No,  I am currently not active on github etc. Was going to send the file to unthinkingbit after I got no more issues reported from the testers for a couple of days.  I also already have a fixed up net.cpp btw..     thought I posted it before... but this thread has become too busy for all its different uses.  I can send that along too somewhere.

You honestly do not find it a logical argument against it that it is not needed as we already have the bitcoin dns Seed code in the client?    Do you really feel this is a logical argument  against the proposal I just made?  We have different definitions of logic it seems.  I have recently created the first working windows binaries, and mac osx ones.  I have fixed up the receiver process to have more robustness.  I have gotten very positive feedback from the people who have tired it saying they failed before and now it works for them.  I have offered to do the work for the dns seed nameserver.    I have two other projects going on that people have asked me to help with in pms.  On the other hand I have yet to see anything you have done helpful.  I also have to doubt you read other peoples posts if you have missed all this.

Yep, these go in pnSeeds...   

unsigned int pnSeed[] =
{
  0xb73c9ac6,

is what I have for the first node you posted the other day.

This is actually one of the reasons I don't want to see an upgrade right now.  Ever since I installed 0.8.1 I wind up having to wait for my block to get reindexed every few days.

I started a list...  did not get many.....   will post it to the wiki.


http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_seeds

Devcoin is pretty much the same client as bitcoin, at the time it was created.  What is the issue with the client you want to see addressed?

Brilliant man, just brilliant.   You suggest a bounty to make the client capable of doing what is already is capable of doing.    You really like low effort bounties don't you.    Since this was told in discussions in the very thread that you quoted you either did not do your research or just felt like posting nonsense?


You really do take that 'Blah Blah Blah' under your avatar seriously don't you?



This is being addressed already, do you read the posts?

I propose that we limit the number of proposals one person may make in some time span without paying a fee to propose more things.    This may make it so people actually think about, and research their proposal before doing something as silly as proposing a bounty for something that already is in the code.

Right now  namecoin adds 8.13%, devcoin 0.62% and ixcoin 2.18% to your earnings in terms of the price ratio to btc.

I concur.   You can be liberal with your links from the .org to devcoin as well which will drive traffic anyway, plus build devtome's link count a bit.

What will it return for the value if vircurex is being used and down?

What will it do to the exchange site when used on a busy site, or when under a DDOS?

What you call complete and fast I call quick and dirty.

The phrase is hashed into the block.

It is meant to be a proof of date.   It is mean to be some fact that would not have been known before the date in it, to prove the block was made on of after that date.

Simple it was never the intent of the code to support different chains.

Multicoin was a code fork awhile back that changed this to some extent.  It was capable of running the different alt coins available at the time just by changing the configurations you used it with, not not recompiling.  You could thus use it to pretty easily make a different coin by just creating a new config file.

https://github.com/twobits/MultiCoin-2bit

Above I was saying that it matter for propriety in regards to who posted the claim.

I actually was originally trying to figure out more what you are talking about, then jasinlee's  reply of bringing in my post count of all things, raised my alarm levels all the more that it is not proper for someone who proposes a bounty to be the one who claims it so quickly thereafter.   Had the reply been more like this the tone would have changed quickly.

I do remember that many ongoing projects got put into the rewards for projects already active, so you seem to be right, however something about small bounties being claimed so quickly by the by the original proposer just does not seem right.

I would like to quote two things from http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin



jasinlee's posting of a bounty he then himself appears to have claimed does not seem proper, especially given the time frames.

He then tries to defend it with mention of backdoor talks and tells me to make a new thread and let other people talk about it, through backdoor means.  Even if it was all done ethically it has the appearance of impropriety.  The follow up post just reenforced that.

The bounty was not past it's time for being past being a proposed bounty, rather then a bounty.... pick one of the committed bounties if you want to be sure to get it I would say.

Great!!   Not sure if I missed it, but where would these be shipping from?  Would be interested but concerned about shipping and customs fees.


Hope this takes off for you.

I am going by https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34586.msg1961764#msg1961764 as when it became active as a potential bounty.

Yes, I did... and this was the thread it was proposed on and I replied in the place it was posted.  You are now childishly demanding that I put it in another thread where not as many will see the objection.

Also, you have me confused with gweedo, he is the only one who wrote  'I am genius'. I said no such thing as anything you just put in your silly little ad hominem attack.

I presume these people that speak to each other as adults that are deciding will of course not include you?

Yes it does matter.  Now you say you were talking to him all day about it.  However the code was posted only an hour and  twenty five minutes after the bounty amounts proposed.  Seems you just admitted you were working on this anyway ahead of the bounty in collaboration with the original poster of the proposal.
   

Because jasinlee acted in bad faith proposing that bounty in my opinion.

I object.   This project looks to be too trivial, and seems to have been posted by someone who already wanted this and had the means to create it, but just wanted to get a bounty for what they would make anyway.