Just downloaded and installed newest driver, and downloaded and ran newest cgminer. No compiling, since I'm on Windows. Overclocked to 950 Mhz, memory underclocked to 300 Mhz, intensity at 9. Used to average 270 Mhash, and still do. I don't know what kind of bad issues I was supposed to experience, but just letting you know there aren't any issues with mine.

Sapphire 5830 here, using newest drivers. Cgminer works exactly the same as it did on the old driver, hash speed and all (besides the BIG WARNING suggesting I use a previous driver when you start it, anyway)

Am I the only one who is starting to feel concerned about Matthew because his avatar hasn't changed for over a week? 

Unless Litecoin is abandoned because it gives absolutely nothing new other than mining without needing a GPU

Since nobody asked, I found this place when Bitcoin was mentioned in a tweet by the guy running jaynaylor.com (furry and objectvist). I was pevously somewhat heavilly involved with online currencies, specifically SecondLife's Linden, and was rather excited that there was something available that was like that, but that was not restricted in any way.

Without some central ledger, how would I know how many IOUs someone has given out already, or that they will be able to pay everyone back? For all I know, someone could have written millions of USD worth of IOUs, when they only earn a few 10k's a month. That system would require an enormous amount of trust I'm sure I'm missing something, though, as I haven't had time to look into it more.

It is a charity that benefits animals, which I will be trying to convince to help spread Bitcoin awareness to humans dressed like animals, once they come to a convention that typically hosts 3,000+ of such humans.
Btc100 funds would only be donated in the originally intended way. All the subsequent attempts at convincing I will do on my own. The only way humans dressed like animals will benefit is from knowing about a better money transmittal service than the PayPal types that have been ripping them off for the last decade. Wider addoption is good, especially when there's a global group of 10's of thousands on places like deviantart, furaffinity, sofurry, etc, who are all very internet savvy, extremely connected, and spend A LOT of money on p2p transactions trading and selling art and custom work.
Frankly, that community is perfect for this technology, but there isn't any authoritative way of introducing it to them. When I tried with some, they either come back with "Isn't that a scam/pyramid? I don't get it" or they keep using PayPal, accepting the risk, just because it's easier. I am hoping with this charity displaying Bitcoin as a donation method, it will give Bitcoin a bit more legitimacy.

That's the beauty of internet and Bitcoin. A piss poor village in sub Saharan Africa, with a crap internet connection and a few people with cheap phones, can have powerful datacenters in India, Europe, and USA mine and secure their Bitcoin for them. It doesn't matter where on the planet you are or how weak your hardware is. Keeping that currency locally also allows them to buy globally without worrying if the next town over will accept their local currency, and they don't have to worry that someone in their group will reneg on their IOUs. Also, even mutual credits and IOUs will require some heavy accounting and records-keeping if it gets beyond each person owing only one other person. That's a difficult, full time skill. Bitcoin takes care of that for you, so they can instead spend their time on more important things.

*bump*

Does anyone have any objections or comments regarding my idea of trying to get an AnthroCon chosen charity to accept this?

Big difference between
"I demand you make your information public for the safety of all Bitcoin users"

and

"I have submitted a complaint against you to the authorities. Now tell me some information."

Personally, I'm all for demanding that Bitcoin based businesses follow some minimum level of public disclosure and reporting, even to the point that if enough of them do it, those who choose not to get shunned. What I am against is bringing the authorities into it before the business even has a chance to reply. Talk first, shoot later.

I think a big question you will have to answer is how will you get it started. Initially the coins will have very little value, relying on people donating their time and hardware for very little reward (likely negative profit), and the initial size of the network will mean 51% attacks or general mayhem will be very easy to carry out. It's the same issue that plagues all alt coins.
I'm not entirely sure why the parallel separate currency is needed, either, since the part that is used to register already has its own value. Can't the registration fee itself be set by the domain buyers, and miners decide whether the fee is high enough? (Admittedly, I don't understand why Namecoin has fixed registration fees)

I do hope this idea gets developed. I'm just concerned it may not be able to start.

Wow, that's a lot of questions. Also extremely surprised to see that coming from Fox News. I guess you really can't speak your mind on that channel unless you're heading out the door (same for MSNBC I imagine).

How is Gox supposed to track which codes were exchanged person to person, and which were exchanged through Bitcoinica? Seems like that complaint will be as effective as complaining to Spain about a site in Asia.

