NO. They are speaking out for freedom against an oppressive regime. Pretty much. Although it's purely profit motivated and not some altruistic move, it still has the same effect. As a US citizen, I am absolutely appalled by what our nation and government does most of the time. One of the main reasons I am permanently emigrating to Australia. On behalf of intellectually and morally mature citizens of America, I apologize for our behavior. But, on the flip side... Fulltilt poker was a giant, festering, money grubbing, cheating, lying sack of corporate shit and I am glad they got smashed. I totally understand, good luck in Aussieland  . Besides family and friends, the only thing keeping me from reconsidering where I live is the idea of what happens if all the intelligent people leave. Lowering the average IQ of the nation with the largest military doesn't seem prudent. No, I'll stick around and keep beating my head against the wall. One day either it will crack or I will, but I refuse to give in or run away. |
|
|
|
Hasn't "the room" already been around for a while? http://betco.in/Their poker app is HTML 5 and works in a browser. I tried it on and android phone and tablet with no issues. Free bump for them I guess. Professional players aren't ready to play in bitcoin denominated accounts. When you're making a tiny percentage playing thousands of hands a day, bitcoin volatility can kill you. Without the professionals, you see what you get very clearly at betco.in: severely limited number of active tables. |
|
|
|
|
Lol at "Iranian navy performing maneuvers" (page 9)
|
|
|
|
|
Extra losses maybe... Loans have not been profitable overall.
|
|
|
|
So basically, they're using bitcoin to dodge the "Do not use US currency for online poker sites" law that was introduced a while back. So yet again another shady internet buisness with questionable legal status is dragging bitcoins name into the mud.
NO. They are speaking out for freedom against an oppressive regime. |
|
|
|
America incited any violence on Iran's part. If they are going to blow us up, it's our own damn fault. The best thing we can do for our national security and lowering Iran as a threat -- nuclear or otherwise -- is leaving them the fuck alone.
However, a war is what they want and a war is what they are going to get, not from Iran and not from the American people, but the bankers. Wealth destruction on our end is more gold in the pockets of big banking interests. They control the money supply that funds this crap.
+1 War only helps the bankers get richer. And we (America) need to fucking leave the rest of the world alone. Unfortunately, before we can do that, we need to break our oil dependence. Perhaps, though, just leaving and letting market forces break our dependence would work. It would be painful short term, but I would rather stop creating America haters than continue to burn gasoline for transportation. However, America runs on semi trucks, so until they adapt, the price of goods will go through the roof if gas spikes. |
|
|
|
|
Nice job invalidating my votes and putting up a new motion I will not be able to vote on. I'm spending the week with family (thanksgiving holiday) and I won't have access to GLBSE until Sunday night (around the beginning of Monday, UTC). For what it's worth, I vote against liquidation of mystery assets.
|
|
|
|
|
Which ones? Bit Starter and Bit Over were on glbse last I looked. The arbitrage software perhaps? It's certainly worth a little bit, but does it explain the entire premium? Maybe I should sell my small holding of shares before I post this, but I'm not going to. There have been huge losses, but I haven't seen a drop in price beyond the retraction from the initial overinflation.
|
|
|
|
I just added up what IBB owns and the value at what IBB trades at. Wow...
Your donation idea seems like the most sound idea you have had recently. "IBB we beg for funds!" It might catch on, who knows.
The price of a share should be somewhat connected to the current assets of the company, but it is also dependent on investors belief of what those assets will be in the future. Apparently some people think the future profits are worth buying now. Perhaps a motion could be raised to ask if a portion of the profits should be retained by the company to grow (make up from past losses). The dividend would be smaller right now, but it would be higher in the future. Plus, how are we ever going to overtake all the interest banks if we do not grow? I do hold a few shares of IBB, but I don't buy your reasoning. All of their assets are publically available, so wouldn't it be more prudent to just invest in the assets directly in the same proportion? |
|
|
|
|
Sure, show us your mockups. Just remember, talk is cheap and code is not. Maybe you'll get lucky and someone will do the hard work for you and you can sit back and learn how to get what you want by whining. I agree there are some regressions, but you are bringing a lot more emotion to the situation then is necessary. Simply pointing out your preferred improvements is helpful, but hyperbolic language like saying a theft has occurred is not constructive. Plus, as had been pointed out, the old GUI is still available.
|
|
|
|
I posted a list of what I disliked about 0.5 in the development thread a while back. That was in Technical Discussion though, which is generally used more for discussing the tech aspects than subjective opinions of the GUI.
