Latest posts of: thefiatfreezone

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 [2]

on: May 31, 2011, 08:50:20 AM

What would it take to put in separate passwords for each wallet 'account'? So that for multiple user systems each user can access their own account details and functionality without affecting or having access to others accounts. And yes, with the ability to put in a 'master' password for global wallet access?

on: May 22, 2011, 11:14:33 PM

trusting a third party .. just like a central bank .. your all whacked in the heads. Edit: - third party trust to create legit ones ... NO WAY - wallet backup ... third party trust ... NO WAY - a card is easy to be ripped of, confiscated by parasites, destroyed, etc, ... NO WAY Bitcoin is meant to get rid of ALL these issues ... why on Earth would you want this?

on: May 22, 2011, 04:40:43 AM

Quote from: Basiley on May 22, 2011, 04:30:21 AM proprietary OS-powered device ? RIM ? PIM ? security ? hardly. ? what about Android .. isn't that Open?

on: May 22, 2011, 04:01:29 AM

so ... if you had you wallet.dat file on a USB stick, you would not mind putting it into a strangers computer, knowing full well they could easily have a virus or spy ware that copies your information instantly??? Have you never heard of a personal mobile device, blackberry, etc .. will some security? ... just connect to your 'bank' where ever you keep your wallet and securely send/recieve BTC when/where you want???

on: May 22, 2011, 03:25:27 AM

Quote from: klamathonsite on May 21, 2011, 10:56:39 PM I am putting a steady form of bottom line for the coins so if they keep dropping that at least 20 coins are still worth $50. kinda think about it. not that im asking you to drop 20 on me now at $5-9 each but I have been watching it hourly on mtgox and they have dropped steady for a few days now. so if they drop to $2.50 or less i will still offer $50 to keep bottom line of the market steady and if other people do the same then they will hopefully never drop below $50 for 20. Hopefully this makes some sense Thanks So with BTC at $6 USD ( 20 BTC x $6 = $120 USD) .. you want to screw someone out of $70 USD. but you will be very nice and if BTC drops to $2.5 USD .. you'll be kind enough to pay MARKET RATES at 20 BTC * 2.5 = $50 however if BTC stays the same or goes up again ... well .. YOUR SCREWED even worse ... HA HA ... oops. Here's my NEW $60,000 CAR .. can you be nice and buy it from me for $500 .. that would be so kind of you. I really hope none do business with you.

on: May 21, 2011, 11:56:38 PM

Quote from: rezin777 on May 21, 2011, 11:54:36 PM Well, some do want big pools, otherwise they wouldn't join deepbit. They like low variance (not realizing the highest fee costs them more in the long run). And I suspect many of them come from F@H, where you want to be big. I also suspect many of them only care about making easy money, not the health of the Bitcoin network. So when does the new 'client' come out with the additions/modifications? and please forgive this .. but what's F@H???

on: May 21, 2011, 11:48:50 PM

Quote from: rezin777 on May 21, 2011, 11:44:43 PM No! You are wrong because you suggested that we want large pools. This thread is an example of a way to reduce the control a large pool has over the network. The people posting in this thread want many small pools, the same as you. This is why I said you misunderstand the point of this thread. Ah .. ok ... thank you .. I thought some of you wanted big ones !! made no sense to me .. much better .. thank you.

on: May 21, 2011, 11:12:20 PM

Quote from: rezin777 on May 21, 2011, 11:01:10 PM Apparently you misunderstand the point of this thread. Ok .. never mind .. I'm outy EDIT: /??? just asking but ..... if one MEGA goes down and the network can not adapt immediately .. then you get delays and a back log of transactions ... so the 'dictatorship' I was referring to was the MEGA that controls the network ... if it glitches, goes down, etc .. and everyone hurts ... so .. am I still wrong about forcing the break up of MEGAs and creating smaller groups being better?

on: May 21, 2011, 10:59:00 PM

so .. ?? deepbit goes down for 30 minutes and the network dies ... and you all want this ? ... 1 HUGE mining groups that dictates .... I'd prefer lots of small ones .. {no single point of failure} ... if Bitcoin continues with big groups .. I don't see any reason people will want to use it in the future if it is to easy to kill it by crashing one single group. just my opinion .. but you can clearly see its death coming from dictatorship.

on: May 21, 2011, 09:59:19 PM

? if slush is correct and all this extra communication is needed ... wouldn't that simply take out the mega-HUGE groups and force everyone to create lots of individual and mini-groups (de-centralized) the way Bitcoin was meant to be? isn't that a good thing?

Pages: « 1 [2]