At an unknown $ amount. Why can't these people just put a dollar amount next to their product?

I think the fundamental reason for the wasteful computations is the 10 minute bound. It has turned out that the difficulty of the sha256 problem can be varied easily. What other computations that do not involve a third party (like Folding@Home) exist in which the time to solve the problem is predictably related to some integer?

Even if you would use Folding@Home or world community grid. What would happen if Folding@Home stopped existing? If you want to change the problem, you would need to have a way to vote in a distributed way over another computation to be performed with some piece of code for the verification of the work performed. This is in principle possible, but how are you going to get an agreement on which particular piece of code? I think all of these have solutions, but they require work, where bitcoin as it is now is pretty solid (until someone breaks sha256 (which will surely happen before the last million coins is generated)).

Now everone wants to know is whether it comes with anti-anti-satellite weapons. 

Other than the EFF this seems pretty mainstream.

Why would someone else recognize that I mined some bitcoins? There is zero incentive in itself to do that as you explain it. Why should I not go out and modify my client with the end result being that nobody recognizes any bitcoin anymore and you have a broken system?

The genesis block part was clear, but note that you have to guess the exact same information. Your guess is also still completely vague. In a computer program there is only one answer and in a good program one should not need guessing.

I don't see why I should even point out any other issue if this is clearly a valid objection.

There is no object oriented design. Basically there is one big global state and that's it.

Very specifically line 24 in my SVN chechout contains the following number, but there is no explanation as to why this number is there; I can guess why it is there, but it shouldn't be my task to figure out why something is there. A comment above this constant should say why exactly it is that value and not some other value, why it is important for the system, etc.

Additionally a comment should state which hashing function is being used. E.g. it should say "The magic constant below is equal to the sha256sum (See, <reference to original definition of this algorithm>) of value <myvalue>. This is done, because <insert reasons>. "
 

There is also no need to create a 3200 lines long source file. There is just no reason to do that other than to discourage people from making the effort to understand it.

I am sure it is possible to reverse-engineer it in a few months to get it into a state in which one can just read through the whole program in an hour or so, but that's not the same as it already being in such a state.

Anyway, I hope you see the difference in approach.

No, I happen to be aware of that, and that's why I usually try to eat at places with a semi-open kitchen.

The cryptography code that competent people use, doesn't look like a mess, btw. That 99% of the world uses this kind of obfuscated cryptography only shows that users don't know what they use. Have you ever looked at TrueCrypt for example? It's the exact same kind of mess.

Another client is useful, especially since the current Bitcoin client is a big mess. I was *shocked* that cryptography code looked like this.

Any interesting business these days requires 10+ man years to get of the ground and even then there is a very high chance that some large company will simply decide to destroy you.

If you have a good business idea that only requires expert computer science skills, talk.

Tell us about your great money making scheme.

- Building an Android application for bitcoins doesn't count.
- Breaking the law also doesn't count.

What is Sodom? I also had no idea what phytoestrogens or BPA were, but BPA surely seems like a very bad idea according to all kinds of referenced studies (or are they part of yet another conspiracy)

I also think a promotor could better be a someone who is not from a minority group fom a marketing point of view and it should also be someone who picks the communication channels somewhat better. Really, all those advertisements on that show are certainly not mainstream. The only reason those advertisements are in that show is because the target audience is willing to buy that stuff. Since nobody did a scientific study showing that one actually needs those products to live longer (people do still get over 120 years old), there is no reason to buy them.   

I agree mostly with nanaimogold.

On Youtube there are some videos with Andrew. He seems to be a sane individual. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIMB2nXWiIQ
.. but there was a comment regarding a guy who said that it was the treasury who in the end controlled the process. In any case, his middleman argument makes sense.

It just depends a bit on what you think of as control. The government could freeze all assets of the federal reserve with their army (the only kind of real control), but even that control might disappear when the first corporation develops their first nuclear bomb (or similarly destructive device). 

Ok, his (the host) advice is definitely close to nut job advice (the bad memory advice for example)

Otherwise, it was entertaining to listen to.

I am not the most stubborn person in the world. I side with Satoshi's wishes too.

bober182 doesn't need to have anybody's permission to do anything. Even if he were to present himself as being 'official', the Wikileaks people are probably smarter than the average visitor of this forum, so they would be able to figure that out in less than a minute.

Does anyone have an idea of how large the Wikileaks group is? I know one guy who is in it, but two guys don't make a group I suppose the actual members are a secret, but is the number too?

I approve of this message. If Bitcoin blows up, a new system can be build without this flaw. The probability of Bitcoin _not_ containing some fatal flaw is pretty small (as almost all software has flaws).

All Wikileaks needs to do is say "Following the PayPal incident we have decided to accept a new kind of payment, Bitcoins. You can find more information on donating via Bitcoins on URL <some suitable URL hosted by Wikileaks>.  "

They could post it in their news section or something like that. It is possible that main stream media would pick it up if they would contrast Bitcoin with PayPal like that.

I agree with the factual errors that some pointed out, btw. E.g. the suggestion that any well-respected cryptographer (i.e. one that has published articles in the past two years in well-known journals) has looked at Bitcoin seriously is a complete lie.

As for the scientific progress concerned, Bitcoin is still at the experimentation phase, I'd say. I don't really see why the main author doesn't submit a journal article somewhere, as writing such an article is pretty easy, if you know what you are talking about. Figuring out what to write usually takes a lot of time, but writing down your research should be easy. 

How many bitcoins do you have? Or are you just generous?

I think the website looks very unreliable, btw. Checking out the interview, now...

If I were a Wikipedian with something against Bitcoin, I would point that out in any discussion about notability. If you can get Assange to say in some interview that he is going to accept Bitcoin, I think you have hit the jackpot, though, with regard to notability.

Then again, Wikipedia might make it into "terrorist gets paid using terrorist virtual money". Oh, wait, that's Fox News.  

Edit: ok, I just heard it. I think you communicate well. I have no idea how a normal person would understand what you said (because I am not the audience), but I think your analogies were pretty good (the one with the markers comes to mind). I had the prejudice that the radioguy would be a total nut job, but he had non-commercial radio voice and did a good effort to follow you and you could sort of hear his experience with radio making.

The next time you do this, I would not mention the "sharing of ideas and God"-part. It's irrelevant and it makes you look like a hippie. If I may suggest an analogy: Stopping sharing of information is like making making water not wet.

My reflection: I didn't learn anything new about Bitcoin (nor did I expect to), but it was fascinating to hear someone talk on the radio about currency in this abstract way saying federal reserve notes instead of assuming there is only one currency in the world (the US dollar). I don't think I have ever heard someone in my country doing that. This notion of talking about the US dollar in this way already devalues it, I think.  

So, other than these minor points, I would say you did a very good job.  

I think you need to check your Feel-Oh-Meter. 

Good that you took the time to give it another chance.

I am just amazed that one guy build all these movies (and without asking money for it). Very inspiring. I wonder which tools he uses to get all of that done (which I am sure has taken him a decade to learn (as all experts need)). For me that's just magic.