Just finished the paper. Some questions:

You mention a part of the system includes compensation/ rewards for miners. In what form are those rewards distributed? Some type of coin that lets them register more names (like in Namecoin)? Some alternate version of Bitcoin that only has use as a currency? Something else?

Will this allow for merged mining? (hit post, walked away, didn't see it didn't post due to new replies) Namecoin mining doesn't pay a high reward, but since it is bootstrapped to Bitcoin mining, mining Namecoin is essentially free, and any reward above 0, no matter how small, makes it still be worth it. The other benefit is thatwith MM, the mining infrastructure is already there, and it's HUGE, giving the alt chain instant protection against attacks. Starting from scratch would mean people would have to dedicate time and resources specifically to this, which, since the rewards wind won't have much value at the beginning, will mean that people mining at the start will pretty much have to all be volunteers.

Are there any considerations for database sizes? I've read somewhere (take with grain of salt) that the current ICANN DNS database is over 10 terrabytes in size. That's not something regular home users can support. Will this database/blockchain eventually have to be relegated to a few large centralized data storage places?

Are there any considerations for growth? The part that concerns me about Namecoin is that block rewards are constant for long periods of time, which means the maximum number of registrations per year is limited. Will your chain generate a decreasing reward like Bitcoin, level rewards (eg 50 per block) for ever,  growing exponentially (3% increase every year to keep up with population/technology/other growth), or something else?

Could you walk me through the steps of how I would get $100 cash I'm holding in my hands, into BTC, using that system?

What's the difference between getting money into Bitcoin and getting money into Ripple?

I don't know if encrypting it in the chain somehow is a possibility. I'm not familiar enough with technology to know Now that I think about it, tough, I can't think of any way to lock a private key within a chain and only have it be decrypted by miners after a certain time has passed.


You're right. This is why my previous idea was to have the money sent to a random third party escrow, and have that third party verify receipt. Though now that I think about it, the client can be hacked to send the transaction to a non-random third party that is your other account, and have it fake receipt... Yeah, just leaving it all to clients without a trusted centralized party doesn't seem possible.


I think my just mentioned concern kills this idea, too. What's to stop you from creating 100 of your own escrows, distributing it to yourself, and announcing you got it without releasing any of it? Would we need to have trusted, centralized, and publicly known third party escrows that build up trust? And if they are publicly known, won't their accounts be shut down the same as now?

Sadly, I think you're right :/

I think it's the whole idea of:

"Hey, we're developing technology that will free people to use their money how they see fit, send and receive it to and from anyone they like, and use it without any meddling by banks and governments!"

"Realy? Let me report that to the authorities, just in case!"

that's somewhat disgusting  

Also, can someone explain to me why money laundering is a bad thing? Bitcoin launders money every time you send money to someone and receive change to a different random address. What's wrong with having anonymous money?

While replying to 1QaZxSw2, I thought that maybe the Bitcoin escrow is the only thing needed:

Trader A selling BTC
Trader B selling USD

Trader A puts BTC up for sale. The BTC is signed with two keys, one stored in Trader A's account, the other stored in he P2Coin chain where Trader A has no access to it (unless the trade expires, or the trade is canceled)

Trader B puts up USD for sale. It doesn't matter if the money is actually available or not.

Order is matched ->

Both traders have sufficient funds:

Trader B, either manually, or with the use of a more convenient TraderBot, transfers USD into Trader A's account.
This step automatically notifies P2Coin  (<----- This is the bottle-neck/security issue. Can someone come up with a slution?)
P2Coin releases the second private key to Trader B
Trader A releases the first private key to Trader B, giving them access to BTC.

Trader B does not have sufficient funds:

Trader B fails to send USD.
Trader A does not notify P2Coin of cash receipt
Transaction is canceled. After some time the second private key is released back to Trader A


Trader B does not transfer BTC:

Trader B transfers USD into Trader A's account
This step automatically notifies P2Coin
P2Coin releases the second private key to Trader B
Trader A fails to release the first private key to Trader B. Trader A received USD, but has lost BTC. Trader B lost USD and doesn't have BTC. Since Trader A already got paid, and lost his BTC, there is no reason for him to release the first private key, unless he wants to be a big jerk.


I can already see some major trust or technological implementation issues with this Maybe someone with more knowledge can expand on this? Without some sort of third party escrow for USD, this system won't be very secure, and, sadly, if yo start getting lots of money in and out of your account all of a sudden, you'll either end up having to pay high fees, or the bank will start having lots of questions (or both)