I think you're confusing what happened... AFAIK, it wasn't an actual .50 cal round of ammunition that went off, but more likely packed black powder with a .50 cal steel ball, as is typically used with those toy canons.

Just for fun, went 10:1 short @ 5.30 just now...

... with 1 BTC.   

That's a good idea.  It still won't stop pirates (easy to remove any text from a PDF doc with the right software), but it would slow them down to an extent.  Fewer people will go through the trouble of sharing it online if it means they have to download PDF editing software to do it.  It'll take longer for pirated versions to get posted on torrents, etc.

Are you interested in buying games to add to your "store"?  I have a few I don't want...

Very good point.  +1, I agree with this formula change.  Make the time based on when payments were made, not when the post was made.

Yep, I don't see any reason that wouldn't work.  Though, you don't need a green address either.  MtGox works as a free laundering service to those who choose to use it that way.  Deposit 2 BTC, withdraw 1.1409 BTC directly to the payment address of the mag, and no one is the wiser.  The monies you deposit and the monies you withdraw come from different addresses at MtGox, so they won't be traceable going in and back out unless, as you said, MtGox gets subpoena'd or something.

He means he doesn't want his real name and address associated with his bitcoin addresses, which then become associated with his online profile.  I can see the reasoning behind that.

You forgot an important option:  SELL.

Which is what I do with most of mine.  I have to pay the electric bill somehow, after all.

I mine with one of the top three pools, and whatever multisig is chosen is fine with me.  I really don't care about that particular issue, or at least, haven't yet found a reason to care.  If someone wants to give me a reason, feel free...

Regarding the issue at hand - it's really rather simple.  As soon as the leader of my pool makes a decision I don't agree with, I'll switch pools.  Until then, I am not concerned about large pools existing.

Also, lol @ Brunic's multi-language rage.  But, he does have a point. 

I like where you're going with that.



For fun, I posted the cover on facebook, and asked people this:  "If you saw this cover of a magazine, would you be intrigued and want to look at it more closely, or just pass over it like any other magazine?"

The first comment I received was from my cousin.  For reference, she crochets and sells on etsy for extra money.  Not really the technical/computer/political type.  But, she said this:

"Before reading your comment, I read all the words on the cover that I could because I was intrigued... Does that help?"

Mission accomplished then Matthew, mission accomplished.

EDIT:  Another couple of responses...

From a different cousin's husband (farmer dude):  "now yes, 2 months ago I would have dismissed it but too many people like newt...."

From a techie friend:  "My 2 cents: This cover definitely scanned to me as "any other magazine". Having no connection to the publication, I have no reason to look at it beyond my usual "passing glance to check for any features or headlines with keywords I'm interested in". I'm also more inclined in this *specific* case to look past it and walk away because of a cover picture featuring a random Anon in a Guy Fawkes mask. It's a sight I've come to associate more with annoyingly disgruntled teens being idiots rather than any meaningful protest or political movements. It sets me up for an initial reaction along the lines of "Ugh, not more of this" before I even read a single word of the text on the page."

Exactly that.  You'll still get sales from people who feel morally obligated to compensate others for their work (as I do), but you won't alienate support from the crowd who "uses first, then compensates based on how much they liked it".  The pirates will pirate whether it is protected or not.

By DRM, I just mean a protected format.  Anything that you have to be logged in to view, or jump through similar hoops to get to.

My fear is that many people here will just say "no thank you" right back.  I believe you would actually lose volume if you stuck with a protected format.  That is why I am advocating an unprotected PDF format.  Yes, people will pirate it, but many of those people would pirate it anyway (they will find a way around it very quickly).  But people here are generally good about supporting businesses that aim to further Bitcoin's cause, and a dedicated magazine would go straight to the top of that list as long as it's not in a protected format, since that is another big point of contention among this crowd.

Also, an unprotected format is something that would get sent around to family and friends via email.  While you might think this is a bad thing at first, the exposure to your magazine would be incredible.  For those who then become interested in the magazine at that point, you'll garner more subscriptions.  For everyone else, no revenue was lost (those friends and family members wouldn't have randomly subscribed to your magazine).  So in that sense, you have a gain to volume due to an open format, not a loss.


