This has not been done. What you're saying is true, but no one cares... If it isn't damaging CoinDesk's search engine rankings, well, it is probably helping by linking back, why should they lose time with that? Wikipedia is copied like a zillion times a day, Google knows the original source, why should they care? And herein lies the problem. Let's say you spent a lot of time writing an article. You expect to earn 1 BTC from that article due to advertising revenue or other sources. Now, someone copies your work almost word for word. Let's say someone's searching for foodler platform bitcoin... and your text comes up, but on a different website. Luckily, there's a link back... in tiny text that nobody will click, as they have already read the article. Now, you look at your coffers, and see only 0.5 BTC. Ouch. Plagiarism is serious. |
|
|
|
Why don't you just use Bitcoin? You can already make it almost anonymous. Yes, currently anonimity doesn't matter much. Bitcoin is too small for regulators to really care. But with the bitcoin growth it will change. And then "almost anonymous" will be like a bullet that almost missed  And the anonimity is not the only point of disagreement. Different people want bitcoin to be different things and want it to evolve to different directions. They will never agree and splits are inevitable, early or late. That's why it is so important to find a way to a "peaceful divorce", to a fork that won't harm bitcoin's value. By the way, I'm still interested in getting an answer to my question. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262564.msg2810869#msg2810869Bitcoin is a digital currency, a protocol, and a software that enables
Instant peer-to-peer transactions
Worldwide payments
Almost no processing fees
And much more
From bitcoin.org. No mention of "tax haven" there. |
|
|
|
Actually I follow that website, and what you're saying is true. The articles are simply rewritten or rearranged from other sources, but at least she has the cortesy of including a link back. This is not legal. The responsible way of doing this would be to copy the text with little modification and state clearly that the text is copied. What she is doing is taking text and changing it up so it doesn't appear plagiarized. Maybe her readers don't mind, but I'm sure CoinDesk is not happy about this. Remember that these websites need to pay their writers, and they only get revenue if people read articles on their website. If their writers' work is simply copied, with no more than a "link back", then there is a problem. CoinDesk is losing money because of this. Note that the website also copied Wikipedia. Wikipedia's license requires attribution, i.e. the text must be stated to be from Wikipedia. This has not been done. |
|
|
|
Say, by disabling mining in v2 (or v1)
This kills the coin. OK, if it won't work, then by making reward proportional to total amount of this brand of coins. Then mirers will distribute proportionally too. Say, if 20% of coins are tax-coins and 70% are anon-coins, then reward for tax-coin mining would be 5 coins and for anon-coins would be 17.5 coins. So 20% of miners would mine for tax-coins and 70% for anon-coins. But the total amount of coins and their value won't be affected by such a branch. I'm not an expert, and I'm not claiming it is the way. I'm just asking: is there a way? Why don't you just use Bitcoin? You can already make it almost anonymous. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion, I changed the Cost Efficiency column to reflect $/GH.
Can you restore the original behaviour, or at least place a warning on this? It's easier to compare two different products by GH/$ than the other way around. For example, one can say Brand A is twice as good as Brand B. With the way it is now, one must make a mental note that 40 is twice as bad as 20, not the other way around. I went to the page, noticed that ASICMiner is way ahead of the competition, and only then noticed something was not right. Luckily, I'm not purchasing hardware right now—but this could snag someone that was. I think it might be the label, actually. When one sees "Cost Efficiency", one thinks "bigger = more efficient is better". Maybe this can be corrected to "Cost per gigahash". (Also, it's inconsistent with Power Efficiency. You should probably decide on one way to display the numbers and use it for both. It's confusing otherwise.) |
|
|
|
Well, if it's public domain it's free for use...
If your text was copied and you gave permission to use like this, then it's fine...
The other exemples of small portions, that seems fair use.
If the texts aren't copy letter by letter, they aren't "flagged" by search engines as duplicated content, so, no big deal...
And do you really care about this?
If you do, and those texts were copied from websites that you control, you can file a DMCA on Google and get the articles deindexed...
I don't care about my text; I actually encourage its use. That's why the Licence is near the top of the text. I believe in open-source, and thus give permission to copy the work in any situation and without credit. What I'm concerned about is they way they used it: verbatim and followed by a completely different style. It's clear they just copy it and add rambling so Google can't detect it. This type of use points to a problem with laziness. And this type of use means they likely plagiarize others that have less liberal licences. In addition, I've found clear plagiarism right here: Bitcoin still constitutes less than 1 percent of the business, according to the co-founder Christian Dumontet, but the amount of crypto-payments keeps growing with an average of 9 BTC deposited in Foodler accounts each day.
The original is here: with an average of 9 BTC deposited in Foodler accounts each day. Bitcoin still constitutes less than 1 percent of the company’s payments, though.
Reordering the sentence does not excuse you from plagiarism and copyright infringement. This activity is illegal. I am contacting CoinDesk about this. Bitcoin Examiner is breaking the law. This activity should not go unpunished. |
|
|
|
Then there would be too many inaccurate negative ratings. I don't want there to be any inaccurate negative ratings in the default trust network.
There have been allegations that DiamondCardz has given out inaccurate negative ratings. Do you believe these allegations to be unfounded? |
|
|
|
The articles are rewritten, so I guess not... But they say exactly the same thing as the source articles...
