Do you honestly believe that any college administration actually would be able to actively enforce that policy? I mean they have policies against alcohol and drug use currently - and college students ignore those already.


I swear I'm not trying to be a punk on this point... but I've been through the UL certification process with several products and have finally decided that except when it comes to things transformers and power supplies its useless.

We actually had a completely safe on demand hydrogen device that we intended to install and maintain on buses... we wasted almost 100,000 dollars before we decided that they weren't going to certify due to politics and rolled up the project. To be fair they did help us resolve a couple of safety issues in the early revisions... but the final device wouldn't explode (or even break) when we created a spark in the main hydrogen collection chamber... sure it would disable the device and cause it stop functioning (and to leak distilled water - woohoo). Which was why they claimed it didn't qualify, because it might drip water on other engine components if it failed. But then I'm pretty sure you can hose down a running engine with no ill side effects... so whatever.

Ok I'll get the troll rolling here...  

moneypak maximum is $500.

Someone put this guy back in newbie zone please.

 
I swear you and I have been through this before B. UL is an optional certification... it certifies that a device isn't going to melt down, explode or light itself on fire. You get UL certifications on transformers because no retailer would sell them without since they handle attachment to the electric grid. Anything using an external or aftermarket power supple to convert AC to DC doesn't require (and in fact wouldn't qualify for) UL certification.

As for CE certification... who cares - this product is produced in USA and has no reason to file certs with every self-important regulatory board on the planet.

Exactly what permit are you talking about. If you're talking about the customization of the interior of their new location. Depending on the location permits might not be required. You are not for example required to get permits for freestanding non-load bearing walls built inside an existing structure as long as they don't have internal power conduits or water/gas pipes inside of them. It's quite common for companies here to purchase an overlarge warehouse, build a U shaped balcony around 3 sides of it with work/storage areas over top and offices underneath... they do this because they can use the existing power/water/gas in the warehouses external walls and don't have to get permits for the build then.

Lets recap the thread by going down FireFop's ASIC SCAM checklist:

1. CEO posting on forum?
2. Spelling and grammar errors?
3. Insane expectations re: development speed.
4. Accepting pre-orders.
5. Unrealistic pricing.
6. Dox quickly linked showing CEO has a history of scams.
7. CEO attempts to defend former scam(s) in the process revealing even worse spelling and grammar - even less understanding on the industry he's supposedly had experience in.
8. Someone breaks the business modem wide open using the numbers provided by the OP. Invalidates offering via economics and math.

Scammer Gets 8/8 (+1 bonus point for unknow mod helping with name change).

The scam rating is 112.5% (a new record!)

@MODS - Thread can be locked now - the fun is over.

Well since we're talking about building a device - it shouldn't be a big deal to add whatever power plugs we'd need into the board. (I'd honestly prefer external plugs on a backplate but whatever.

Also one of the reasons we prefer usb connected devices is we like to know what our device is doing. with a stand alone ethernet connected device we have no idea what it's doing.

This has now become an interesting conversation!

What about making a huge direct solar desalination plant at the output of the drainage - Then we don't mess with the humidity of the region or effect weather at all... and could pipe clean water somewhere...

The assumption that SatoshiDICE is 'abusing' the blockchain is patently false. It's a consent driven network - users should be able to use it in any way they like without artificial barriers like this being put in place.

As for handwaving (and unicorns) - There are solutions that would be possible given existing tech and being novel in it's application and methods.

If bitcoin goes this route it will doom itself to a series of hard forks followed by eventual regulation and failure. Instead of trying band-aid fixes lets actually address the problem which is (blockchain) size. How much of it would a client actually need to store? What about compressing the blockchain after the fact... simple groupings of balances by value as an index might help for starters. I really doubt we're storing it in the most effecient way possible.

Another thing is - once you've got the network agreeing on a truncated format for old (archived?) blocks - it's easy enough for someone to later use the dust - all that changes is that entry would be absent from the value index at the next demarkation.

So lets start thinking in terms abstracting the blocks in the chain once they get past a certian 'age' and actually develop a technical solution instead of heading down this road.

I would encourage everyone who bought any of these to practice dollar cost averaging and buy the same number you already own to make your average unit cost 1.5btc. Then when the price drops to 0.5 in another few months do it again and they've all only cost your 1btc each =P

Seriously tho - the real value of these is in the sub half a bitcoin range. when they first released it was close to 0.4999 btc. By now it should be closer to 0.24999 btc.

So unless you're just replacing your gpu farm with chain to run asic miners on a hashrate basis - avoid these.