I don't think it's unreasonable to release the first volume protected, then subsequent volumes unprotected.  Those who want unprotected volumes can wait a month, and knowing that an unprotected release is coming should be adequate for most of them.  In fact, that might not be a bad model to go by for future releases.  Give the magazine to the subscribers in a protected format for the first month, then give it to those same subscribers in an unprotected format afterward.  I wouldn't say give it away free to non-subscribers, as you'll miss out on sales from people who don't want to torrent things, but don't mind paying for them.  But you should be able to make all sides happy with that sort of arrangement.


Yikes... $80,000 sunk in to the magazine?  That IS a lot.

Anyway, like I said above, it's all about pandering to the crowd you are targeting.  This particular crowd loves free-format files, so to avoid alienating them, you need to provide them with such.  That doesn't mean that none of them will buy it.  In fact, I believe it will be quite the opposite - you will have a lot more support, and more volume, if you offer it in an unprotected format.

Think of it like archive.org.  Likely, very few people here donated to them before they started accepting Bitcoins as donations.  When they did start accepting Bitcoin donations, they had a ton of support from folks here, to the tune of several thousand dollars worth of BTC.  Your magazine could be the same way - you won't have much support on the digital front from this crowd, unless you release an unprotected format, which people would support just because it's an unprotected format and that is rare these days.

Ok, I'm done with my soap box speeches.  I think I've said more than enough for you to understand why I think this is important.  

Woohoo!

Because writers and editors (and other staff) still have to be paid, and physical publishing of the magazine has to be covered as well.

I hate to say it Matthew, because I am one of the most anti-piracy people you'll ever meet, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one, namely because the crowd you are dealing with is composed mostly of people who are outspokenly pro-piracy (libertarians and all that).  The fact is, it will be pirated no matter how much you try to protect it, and people here will be less apt to support your operation if you try to fight it.  You can already see the animosity rising in this very thread.

I would recommend that your team seriously considers coblee's suggestion.  Release it as a downloadable PDF (or in-page PDF) to paid subscribers, frown on anyone who file shares it or torrents it (make them at least feel guilty about it), and have a note inside the cover suggesting that anyone who downloaded the magazine without paying for it should send 0.5 BTC to an address you specify.  That way, you'll still have the support of EVERYONE from the community.  As it is, you've already received tremendous support from people both verbally and monetarily, and it'd be a shame to see that flushed away trying to control the materials with DRM.

You'll have my support regardless of what you decide to do, but I think a lot of the community support will drop away if you continue with the pro-DRM stance.  It's exactly the wrong crowd to market anything with DRM to.

Yes, that's a good point too.

Ah, my bad.  Well, I look forward to getting it sometime in February or March then.  :p

Makes sense, thanks for the response.

And actually, I was curious about this Matthew - what stance will you take on piracy?  Are you fine with people sharing the digital copy with each other, knowing that it will happen regardless?  Or are you going to attempt to fight it somehow?

I caught a contradiction!  He MUST be a scamzor!!

I wasn't even thinking about the gathering addresses and names of Bitcoiners... was more thinking about just gathering the Bitcoins themselves, from the ad purchases and prepurchases of the magazines.  But yes, I guess if you were a scammer, you could kill two birds with one stone on that one!  Get lots of BTC, plus names and addresses besides!

Anyway, I'm looking forward to receiving my copy.  You said it ships on Feb 1st, so we could be expecting it Feb 2nd through... Feb 9th for US customers?

Clever.  At least it wasn't a more malicious attack.

No, don't count on me for it.  I am a terrible judge of people.  I'm good at catching Nigerian scammers in emails, but when it comes to someone who isn't an obvious scammer, I am far too trusting of people.

Well, I certainly welcome Matthew coming in and giving more proof that the magazine is actually going to happen.  But that said, I really, seriously doubt it's a scam.  Then again, see what I wrote right above this, haha.