I'm sure there's plagiarism in there somewhere. They incorporate public domain text in this post: Little information was released about the MyBitcoin theft. However, many argue that Tom Williams ran it as a scam (and was not a theft per se). In terms of both US dollars and Bitcoins, this was by far the largest theft.
The magnitude of the attack served as a reminder to the Bitcoin community to stop trusting new exchanges without identification.
After Bitscalper shut down without returning the users’ funds, BitcoinTalk user MiningBuddy attempted to reform Bitscalper using the remnants of the engine. However, no success was found and the coins could not be returned.
(about half the post is copied verbatim) I wrote this and licensed it under a permissive license, which allows this usage. However, the license information was buried halfway in a long thread (this has now been fixed), so I doubt they read it. What concerns me is that around half the article wasn't written by them—no attempt was even made to paraphrase it. The other text in the article was sarcastic and lively, whereas the text they copied had a distinctively different tone. This is a giant red flag, and I would not be surprised if they used material that was not licensed so permissively in the same way. From another post: A Namecoin like system was first described in 2010
This is really short, but copied verbatim from Wikipedia (and I highly doubt the same guy wrote both). It is then followed by poor grammar and incoherent rambling. and although it was created to be a cryptocurrency, today it’s mainly used as a decentralized DNS. Namecoin “...”, it’s possible to read here.
The sharp relief in the quality of the prose is evident. I have a strong feeling there is much, much more. |
|
|
|
|
Does bitcoinexaminer.org engage in plagiarism? I ask because they have a "via: xxx" link below every post, and certain sentences seem very similar. I've found no exact match with a copyrighted source, but an (uncredited) exact match with a non-copyrighted source. This isn't plagiarism by itself, but it indicates laziness and possibly more plagiarism that hasn't been uncovered.
|
|
|
|
Hi, my 2 cents:
Each trader, using his own data, is a MUST for a decentralized currency. It's a good thing for the market.
So there is no wrong or right, it's MtGox rate and other rates.
I can publish my own rates too. I can even start an exchange accepting monopoly money and testnet coins. But those rates are not to be considered fit for consumption, and consequently Mt. Gox rates are untrustworthy. I am not telling you to stop trading on Mt. Gox. I am telling the posters in the Speculation forum to use charts and data, such as volume data, from other sources aside from Mt. Gox. Maybe this thread belongs in Meta? |
|
|
|
The reason Bitcoin prices on Mt. Gox are higher than the other exchanges is because nobody can get their money out of Mt. Gox. The arbitrageurs are stuck. Normally, when there's a significant difference between prices on two exchanges, somebody buys on one and sells on the other, making an immediate profit. Soon, the spread narrows and such activity stops. There are 'bots doing this automatically. It's the same money going round and round; arbitrageurs don't have to keep injecting money into the system to do this.
With Mt. Gox refusing to allow withdrawals (or broke), that activity stops, due to lack of available cash for buying Bitcoins on non Mt. Gox exchanges. The necessary cash is stuck (or lost) in Mt. Gox cash accounts.
Putting in more money to buy Bitcoins on Bitstamp to sell on Mt. Gox would be a big mistake. You end up with a cash balance on Mt. Gox you can't withdraw and may lose if (when) they go down.
Again, I don't care why Mt. Gox is wrong. It's wrong, and consequently one shouldn't speculate on it. Take a look at this comparison. Which exchange seems to have reliable prices? Which exchange has odd oscillations that make speculation impossible?
you dont seem to understand speculators LIKE volitility. how else can they make money? they want the swings. speculation would be impossible if there were no swings This topic was moved, which didn't really make sense. The desired audience is the Speculation forum. I'll PM Blitz to see if I can move it back. |
|
|
|
There's something wrong with the voting results because I can clearly remember 3 days ago there were 7 votes for "Female, 80+".
I purged them as it seemed extremely unlikely. No other results were affected. |
|
|
|
The point isn't why Gox is different, it's why Gox is wrong. Bitcoin price movements on Gox represent what's going on in Gox, not the market. If mt.gox has the problem, other sites's data would have the similar problem. Since XBT has more than one transaction center. And they are located in different areas. Time zone/Currency/exchange rate/fees/volume are not the same. So the price of XBT just a interval. Each transaction center will have their own price movement. Of course mt.gox could have its own trend.  No, this is not the case. Other exchanges agree with each other. Gox is the only one out. Look at the prices at top USD exchanges: Mt. Gox: 95.4 Bitstamp: 89.33 BTC-E: 88.27 Tradehill: 90 Camp BX: 91.2 As you can see, most of them are around 90. Except for Mt. Gox, which is in a market of its own. It's completely unfounded to say we'll reach 100 soon based on Mt. Gox data, because there is still a significant amount of room on all the other exchanges. (I still think we'll reach 100 soon, but not by looking at Mt. Gox's charts—because they're wrong!) If you still don't believe that Gox is wrong, look at actual Bitcoin merchants. Bitcoinstore: $90.05 Minethings: $92.81 You'll find a lot more like that, and very few accepting Bitcoin at 95.4. |
|
|
|
A few months passed reposts to modify the data
I don't understand what you mean by this. |
|
|
|
Here's my data. Draw your own conclusions? It takes no words to prove that Mt. Gox is unusable as a speculation aid. Take a look at this comparison. Which exchange seems to have reliable prices? Which exchange has odd oscillations that make speculation impossible?   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