This entire idea of limiting the size of transaction is a non-solution solution. Pure developer laziness imo. What really needs to be developed is a technical solution to the ever increasing block-chain-size. Some sort of native client support for truncating it in some way (while still having the option to get/keep the entire thing). Then the 'dust' as we're calling it can fall where it may according to free-market principles.

I will not be supporting this change and encouraging the bitcoin users I know to do the same.

I agree with difficulty putting downward pressure on the profitability of mining. There are (at least) a couple of other weird things to notice about bitcoin that relate to this discussion.

As velocity of the bitcoin economy increases we have upward pressure on the profitability of mining (more tx fees). Once velocity surpasses the optimal (or is it potential) block size then we have upward pressure on the amounts that will be paid for transaction fees.

As the price of bitcoin moves higher and we're forced to use smaller and smaller fractions of a bitcoin to make normal payments, this will generate more mandatory transaction fees.

Eventually we either achieve 'adoption' (demarked by transactions fees on average being more than 25 btc or even 50 btc per block) or bitcoin fails. I'm unsure if the current blocksize will allow this or not (but it might work if we reduced the block creation time and lowered difficulty and block reward by the correct amounts). At any rate, eventually the tx fees have to become large enough to keep enough miners mining to secure the network.

Isn't it such a grand experiment!

~

@OP - you'll never convince me that an inflationary currency is needed. The entire point of bitcoin is that it's deflationary in nature and will trend up over the very long term (double or triple digits of years). This idea that 'early adopters' are somehow cheating is just silly. Moreover, if you look at it in a long enough time frame. Whenever someone buys bitcoin as a long term investment - eventually that will be rewarded. I mean assume that btc goes to 1000000 USD in our lifetimes. That 10btc I have in cold storage will make me relatively rich... but if my grand-kid buys 100 satoshis as a long term investment and your whole 'population increase' thing actually works the way you think it will... then in his lifetime a bitcoin might be worth 100000000 USD. That's still an amazing investment. Nobody gets screwed on bitcoin in the long term as long as we eventually stop making more of them.

How true.

Here's the thing... I don't think it's actually going to be anything spectacular. There will be a very brief period of time where sane people hide in their cellars while the 'average citizen with a firearm' plugs into his local community and helps defend it from the roaming gangs from the large cities. But after a few weeks/months all the idiots will have been shot or starved to death.

Then society will resume. It will be an utterly sane culture backed by morals and the willingness to respond with lethal force. Most of the creature comforts will return at that point, and people with the skills will step up to get everything working again.

OR

it could just end, and everyone could go on with their daily lives and be completely unaffected.

~

Take your pick.

Yah, that's accurate. Community does the community in general lack ethics or is it just the mods?


Maybe something about bitcoin is making everyone go a little bit 'dark side'

A fair point - Personally, I expect the block creation rate to be increased by about 4x and the difficulty and block reward adjusted down accordingly (as soon as the network hash-rate grows past some randomly selected number). This needs to happen for the network so that we can actually get to a point to compete with large payment processors. It would also help with adjustments to global hash rate in that the difficulty would re-target much more often.

That invoice even shows the conversion rate is valid for a limited time...

Well one thing is clear from this thread. Greed trumps all.

What I find slightly amusing is that all of us keep supporting the tertiary actors by posing on their forum... in effect rewarding them regardless of their bad behavior... and then continue to expect better behavior than they've evidenced in the past.

I guess we're all fools.

It's at least as ethical as taking a legitimate request from another user and warping it this way and then calling it 'evidence'.

As a forum mod, you should have an interest in curtailing sockpuppet accounts especially when they've been used to bid on the owners own auctions.

I think the thread has a winner now.

Oh allright you talked me into it. $12000 - That's the original purchase price + a 20% tip.

I'm inclined to agree, I don't really see a reason for being resistant to escrow... it's not like we're asking for all orders to be escrowed, just the first one. Sure that's a delay of a week(ish) on the first order. Bid deal, you've already designed the software. The only other reason I could see for this resistance is that if he's actually getting orders already AND has some sort of malicious aspect to his software - that or it's a straight up scam, the software doesn't exist and he's just hoping that he'll get a 1 or 2 btc off his effort through the binary+source sale.

No. It's been discussed in other threads before. Barring a few profiteering lawyers who think they can make the case float... the general opinion is that the court would simply order a refund of the original purchase price (which has already happened). If it does actually end up in court, it's extremely likely that BFL would counter sue for legal fees and libel (and likely walk away with a decent sum that would then be impossible to collect - given the attitude of those threatening legal action).

That being said I think it's hilarious that people continue acting out - ffs gar you have the earliest bitpay order the only people in front of you were existing fpga orders that converted to asic... it's a good thing - you're close to the front of the pile... please just unplug and wait a month and then be thrilled with having received your orders.