This is interesting to me. What is most robust?

1000 nodes all with 9 connections

1000 nodes with 8 connections and one with 1000 connections

1000 nodes with 8 connections and ten with 100 connections

If you only connect with nodes 'near' your node then having only a few seems like a problem. If it's totally distributed then I think having the connections distributed would be better, but I really don't know.

Another thing to consider is how huge the profit opportunity will be if the network starts to get fractured. Everyone will want their transactions to get put in the next block for sure before an actual split and the fee will get bid up, this will give nodes incentive to make sure they can stay connected to those at risk and collect their fees. And thereby the network will not get split. I mean if a government ties down traffic they might actually run the nodes themselves for profit or some corrupt official who knows how to get away with it (n/m, no corruption in governments).

No you aren't. Unless I misunderstand you want a minority of honest users to be able to stop a majority of thieving botneters. The system as it is right now protects the majority, you are advocating ending that.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I don't mean that you don't have to trust someone to build your client (unless you can do it yourself I guess). I'm talking about the protocol which is all peer based giving someone special power to send instructions. I realize it isn't something to worry about because it isn't going to happen, it would be a totally different project.

Now if someone wants to build a client that checks for updates by pinging some central server, whatever, I might even use it. But it's important that anyone be on the same footing regarding building clients, no one gets to use to chain to send messages.

Oahu.

But I have lived in Asheville, NC, and may again. That's not so far from you guys.

There really is love in this world for centralized points of failure and control. You want Satoshi to have special powers? That just raises his value as a target of force, blackmail, corruption, etc.

If you want to trust people, by all means do it. But I'm looking for an alternative to centralization, that's why I'm here and running nodes. I won't run a node if I know it treats any other nodes as special.

That post was deleted? I don't get why at all.

Interesting for sure. I don't think I need it right now, but I'll keep it in mind.

I think there should be an "available balance" listed, but as it is there is no way to sell what you don't have the trade appears on your list as "not enough funds" and is not listed in the chart.

I don't think that's what he means. The transaction will be made completely, but both will hold part of the key required to spend that money. If they are satisfied they ship the money to the appropriate person. There is not disputing with the block chain. They either work it out and use the code like everyone else does for all transactions, or they don't work it out and the money stays locked up.

He took it down for repairs. It was fun, I hope it's back soon.

Or if not, that someone else makes one.

The chart does need improved. But what is actually happening is that the numbers are being rounded to different precisions for the dot placement and the cursor over display. If you bid .064 and .0641 they will show up in the same place and the same price displayed in cursor over box. If you bid .064 and .0643 they will now be in slightly different places, but the box will still show .064.

It wouldn't really matter at all if you could get an exact list of offers. The chart gives a pretty good impression, the list would give you actual exact offers.

You can always get the full precision of the lowest ask and highest bid in the trade tab.

How do you know this? I was explicitly told otherwise. I'll check my source in a minute.

You can give someone a wallet file. It is just that they couldn't verify the contents while offline, right? So it would be pretty much the same as a transfer.

Are you saying volume is decreasing?

The number of BTC traded on that exchange is decreasing. Assuming the $ is worth about what it was last month, the value of BTC traded is not really decreasing.

And there is another market with increasing numbers of BTC traded.

Thanks Cy,

Looking forward to many more trades, with you and anyone.

Right, Australia. I heard about that. iirc, if you never registered they don't even bother you and if you did they want you to claim illness or similar. to avoid the fine. Is that roughly the case?

I also remember hearing a non-trivial % fouled their ballots and thinking that was pretty damning to the idea that people don't vote because they are lazy. Hundreds of thousands of people who were in booths weren't willing to sanction their masters.

Weird, why is there no copy to clipboard for the sending tab in the address book? If you just labeled the addresses with a name size and date then you could copy them out of there into a document that could be searched. Surely it's just an oversight that you can't copy them out.

If Bitcoin takes off it will be interesting to see what similar systems are created. Approach the limit faster? slower? More frequent block generation? Whatever it is will have to overcome the head start Bitcoin has. It would have the advantage though of people being able to buy them with already established BTC instead of PayPal or such.

However an alternative is implemented tough there is no reason to think it will have the same value as BTC. In fact if someone started an identical system it would probably have less value forever.

I don't vote either. I think it's wrong. I don't want anyone to force me and I will absolutely not attempt to use government to force others to do what I want. That said, voting is like attacking someone with a toothpick, it's almost never going to matter.

Go for it man. If it's got features I'm interested in you bet I'll trade it and use it.