Ha, on this I agree. I think it will be awhile, if ever till the device earns back the costs. I am mainly getting it as I have been doing some work with the merged mining clients on my laptop, and access to some hash power from my laptop would be a nice aid in testing.
I'll be looking forward to your work on this. Sounds interesting. My main objection is it being called escrow, which gives a false sense of what is being provided.
It's a fair complaint if things have changed. I've never done any escrow with anything. I assumed that the arrangement isolated ~arklan from the funds and that is what I care about mostly. John K did some amount of work already. ~arklan is clearly new at this, but gives every appearance of being a straight-up actor who didn't deliberately try to screw anyone. That is my gut sense at least. Maybe if John K feels like he was greatly overcompensated he will adjust his rate. I would not complain at all if any such remittance went exclusively to those who signed up under the 'old rules'. |
|
|
|
I'm covering my share. It was pretty clear how things worked when I signed up and I was happy enough with it. If the rules have changed on me and I didn't like it I'd just bail right now before forking over any funds. I think I noticed that John K is also participating in some of the tactical and communication issues (by his own graces?) and it has value to me to have someone who is fluent in Chinese helping out here.
I have household members who are fluent in a few Chinese dialects. I can not see any advantage to having access to this resource given the entire deal is being done in English. Why do you have to reach so far to try and justify an escrow fee that is not escrow. Also, it was clear when I signed up as well. So the rules that different people consider the original seem to be different for different people. So yes, if they get changed back to the original offer and you don't like it you would bail. Got it. I cannot honestly say that I studied the fine print at the time I signed up. But I also don't give a shit. I've hardly put my financial statement at risk fucking around with what will very likely end up being a laughably overpriced trinket within a few months due to either a rise in BTC values or competition from more powerful devices. I stated '2.1-ish BTC' to allow for some flexibility. I figured that John K is going to send the funds to ~friedcat and ~arklan won't touch them. That ~friedcat and John K could communicate about issues in their mother tongue may help get over shipping and customs stuff, or might provide an opportunity for collusion. That John K has some credibility makes the second option less likely. |
|
|
|
John K has put a huge amount of effort into this forum and has demonstrated good judgement. Also, he seems to have taken the job of cross-referencing the ~arklan seriously and done good work. 12 BTC is fine with me. I'm paying for his reputation more than anything.
If you are covering it for us, then great. I do think it should be clear to everyone that whatever the service is, it is not really escrowed in the traditional sense. Given some peoples replies to others questions, I am not sure all are clear on this. I'm covering my share. It was pretty clear how things worked when I signed up and I was happy enough with it. If the rules have changed on me and I didn't like it I'd just bail right now before forking over any funds. I think I noticed that John K is also participating in some of the tactical and communication issues (by his own graces?) and it has value to me to have someone who is fluent in Chinese helping out here. |
|
|
|
|
John K has put a huge amount of effort into this forum and has demonstrated good judgement. Also, he seems to have taken the job of cross-referencing the ~arklan seriously and done good work. 12 BTC is fine with me. I'm paying for his reputation more than anything.
~arklan has been active and professional so far. $700-ish for all this work and the shipping hassles and all that seem like, if anything, to little to me. If ~arklan wishes to somehow discount bulk shipments for those who ordered multiple pieces, that seem fair.
I have no experience with a task like these guys are undertaking, but I bet it would be quite easy to under-estimate the amount of work. Especially if they do a good job of dealing with the various things that will likely come up.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going back to my initial thoughts from a few years ago (and taking the side of myself that wishes for the best health of Bitcoin...)
I wish the entire project to be head-less and any hierarchy to be nebulous and ill defined. This will make it more difficult to attack and manipulate in a predictable way. I believe things would work out that way and 'Bitcoin' would be better for it.
On the other end of the spectrum (where a different side of me lives) the Bitcoin Foundation is doing a decent job of making me rich off my speculation. That's fine with me to. Those who would mold Bitcoin into a system which could be adopted more or less in-total by large corporations would probably make me richer faster so there is a side of me that favors that path as well.
|
|
|
|
unless someone else has a better idea, then, in short, yea. we'd be screwed.
