Given the bdb bug, I would say miners need to upgrade to 0.8, but should not increase the blocksize (or make any changes, for that matter) until everyone has upgraded, and until more testing is done.

It is also a huge issue that those suggesting we need the protocol spec are brushed off with the "you don't get it" nonsense by elitist devs.
Bits and pieces, some expired, are scattered around Wiki. Is that the best we can do?
@MP: would you be willing to lead the effort of formulating the current protocol spec?

The important question is not what we here think, but how tomorrow's news will affect potential new users' views and decisions.

Bitcoin - and coders' work behind it - did not lose you money. It made you money, and that's why you are still involved. Also, Bitcoin is a p2p, decentralized technology. Build it and test it yourself, or as a part of a team, or be a responsible man and choose whom to trust to do the job for you. Pay them, or don't.  Audit their work, or don't. It's all up to you, so quit whining.

What's withvall these wirebonds? I thought they were going the flip chip bga way...?

0.8 did not reveal the bug in all prior versions. Suggestion to increase the soft limit revealed the bug.

My paranoid concern is that lots of thought has gone into recommending an option that is incompatible with BDB. Mike, I understand this comment is most likely bullshit, but you should understand it is legitimate. Even if bullshit, it teaches us a valuable lesson, and that is to not trust people who rush is into tweaking the system without due dilligence. That is exactly what happened, regardless of Mike's intentions.

Ahem. How much thought and work has gone into offering the first option in this list?

It hapened to me that my dwolla withdrawal was stuck for a few weeks due to issues between dwolla/banks and mtgox. Before and after this, withdrawals were fast.
I know it must be frustrating waiting for your money, but there is not much you can do now. In future, make sure you study and test the system proportionally to the importance of these transfers. There are always risks of clerical and other errors, too. Always count on it, and have some safety margin built into your plans. I leave extra cushion in my bank account, so money can be late up to a month without much harm to me.

All this only proves further that Bitcoin transfers are superior to traditional banking.

After some thinking, I've decided that the most respectable answer to me is "it depends" - assuming you honestly and selflessly consider your own and the other party's position. This is more respectable then those of us who chose to have it "algorithmically" decided for us by some universal moral code. Deciding for yourself means you take responsibility and freedom to decide. Of course, the least respectable answer for me now is "it depends" by those who just say that as an excuse to keep the coins, no matter what.

It's too late to introduce "it depends" in this survey, but I'd change my "return the coins" vote into "it depends". Having said that, it's hard for me to think of any realistic examples where I'd decide to keep the coins. I mean, Monsanto or Madeleine Albright or The Vatican Bank or Trafigura are far from using and losing bitcoins, right?  

It opens many opportunities, to say the least. If you are at a university, contact local "women in science and engineering" groups (or "women in MBA" or women in whatever), and point out the results of the survey. Would they organise or sponsor a lecture or panel discussion involving someone from the Foundation and local professors of economics, computer sciences, etc.?

How is it biased? Options 2 (there is a problem, but it's with current Bitcoin design, not SD, and should be dealt with) and 3 (there is no problem, everything is fine the way it is)...  I see SD as a positive thing, even though I don't gamble, and I've dumped some shares at the peak. My vote was #2. Dust collection systems and incentives should be put in place, and we can just keep moving ahead happily.

Thanks, this makes sense.

Because it eliminates marks who have heard of these kinds of scams, improving the chances of totally clueless marks reading and biting.  Smart tactics, much like "beware of pickpockets" signs that make people subconsciously check if their wallets are there, thus providing important guidance to the operator.

Female connector requires a cable. Male connector enables direct connection to PC, and if space is too crowded a cable can be used. What are comparative disadvantages of the male connector?

I see your point, but don't you think the two driving forces are balancing in each act?

GPU mining started in July 2010:


As for your "someone bought 500k coins" -
The volume over these couple of days may have been 500k coins, worth approximately $35k. What is the point you are trying to make?  Just 2 weeks after Jupiter and Mars were in opposition two years ago, someone dumped $144k. Clearly, this is correlated.

I don't see SD dust transactions as "spam" - a better example of spam would be your insertion of jesus messages into blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0

What revolution in hardware in 2011 are you talking about? GPU mining kicked off in summer 2010.

I (and proponents of the "deflationary danger" theory) speak of the motivation to not spend, not to spend. The presumed disincentive to spend should also apply to donating.