Exactly so. I would rather have a delay on initial order instead of risk getting defective product. Might be a different story if they'd ship before any other asic however.

Bitcoin is by definition the protocol. If some change isn't a change in the protocol then it doesn't really matter. There is no example anyone could of a non-protocol change that would affect the network to to any degree over any real amount of time. Specifically, your original example doesn't matter. If that sort of thing matters, if it's something that works... we'll see other clients adopt it. If not, then we won't. How would having a vendor list pushed by the client... how does that detract from use of btc?

As for the fed being formed: The foundation isn't being granted any power. They're simply filling a need that the see in the community also there is no power enforcing anything they do.

As for who's a supporter of bitcoin: Right, I'm not a supporter of bitcoin... because I want to keep using it. Sure that makes sense, you're supporting it by switching to another currency that adds almost nothing to the base concept. As an aside, LTC offers a single advantage to BTC in its faster block creation times... which means it could be potentially less annoying to use for a consumer/vendor transaction... while at the same time bringing a flawed concept of inflating the overhead associated with block creation (scrypt) to stave off technological advances (because they're somehow 'unfair'). Which is counter intuitive to growing and securing the LTC network.

As for speculation: I hold about BTC20 - just to be sentimental. They are the last 20 from my original buy. Maybe that makes me a speculator, but I don't really think so.

As for the poll: What exactly does it prove? Only that aren't alone in not understanding the ideals behind bitcoin and how it's all supposed to work. So are we talking about truth or public opinion? If we're trying to find the truth you'll need better evidence than 'others agree with me'.

I for one am interested in the truth. And your "Solution to The Bitcoin Foundation (the announcement)" isn't actually a solution. You're simply advising us to stop using btc and use another coin instead. That's avoidance of an (potential) issue rather than a solution.

Just because it intangible - doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

See: God

Just because it isn't back by anything doesn't make it worthless.

See: Feelings

Granted - Most pools don't share in them, using them to pay for pool costs.

If you're a hobbyist or small time miner, that shouldn't bother you. You're paying for a service (reduction in variance) or other value you get from the pool.

If you're a professional miner (use it as a primary income stream) then idea is to control enough hash to solo mine at a decent rate.

That was exactly my thought as well... if they haven't taken an age bias into account - the results could simply mean "younger economists are more liberal"

In this vein - Maybe you should consider investing some btc into some business venture. As you've already taken a 15% loss on your initial buy...

I'm actually interested in helping you exchange your risk. If you'd be willing to divert some of your speculative bitcoin shortly after we see ASICs in the wild - I'd would be willing take a loan out from you and pay you some decent interest rate. I'm invested in BFL atm - but would like to diversify into other mining hardware, just a bit cash short to do that. My existing investment is free and clear however, so I'd personally guarantee the loan according to whatever terms we worked out.

I don't - volume of transactions needs to increase instead. Of course that's what we're trying to do with mainstream adoption. Assuming we for 10% of visa's transaction load (aprox ~2000 tx per second on average) - with current tx cost - we'd be looking at 8640 btc in tx fees per day - that's more than the block rewards ever been. . . I imagine most 3rd party services will include the cost of the base fee added into their charges.

Even if they don't we could always go make a min req fee be 0.0001 for example... and get 1728 btc in tx fees per day. In this way mining will remain attractive long term - especially once ASIC development for bitcoin catches up to state of the art (18nm silicon?) or gets near it anyway, assuming that equipment is paid for at some point, miners will still mine.

BFL has stated they test against a "testnet in a box" meaning it's not the normal test-net, it's completely isolated and inhouse.

Interesting question - maybe they'll apply them to their other potential markets (listed on the bfl main page) being programmable would be an advantage if they're trying to develop into another market - then they could make an asic produce release that and repeat.

Granted it's a concern (endless upgrades) but as long as they keep the 100% trade-in policy. . . I'm not seeing a problem with it... at some point it will advance to the point where it can't continue per upgrade cost vs current state of the art.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call you a critic. But if you think the point of bitcoin is to compete with credit cards... then you've really just missed the idea entirely. The entire issue with credit cards, chargebacks and selling online is "fraud prevention". Businesses (especially small business) hate the risk involved with accepting credit cards. The potential for the business owner to be left holding the bag on a bad transaction are huge.

One of the main reason that btc will gain traction vs credit is that you can't do any sort of chargeback. It removed 90% of the risk involved for the vendor. Yes, currently there may be more risk relative to the floating price of btc - but that becomes less of a concern as it gets more users and becoming more commonly accepted.

Before you discount this idea see american express... they came late to the card market and they charge higher fees (yearly) than most credit cards and they penetrated (and now dominate) the card market based solely on being a non-credit card.

I think the whole foundation discussion is starting us (the community) on a slippery slope. The idea that it eventually turns into a corrupt regulatory entity isn't an enjoyable conversation.

That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it. That may mean getting off the train entirely if the version I'm using loses popularity and becomes worthless. I know Gavin does what he does for love of the ideals bitcoin embodies. That's the same reason I (and some other portion of the community) are involved in it. I see bitcoin as having the potential to incite political change in the world at large.

I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that. To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin... but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain. Nothing wrong with that, use the network however you like - but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.

It's a fair point, but bitcoin isn't at the point where it qualifies as a 'brand' yet. Right now we're just a protocol and a (granted a very large and diverse) group of hobbyists. If silkroad is the seedy underbelly of crypto currency, bitcointalk is the open forum where you get a good cross-section of bitcoin users - that leaves a gap to be filled by the professional side of things.

Recently I've been thinking about starting some sort of global bitcoin business directory, probably with a periodic fee to be listed on it... it would need to be the public face of bitcoin - and have conduct policies for the listed companies. Possibly also collecting correct owner/business information as part of the verification process. Not really an authority but a central listing service so bitcoin users could find businesses offering the good and services they wanted to purchase. Whatever this site turns out to be... could very well be the 'brand' we need and also the forward face of bitcoin business.

Different world views I suppose. I don't disagree with your plan - if you're in the black on your existing hardware (especially if it's all gpus) then you can afford to wait till some ASIC ship before buying. Personally, I came a bit late to the game, so BFLs upgrade offer was what me going FPGA instead of building a massive gpu farm. In the context of getting 100% trade-in value for their FPGA when you purchase an ASIC and assuming they actually at some point ship an asic. Then you can see the business case for getting them. They're basically instantly profitable... in the sense that you'll be able to 'sell them back to BFL' for purchase price when you upgrade.

I'd be all for donating to that fund... But I imagine it would somewhat difficult to make - Then again I'm not at all musical or artistic. I'm thinking maybe we wait for a few months on this idea until asics have landed - hopefully we'll be able to support more transactions per second then.

Shut up already... you know you'll never be the man your mother is.

Yes, well. Let me be the first to continue to not pay you.

rebranding and switching to a different crypto are non-starters. Even if you made it an exact clone (to tap into existing hardware) you'd never get adoption and the two would just fight each other. Not to mention losing all bitcoin's name recognition and momentum.

We need to make a bulletproof hardware device that's so easy anyone can use it (aka it won't confuse iphone users). I would be best if it were sleek, stylish and well designed. And it should require proof of life as a second factor, so nobody can steal it shoot you and still use it.

No. That would be an analogy and thus it's figurative.

Furthermore, BFL could have been using this entire development cycle to obtain huge amounts of btc whilst funding development through conventional funding. If so they've got a vested interesting in keeping the treadmill um hamster wheel I mean bitcoin going for a couple more years at least, so that their btc gains even more value. At least that's what I'd be doing if I were them.