I'd suggest just taking extra orders to be filled in place of people who Welch or get hit by a bus. The slope of the order curve indicates to me that there will not be much trouble obtaining enough overage to cover likely wash-outs (absent a giant leap in BTC valuations.) Also, I thought that ~friedcat simply specified a minimum. So if more than 300 units are ordered and payed up they could all possibly recieve joy. I think that the most important thing is to get to the 300 before those damned foreigners so our order goes first. But since everyone loves Americans it could be that we get the priority we deserve just as Jesus intended even if we don't cross the finish line first. (I should check how the German effort is going before blabbing I suppose...) |
|
|
|
...who's the dongster?
...
Heh. 'John the Dong' before he wisely switched to a less juvenile form of self expression. At least I am pretty sure that is the case. Right John K.?   That's the nick I had since a young age - didn't know where I picked that up though. I swear it had to do with bells.  I'm just harassing you in a light-hearted way. I've always had a weakness for making fun of names. My name is a bit unusual and people made fun of it chronically (as kids) so that is perhaps why. I was warned sternly to drop the habit for my business trip to Japan BTW, thanks for your tireless (and seemingly fair as best I can recall) janitorial work here on the forum. It's a somewhat less severe train-wreck because of the efforts of you-all. |
|
|
|
...who's the dongster?
...
Heh. 'John the Dong' before he wisely switched to a less juvenile form of self expression. At least I am pretty sure that is the case. Right John K.? |
|
|
|
|
Oh sheesh...the things are to goddamn cute. It'll probably sit on my desk unused with 1000 other toys.. God knows I've given away a lot more BTC than this over the years even if it is a scam. And the-Dongster seems like as trustworthy a chap as any. Damned with faint praise? Maybe I'll eventually be able to get it to generate vanity addresses or something.
Put me down for one at 2.1-ish BTC.
|
|
|
|
...
Time would be better spent finding a reasonably harmless way to prune the blockchain.
That's what I though back before...I dunno...a pretty GUI, wallet encryption, multi-sig, etc, etc. Most importantly, before the system gained a large userbase who relied on it. Oh well. Since I lack the skill and interest to actually do anything myself along these lines I can hardly complain. |
|
|
|
Re security. Some valid points there in the long term.
...
... I mentioned this in the 'how many bitcoins have you got' thread and suggested a time delay wallet similar to the safes in banks. On reflection this might just result in you being held by the violent criminals for even longer, making the whole experience of losing all your money even more unpleasant. There is one possible solution. You ask a trusted third party such as a lawyer to generate a secret key unknown to you. You generate your own secret key. A bitcoin address is formed that needs both keys to be known to open it (this is easily done) and you transfer your bitcoins to this address. The lawyer cannot access these bitcoins. Then in order to access your bitcoins you have to go to your lawyers office and sign a release form and you are given the other key. But please ensure that all of the violent criminals are aware that you have done this. Alternatively spend all of your bitcoins and your fiat as soon as you get it. I use this method and it works fine. It's pretty straightforward to keep cold storage BTC exclusively in a safe deposit box with no access to them saved having some 'free time' to enlist some assistance. That is what I do. The bold part is the hard part. As for turning them into fiat, that would have been a very costly method for those who acquired BTC some time ago. But 'having nothing' is indeed an effective method for not getting robbed. Attempted robbery is another story... |
|
|
|
No your going to the wrong direction, your going to the alt-coin that is too extreme, I still love bitcoins, I am not going anywhere. Bitcoins are my career, and this is just a bump in the experiment, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I'm wondering if you had some hope of using the 'cheap subsidized messaging' capabilities of Bitcoin for some project or another and got a dose of cold water in the face? |
|
|
|
* I was thinking of writing a patch to create RPC commands to edit these configuration values without even needing the restart. Some moron claimed that 95% of bitcoin users weren't competent to edit their config file, which I don't in any way believe to be true. Still, adding a RPC command would make it settable by anyone that can find the debug window. It would also allow people to write third party bots to make live adjustments based on whatever data feeds they thought appropriate.
Great idea! I'm sure the solution could (and would) be extended to stream any wallet.dat files found kicking around to a new home pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
...
Yes USD and other FIAT currencies will last far into the future.
...
Calling bobdude17! Please censor this if you will. It clearly does not align with your thoughts and the goals you would like to achieve with this thread. |
|
|
|
To be honest the thread has really run its course. My only goal was to get a response from someone in the dev community to address this issue. It was done and everyone should be clear by now what can be put in the blockchain. This thread should be closed by a mod.
your goal?! this is not your thread. The Founder of a sock-puppet army? |
|
|
|
I see few disadvantages and a lot to win by letting go the 'one world currency' fantasy that a lot of people seem to have for Bitcoin.