Since I'm posting here to agree with some of the OPs points, I'll add a copy of my previous post:
Good:
1. Hate modal windows. Send/receive on tabs (or anywhere that's not a freaking modal window) is an improvement.
2. Everything I didn't complain about.
Good-impaired:
1. The old icon/logo looked better.
2. Don't see the point of the "overview" tab. Everything presented there could (and should) be available in the transactions tab instead.
3. Your total balance should be available on every tab and in the same location (top left IMO).
4. Not a fan of tooltip-heavy software.
5. Should be able to see the number of confirmations without hovering.
6. Should be able to see connections and block total without hovering.
7. Any way to disable the -Transaction Received- tray message?
8. "Minimize to tray instead of taskbar" doesn't seem to do anything. When it's on, the program (when minimized) "disappears" from the taskbar and then instantly reappears there again.
9. I think it would be more convenient if all the buttons were in the same general area. Right now three of the tabs have buttons at the bottom of the window. Seems like a minor issue, but things like that can get annoying pretty quickly (especially if you run the GUI client maximized).
10. Splash image looks a bit cheesy.
Nice list, constructive presentation. |
|
|
|
I personally will dump support for any other OS than Windows, but Bitcoin is not that case. Bitcoin have more users who are using *nix platforms than average population, partly because they are overparanoid, partly because there is challenging mining rigs setups.
I personally have used only Linux for about ten years now, and it has nothing to do with paranoia or bitcoin mining. I am a programmer by trade and working on windows is painful for me. It's the simple things like middle-click to paste the most recently highlighted text that really make the system nice. Windows terminal can't even handle tab completion properly. |
|
|
|
Heads up: your pool was giving me connection problems, so I'm off it for now  . |
|
|
|
$3.141592
I think the average will be somewhere around 2.59 over this time period. I expect prices to rise soon with the stability after we hit bottom.
|
|
|
|
I guess if you're going for a Windows95 motif then this latest version is a regression. Personally, I think Win95 had much too much eye candy... all those corners and colors and buttons and crap. DOS was far superior, for it let you really connect with the "program workings." I'm hoping Gavin and Co. will just scrap the GUI entirely. THEN Bitcoin will really catch on.
LOL.... seriously dude, screw the gui, run bitcoind. It's really not that hard. |
|
|
|
It has been completely revamped using a modern toolkit. Give it a few releases and I'm sure most of your concerns will be addressed. This was a necessary pain that will allow the developers to change the UI code more easily.
The key word for the problem is "modern". I prefer the native Windows API. And I even don'y have the current recieving address displayed in main window with two buttons right to it - New Adress and Copy to clipboard. This is a lesson for me to test all software prior deploying on my computer. I only checked the setup files signatures to be sure they are released by Bitcoin developers, and did not tested it on my virtual enviroment. The Satoshi made the original client almost perfect from visual and usability standpoints. Just like he did the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Now Bitcoin is screwed for sure and I'm waiting for forks that uses the old toolkit or even better the native Windows API. I will run the new 0.5.0 as less as possible. Then fork the client... it's opensource. In the mean time, the other developers will focus their efforts on one toolkit that supports all platforms. AFAIK QT can be made to look like Windows, but I've never tried. To ask them to support 3 different toolkits for Windows, Mac, and Linux is insanity. You probably don't care about the non-windows platforms, but many do, including the developers. There are several other clients as well, and if you look around a little you might find one that suits your needs. |
|
|
|
$2.11  Don't forget to cure your boneitis. |
|
|
|
Last week went off without a hitch, thanks guys!
Glad to hear it! But I have to ask, with all the positive vibes and seeming $2 bottom, how well protected are you from a sudden move up? |
|
|
|
|
It has been completely revamped using a modern toolkit. Give it a few releases and I'm sure most of your concerns will be addressed. This was a necessary pain that will allow the developers to change the UI code more easily.
|
|
|
|
The blockchain should have checkpoints every X blocks to limit the time the attacker has to act. Then if you wait 2x blocks you should be pretty safe. Blocks 1 to x are checkpointed by block x+1, which itself will be checkpointed by block 2x+1.
I think the bitcoin client already does this. There are manual checkpoints hardcoded with each release. I'm proposing a much higher frequency of checkpoints. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
