|
Be wary of online pharmacies, whether they accept Bitcoin or not. Many are fraudulent.
|
|
|
|
|
Count me in!
1novusxwhCh11QyXp1Jj3e6hdhk6qZZ3E
---
Received. Who's next?
|
|
|
|
This kind of thing is why I empathise with the gun owners out there way more than gun control people, it's not like any of them want this sort of thing to happen they're just far more realistic, this is also a complete textbook example of how I think self-defence should be carried out, leave the criminal alive if he gets the message, they'll also serve as a warning to anyone else dumb enough to rob her.
It's smarter to kill the intruder. Dead people can't make an argument in court against you, and they deserve it anyways if they're breaking into your house. |
|
|
|
My understanding was that the Cayman Islands piece was a fake. Someone took an ad from a real business, registered a similar looking domain name, substituted "Caymen" for "Cayman", and posted a fake press release about a recent property deal for bitcoins.
That doesn't mean this is far off however. If I were selling my house, car, etc... you can bet I would be offering to accept bitcoins as payment or partial payment.
Yes, it was completely fake. They copied the web page from the original website and posted the fake press release on the similar-looking domain. |
|
|
|
u forgot Armory... sad
I certainly didn't. I love Armory, but recommending that newbies use it would be rather stupid, so I didn't include it in the poll. If I was a newbie, I would be disappointed if the person introducing me to Bitcoin didn't mention Armory. Also, Armory is quite easy to use considering it's powerful features! You're probably more technically inclined than my definition of "newbie." |
|
|
|
u forgot Armory... sad
I certainly didn't. I love Armory, but recommending that newbies use it would be rather stupid, so I didn't include it in the poll. |
|
|
|
|
Could features that would split the blockchain (or bugfixes) be implemented in a way that they only take effect at a certain block number? I'm imagining it would be similar to how the block-halving works, but instead of a decrease in bitcoins the effect would be a feature or bugfix being enabled.
I would imagine that this approach could prevent a significant forking of the blockchain, if people were given enough (a lot of) time.
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised you have two of the newer eWallet services posted but not the long standing WalletBit.
That option should be interpreted as "web wallets in general." I was just offering those two as examples. |
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to the results of this poll. Should be interesting.
Please explain your reasoning below.
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to the concerns over abuse of the massive hashing power ASICMINER is about to have:
This is essentially the best possible outcome for the ASIC race. Somebody has to be the first one to market with ASICs, and it's fantastic that it will probably be ASICMINER. Why? It's the only manufacturer of ASIC mining hardware that took investments from the average bitcoiner, making it easy for anybody to benefit from this technology leap we're about to take.
If a private company was the first to get ASICs out, and it mined for itself, there would be (a small amount of) justified concern. Even then, it's more profitable to contribute to the network than to attack it.
ASICs are the last big jump Bitcoin is going to take with mining. After the first ASICs are out, the only improvements that can be made are those of die size, and the actual design of the chips and other hardware.
(I realize that some sort of technological advancement such as quantum computing could prove this wrong, but Bitcoin as a whole is probably fucked at that point.)
[CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC -> Better ASICs -> Better ASICs -> Better ASICs]
This race to be the first to market is the most important race for mining hardware that Bitcoin will ever see. As long as friedcat keeps his word, we're very well off. The only reason he would have to not keep his word is if he wanted to destroy Bitcoin, and didn't care about making money.
Buckle up, because we will soon be witnessing the greatest jump in hashrate (percentage-wise) that the Bitcoin network will ever see. Luckily for Bitcoin, this is a good way to make that jump.
|
|
|
|
I you guy could let us know a couple days in advance of turning on your ASICs that would be helpful. I'd like to sell all my BTC before they become worthless.
I'll buy those worthless BTC off you. |
|
|
|
Nefario has provided me with a complete list. This whole GLBSE mess is nearly behind us.
Fantastic news!  How close are we to being able to distribute donations on nonnakip's site? |
|
|
|
Yet in their business plan they state: After the ASIC miner chips are produced and deployed, we will first directly
mine with them, then use part of the revenue to make user-friendlier mining
boards or rigs for sale.
Yes, I am aware. Many ifs in there. Funny, I've re-read the quote numerous times, but I've failed to find a single instance of "if". |
|
|
|
I know things are getting a little tense here, but can we give OgNasty and nonnakip a little slack while things get put in place?
...
Agreed. Also, just think, Nasty's situation is fantastic compared to Gigamining's. |
|
|
|
It is my understanding that donations to that address will be distributed after 6 confirmations once the unclaimed seats are dealt with.
Correct. Except when the donation is too small to be divided into 25000 seats. Then it is distributed with the next donation. The nastyfans policy talks about this. All 25000 "seats" are getting "donations" now? Was it like that on GLBSE, or was it only the shares on the public market that received dividends? |
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of reddit, but the bit I read there confirms that mining should no longer be the first, second, or even eighth thing discussed when introducing people to Bitcoin.
I disagree, but instead of "Mining" it should be called "Mining i.e. transaction validation / bitcoin issuance" which I strongly think would take away almost all of the confusion. "Transaction validation" would work fine. When people express concern over the "transaction validators" being the only way coins are created, simply explain that they are providing a service that is critical to the function of the Bitcoin network, and that it's actually very difficult to make any sort of profit on validating transactions (mining) anymore. |
|
|
|
Hey all.
...
How much are you planning on buying them back for? |
|
|
|
What has to be done after the foundry process (packaging etc)? How long till the chips can start mining? Any idea?
This is an important question. Once we have the chips, we need a fully-working PCB to put them on, correct? What's the status on this, along with whatever else we need to get up and hashing? |
|
|
|
The list has been received! 98.15% of the shares are accounted for (24,538 seats held in 114 accounts). The final question to address is if we should proceed with this list, or hold off and see if GLBSE provides a more complete list before moving forward.
Wow! That's a much better percentage than I was expecting! That means 462 shares are missing? OgNasty, I suggest you process this list, get shareholders set up, continue business as usual, and leave a window of time for those 462 shares to be claimed. We need to move on, but not at the expense of shareholders who haven't submitted their claim. I wouldn't be opposed to moving on if those 462 shares belong to people who refused to repay double-payments, however. Too bad Nefario hasn't let you know whether or not this is the case. Perhaps ask Nefario to tell you how many shares of OgNasty belong to people who refused? I wouldn't be surprised if he makes up some stupid reason to avoid doing that, but it's worth a shot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
