lol adam you are such a troll..  |
|
|
|
|
Yeah.. but it's getting better, especially when their "heroes" start accepting it like the owner of dailypaul or Lew Rockwell..
|
|
|
|
he has to change this :
Frankly, I don't know how to use Bitcoin, but here is an address you can use to send some bits:
16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
If anything shows up in that wallet, It'll help me in my education. If someone can educate me on how better to receive bits, please post it in the comments below, or use the contact form.
that sounds very irresponsible
if I had a gazillion of coins, I would not send even 1 there out of respect to Bitcoin,
does he have access to that address,
does he even have that wallet,
does he have it encrypted (password known to him/already forgotten, lost)
Yes the message accompanying the address isn't the best but you can't even imagine how hostile that environment is and how much shit he'd get from the vast majority of that community if he accepted bitcoins overtly enthusiastic. But you're concerns are valid and have already been addressed. You can check the comments and see so. Btw someone just donated $156 worth! Who ever you are, man, nice job! |
|
|
|
As someone mentioned in the comments, he should really consider setting up with BitPay so he can receive USD.
The explanations for how to secure a wallet are generally a big turn-off for someone unfamiliar with bitcoin who is just trying to raise money to cover costs.
He is a web developer, meaning a big boy and can handle the technical stuff. (otherwise I'd agree with you.) |
|
|
|
|
Got them to fix a typo which initially said the store only offers 5000 items..
|
|
|
|
Do you have same feeling?
Yeah I actually do! |
|
|
|
|
I suggest people donate even if just 50cents worth so the owner gets a good first impression and perhaps helps me win over the majority of their crowd which is still largely emotionally and irrationally hostile towards Bitcoin.
I already donated.
|
|
|
|
|
What bothers me is that there is no site that would take the volume on all the various exchanges and plot it on a single chart. Right now if you look at mtgox their volume throughout 2012 is constant in BTc while they only represent 60% of all the volume.. Would we really nice to see the rest of the market plotted on the same chart.
|
|
|
|
Over $2.5 millions in bids.
What's the record again? 2.8? something like that? |
|
|
|
I'm slightly biased because I'm friends with the Bitstamp team but I used their exchange two times now and both times I got my deposit completed within 3 hours (the reason could be that we're in the same country but still!). Also their site is extremely easy to navigate, the tradeing can be done effortlessly and I haven't heard from a single disgruntled customer yet which indicates that the customer support is superb. That btw doesn't really surprise me because I know the owner, I've seen him in action and he is an awesome dude, very calm, well mannered and highly professional. Anyway I highly recommend them, especially if you have SEPA transfers available.  |
|
|
|
- Chinese transactions up. Translation! (  Again piuk?) If I were you my message would read: WARNING: Lost passwords are UNRECOVERABLE and will results in LOSS of ALL of your bitcoins!
I have added that phrase on the signup page and in the mnemonic popup now. I think it is pretty clear now. Well, it's definitely better, could still be in red and as a pop up to make it impossible to miss but it is pretty hard to miss already. Great job, you are an amazing developer because you listen. |
|
|
|
I've planned this very moment from 2 months ago, I'm quite sure that the new Mega will support Bitcoin and that will launch Bitcoin into the hands of hundreds of millions of users a day.
It will be an epic moment.
If i'm right.
There has been absolutely no indication that you are right. |
|
|
|
I had some issues with the list at first but the improved version seems really good. I will probably translate this to Finnish at some point and add to our site.
It could be a good idea to put something like this to Wikipedia as well. Not sure if it would stick but it doesn't hurt to try.
I'm building my own site, that's what this is all about. I wasn't confident in the initial list so I decided to field test it and clearly it was a good decision  |
|
|
|
I'm actually starting to lean heavily towards finite.
fiat == infinite expansion possibilities bitcoin == the exact opposite of infinite == finite limit of 21m Hm gooood point! You convinced me and I'm going to change it. |
|
|
|
it is pretty good. i still think determinate works better than consistency. ...and after all the back and forths on it I'm convinced by finite now I don't see where anyone has mentioned it before, but I would rather see 'predictable' used here. We know very closely how many BTC will exist at a certain point in the future. When people make the decision to convert fiat to bitcoin, to buy or sell goods and services in bitcoin, or to convert bitcoin back to fiat, they can be assured that bitcoins won't magically disappear, or that new ones won't be created at a rate not known ahead of time. This property of 'predictability' derives from the distributed consensus of recorded transactions (blockchain) and the periodic adjustment of mining difficulty, and stands in stark contrast to fiat money supply. Even physical metal-based money only loosely approximates this. I'm actually starting to lean heavily towards finite. I don't know but both predictable and the current consistent is way too loose for just how fixed Bitcoin's supply is.. what about soundness as a principle, wouldn't that fit Bitcoin very nicely? soundness
sound
2 [sound] adjective, sound·er, sound·est, adverb.
adjective
1. free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy; robust: a sound heart; a sound mind.
