Can you develop a genetic proof of work that changes over time to prevent ASICs from dominating the ecosystem? Also how will you address transaction fees and the notion of colored coins? Are you writing a whitepaper like satoshi did to explain some things? I would be willing to help write code for you if we are philosophically aligned

Once the website is up and running you can see the areas we need help with. Until then, just spread the word. The course will always be free for everyone. You can also use our content in a commercial setting if desired.

You're not exactly being fair in this assessment. Some people the community feel that decisions are being made about defining "legitimate" bitcoin versus "out of mainstream" bitcoin by a small cabal of individuals. No one should have such power or even believe they have a right to try. However, the media needs to have a singular head entity to discuss bitcoin and it is very clear the foundation is attempting to position itself for such a role.

If they are successful, then the foundation would gain the ability to exclude certain voices if they desired. While such voices can always blog, tweet, etc, they would not speak with the authority of the "official" bitcoin group and therefore be outside of the mainstream. Now, it is fair to point out the argument presupposes the foundation's intentions and media strategy, yet it is also fair to say the community should be sensitive to these issues.

I recall working for the Ron Paul campaign in 2007-8 and watching the tea party turn from a very tangible third party against the status quo into a proxy of the republican party after some incredibly well funded entities hijacked it. I really don't want to see the same thing happen to the Bitcoin movement.

Lol, I don't think I could pull that one off. But thank you for the support. We'll be launching our website soon for the Bitcoin Education Project. Let me know if you'd like to contribute in any way. We are always looking for more help.

I noticed. I just tried to log in.

Thank you Sirius.

All of the math papers I've written have used the pronoun we instead of I regardless of collaboration. It's a standard convention in the sciences. Most discoveries and innovations are based upon prior work thus it is an homage to the community using we.

Thank you. That's all I asked for. There has to be rapid response to issues like these.

I'm just some guy. A dev tweeting gives creditability and also will reach a proper audience. It really isn't much to ask.

I like you. But this is a serious proposal that I will fund if there is enough community involvement. We need to find a way to fund development outside a foundation

This is a free class explaining bitcoin:

https://www.udemy.com/bitcoin-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-crypto/

A fork is coming and thus the Fork Wars shall begin. I think bitcoin has evolved to the point one is necessary to save the ideology it was established upon.

How many java programming books are there? How many chess books are there? The more the merrier and I'd be happy to help any author. May I ask the license of your IP?

I asked about tweeter. A blog post is not tweeter. You can link to one. It is easy and simply to do. Instead of calling me a FUD troll, why don't you just tweet something? Jesus man

I'm really sorry that no one who is attached with the physical development of bitcoin sees no wisdom in issuing a statement about this tweet. You guys seem to enjoy deciding who should represent Bitcoin for official press inquiries, but when media bate tweets appear, it's not worth your time.

Please be consistent. Either stay out of media decisions or stay completely involved.

Fast needs a good definition. In ASIC land, we generally don't consider fast to be something like MHz, but instead in terms of how well it does the thing it was designed to do compared to the power consumption and manufacturing yield. From the review unit David got his hands on, he claims the ASIC runs at around 170 MHz and performs about 5 GH/s of work with a double digit TDP.

I suspect they originally intended the ASIC to consume less than 5 watts of power for the 5 GH/s model. Then they could scale it to the 1500 GH/s model around a few kwatts, which is definitely possible to cool. Under their current design, it is not physically possible to scale the 5 GH/s design to the 1500 GH/s minirig. They will have to redesign their ASIC, which will take months more delays for product they have already sold.

Would you like to collaborate with the Bitcoin Education Project? I think we have a lot in common:

https://www.udemy.com/bitcoin-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-crypto/

I've been thinking a lot about issues with the foundation's relationship to developers, ASICs entering the marketplace displacing millions worth of GPUs and finally a mining pool getting 51% of hash power. I think I've come up with a solution.

Let's create two non-profits. One non-profit will operate a mining pool that collects 100% of its production and focuses on GPU miners who can no longer break even as a result of ASIC miners. Like folding@home it is a donation of compute time to help a common goal. The bitcoins are then donated to a second non-profit that pays for professional developers to work on bitcoin like gavin does, but has no ties any particular foundation as it is always guaranteed the revenue from the pool. The second non-profit will also solicit companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Paypal to contribute developers to the Bitcoin project.

We can also resolve the 51% problem by getting pool operators to agree to a cap on their total network hash rate. Anything over (overflow) would be allocated to the non-profit pool. Everyone wins. The millions of dollars in GPU hardware gets to still be useful. And we have preserved the integrity of the core software development of Bitcoin.

Suggestions, Ideas, Concerns? 

If Matt wants to call me a tool for donating my time and money to help people learn about bitcoin for free, then that's his prerogative. I just dislike his publication will not help us broadcast to the bitcoin community our project and its goals.



Simple, he is a leader and a CEO with resources. When someone who is proactive sees something unjust, he does something about it. We'll have a better more beautiful and inclusive press center in a few days.

I've been thinking a lot about issues with the foundation's relationship to developers, ASICs entering the marketplace displacing millions worth of GPUs and finally a mining pool getting 51% of hash power. I think I've come up with a solution.

Let's create two non-profits. One non-profit will operate a mining pool that collects 100% of its production and focuses on GPU miners who can no longer break even as a result of ASIC miners. Like folding@home it is a donation of compute time to help a common goal. The bitcoins are then donated to a second non-profit that pays for professional developers to work on bitcoin like gavin does, but has no ties any particular foundation as it is always guaranteed the revenue from the pool. The second non-profit will also solicit companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Paypal to contribute developers to the Bitcoin project.

We can also resolve the 51% problem by getting pool operators to agree to a cap on their total network hash rate. Anything over (overflow) would be allocated to the non-profit pool. Everyone wins. The millions of dollars in GPU hardware gets to still be useful. And we have preserved the integrity of the core software development of Bitcoin.

Suggestions, Ideas, Concerns?