This is a serious question. I'm sure you'll answer it. But I hope you really take a minute to think about it as well. Since you've basically admitted, over and over again, that you have no interest at this point besides that of making the price of your Bitcoins go up in the short term (presumably so that you can cash out before the value implodes), why should anyone care about your opinion on this? Fair question. I've pondered it myself somewhat over th years. In case anyone cares, here is probably a fairly accurate set of reasons for my duality on this topic. I did not realize that it was going to be such a challenge to increase the block size. So I went through a phase of giving up on Bitcoin for a while. When it hit me that there was a chance to have something end up which I consider possibly workable it sort of put me back into the modestly hopeful camp. I'm also human and would not mind making a buck on Bitcoin no matter where it eventually ends up. Since I am confident that crypto-currency land will produce something which is a boon to humanity it is not completely the end of the world if it does not happen to be Bitcoin. Getting rich has always been a factor in my opinions about things. Sometimes more and sometimes less. As I've said before, the whole ecosystem would be all around less messy and easier on 'the masses' if Bitcoin itself moved directly into the role of a top-dog reserve currency. But I've little doubt that something will. Or I should say, will complement gold on the virtual side of our world. I do often play 'devils advocate' as a mechanism to explore and explain concepts. Since I simultaneously hold several different view on this topic it is easy enough for me to do. Lately I am becoming more excited about the potential for my 'paracoin' idea to solve the problem on a flexible schedule driven by events in Bitcoin-proper-land. It would: - allow me and others who hold BTC a degree of protection, - give a flexible 'semi-live' environment to work on challenging problems - result in a blockchain free of 4+ years of cruft - may actually work! I've toned it down on 'paracoin' a bit lately out of deference to those who are trying to influence Bitcoin itself evolve in a healthy direction. |
|
|
|
The majority is speaking... too bad Gavin is sold out to the FEDS. He has no interest in what the majority wants.
This is the death of btc if this happens... mark my words.
It's an unfortunate but genuine truism that 'the majority' are fucking idiots. I hate to be blunt about it but there is ample evidence. As an example, reading into things that this action somehow indicates that Gavin, or anyone else, "sold out to the FEDS." |
|
|
|
What we need is someone forking the source code, with the only difference being the transaction limit, should be very easy to do.
I'll give 'bitcoin-legacy.org' to anyone or group who I feel is on the right track on things of this nature and can convince me that they have a chance. Fair warning though, I feel that the best way forward is to - either force the minimum transaction value to a high number or let the following do the job. - keep the 1MB block size if not shrink it even further. - shit-can all but the most simplistic types of transactions and fully document them. No 'c++ client defines behavior' BS. |
|
|
|
Very interesting thread. My best guess is that a particular group of Chinese journalists found the topic interesting and did a piece on it, period. I don't view China as a monolith at all -- it's a huge, dynamic mass of people each with his/her own interests and agenda. In some ways, I think that a lot more innovation and dynamism goes on at the small commercial level in China than in the US (not a ground-breaking statement, I realize). But it would be really exciting if the high-level politicos in China have looked at this phenomenon and actually decided that hey, this thing may in fact be in the best strategic interests of China. Think about it, there's a real problem with dependence on USD as the strategic reserve currency of the world, and China is as much trapped by the current system as anyone. Isn't it much better for governments on the short end of this currency stick to promote a decentralized alternative system?
Good points. An attraction of Bitcoin to me was as an alternative to the USD. I was/am adverse to holding to many USD for a variety of practical, political, and strategic reasons, and it could be assumed that the same thing may be true for many people at many strata within Chinese society |
|
|
|
Thx for your input on this. It will go, in filtered form, into my neurological data-bank. FWIW...Although I feel that you (~genjix) should stay away from the media for the health of my pocketbook, I kinda sense that you are an OK guy and an OK programmer. More importantly, that what you say about this and that is somewhat in earnest and may have some basis in reality. ~phantom on the other hand strikes me as an A1 dickhead. Just my opinion. I have harassed you guys for the fun of it over the years. Your epic fails deserve some attention after all |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