2. financially strong, secure, or reliable: a sound business; sound investments.
3. competent, sensible, or valid: sound judgment.
4. having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason: sound advice.
5. of substantial or enduring character: sound moral values. |
|
|
|
That's a bit of a slap in flatfly's face, wouldn't you say? I hope you talked to him before you did that..
It seems that flatfly has been kicked out. Thats deplorable!
I like his work.
We (slush and I) are working to make the build process transparent and open, in the best interest of users. Flatfly's builds are not open source (violation of GPL, despite my repeated demands) and it is impossible for other developers to verify what he puts in them. I am sure flatfly is a honest person. However, that is a personal opinion, not a certainty. I cannot run the risk of exposing hundreds of users to a massive scam, just because I failed to have the right opinion on someone. A reasonable stance. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
If I were you my message would read: WARNING: Lost passwords are UNRECOVERABLE and will results in LOSS of ALL of your bitcoins!
And the continue as Armory does: If you have understood this, you will have no problems entering your password a third time. The the user "signs" that he understands with his password :-) Excellent idea. |
|
|
|
it is pretty good. i still think determinate works better than consistency. ...and after all the back and forths on it I'm convinced by finite now Hm.... |
|
|
|
We have Genesis in book form on how Satoshi thought the coin into existence.
So we are working on the ten commandmends now?
Will he send his son one day to save world economics, as we were mislead and thrown from nerd Eden?
It's a description not a prescription, obviously. |
|
|
|
This is a discussion I had on another forum: Him: Bitcoin violates the regression theorem. Bitcoin is purely synthetic, it was never tied to any consumer good, nor was it derived from any other currency that was tied to a consumer good. Me: Him: Nope.
Why are people willing to accept money as payment for goods today: i.e. why does it have purchasing power? Because those people expect it will have purchasing power tomorrow, and this expectation is grounded in their knowledge that money had purchasing power yesterday. So why did it have purchasing power yesterday...and so we begin the regress. But it's not an infinite regress, it concludes when the answer to the question "why does money have purchasing power today" is "because this 'money' is a consumer good, something valued in its own right."
But, as I said, bitcoin is not a consumer good, nor does it have any connection (present or historical) to any consumer good.
Me: Ok seems like you get the regression theorem but you are misapplying it to Bitcoin.
I don't know if you know this but back in early 2010 when 1 bitcoin was theoretically valued a fraction of a fraction of a cent (this was just an approximation of how much it cost to produce it, no actual trades happened that would set this price) something strange happened. Some guy decided to put up a forum ad asking to exchange 10.000 BTC for 2 pizzas. And then something "stupid" happened, someone said yes and they carried out this transaction.
But what exactly did happen there? There was this guy with two perfectly good pizzas and he decided to exchange them for 10000 bitcoins?! Now why would he do that if not because he personally saw "something valuable in their own right" in them? And I argue that's exactly what he saw back then. To him bitcoins were a digital token, digital jewellery like gold earrings.
And then something even more stupid happened, there were more and more people who showed up wanted to "wear" this digital "jewellery". Now why is that, why would all these people show up and want to own these tokens worth practically nothing?? Was it just because it was a novelty? Was it because they were speculating they might get filthy rich one day if Bitcoin happened to catch on. Remember there was no trading back then and the currency was used by so few in effect it was dead so any expectation of a higher exchange rate were a lot less likely than merely a long shot.
But it doesn't matter why more and more people showed up wanting to hold them and exchange something of value for them. The important fact is they did and this is what drew the initial demand. Bitcoins, to them, for what ever reason were valuable in their own right.
And voila, regression theorem satisfied. Did I get any of the facts wrong? Is my reasoning flawed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
