Looks like refunds are priced in USD, rather than bitcoin: If an item you order turns out to be out of stock from our factory, we reserve the right to refund your order or ship a similar product of equal value. We will always contact you first if this unlikely situation occurs. Any refunds will be in Bitcoin, in an amount equal to the current USD equivalent of your order. - Terms & ConditionsDepending how long it takes an order to be canceled, somebody may be very upset to only receive the "current USD equivalent" of the order. This would be especially true if the bitcoin price doubles during that time, meaning only half the BTC paid is refunded. Would holding the bitcoin until the order ships be so hard? Edit: The Privacy Policy is misleading: This privacy statement discloses what information we gather about you when you visit the BitCoinz.ca Site and describes how we use that information. Our policy is to keep the personal information we receive from our Site completely confidential and used solely for internal purposes. We will not share your personal information with any other parties. While it may be true that bitcoinz.ca does not share the data with third parties directly, at least two third parties are invited to do their own tracking and data-mining using their own code hosted on their own servers: |
|
|
|
|
There is something that may mitigate this somewhat: Most power plants can't start and stop instantaneously. Nuclear power is the slowest and often only used for baseload for that reason. Industrial miners using solar/wind power would face storage or transmission losses if they elect to wait before trying to process a block.
I think even the fastest power plants have a turn-around time of at least a minute.
|
|
|
|
Wow I'm stunned.
Prior art pRior aRt pr1oR arT!
"Prior Art" is a term that applies to patents, not trademarks. The term you are looking for is "prior use." Common words used to describe a product can not be trademarked. |
|
|
|
Your website seems to require client-side scripting. Can your clarify where the "980000G 6000mW 802.11b/g 54Mbps USB 2.0 WiFi Wireless Network Adapter w/ Antenna" gets its power?
The USB 2.0 spec is only rated for 5V, 500mA, which is only 2.5Watts of power. Conservation of energy says the product needs an external power supply or is badly designed.
I would not be surprised if 6W exceeds radio emission limits as well. 30dBi is a very narrow radiation pattern. Is it possible that 6Watts refers to the Effective (isotropic) radiated power, and not the power supplied to the antenna terminals? (Which would work out to: 6mW, neglecting antenna losses if I am doing the math correctly) For the record, I think the 6000mW figure must be EIRP. "EIRP is the product of the maximum output power available at the antenna terminal of the transmitter and the antenna gain." OET Bulletin No. 65, Supplement C (footnote 19, Page 18, pdf 22)I like that many of your computer products seem to be Open-Source Software friendly. For example, your USB 2.0 2.4GHz 802.11b/g/n 150Mbps WiFi/WLAN Wireless adapter should work with both BSD and Linux based systems (not tested yet..) due to the Ralink chipset. The exact model number of the chipset may be helpful though. |
|
|
|
The rule of law will decide this. If he is first-to-file in certain countries and that is the law, then bitcoin trademark is his rightful property. I applaud him for utilizing the system as it is designed.
Trademarks are not property. They are more like a proper noun to help you distinguish competitors in the marketplace. Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage (by Richard M. Stallman) |
|
|
|
Having a supposedly distributed project register the trademark is playing with fire. Though, apparently Mt. Gox has applied for the trademark in Europe. I think the strongest defence we have against Trademarks is making the term "Bitcoin" generic. Trademarks are by definition meaningless. If they can actually be used to describe the product, they loose their trademark protection. Competitors must be free to describe the function of equivalent products. Though you do bring up one potential problem: what if they call their alternate blockchain "Bitcoin" just to cause confusion? I doubt they will risk it, because simple Internet search is likely to turn up Satoshi Nakamoto's paper, prompting uncomfortable questions about why the banks chose the blockchain parameters they did. |
|
|
|
one bitcoin
Thread winner. The poll does not specify units. The people taking gold/silver parity often don't use units either (when they mean 'worth the same as 1 once' .. I think.). |
|
|
|
|
I read in another thread that the "gift" can be reversed by sending the payment using the TOR network, then complaining to ebay the transaction was unauthorized.
|
|
|
|
|
Wire Transfers cost over $50. For smaller in-person transactions, it may be totally worth paying a slight premium. I don't trust Paypal or credit card companies though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. He used to to be an investment consultant.
I think he is concerned that the market is very easy to manipulate with less than $300Million in value.
|
|
|
|
My dad whom doesn't think I should touch Bitcoin with a 10ft pole has told me as much. I figure with the size of investment I plan to make, it will pay for itself after only about 10 transactions. (Paying by mail has high transaction costs). If it goes up astronomically in a year or two, that would just be a bonus. Edit: I was under the impression currency trading was riskier than stock trading  |
|
|
|
When the price of Bitcoin was rapidly climbing from $3 to $30 USD, I started valuing Bitcoin at the 30 day weighted average price (right hand side). The possibly flawed assumption is that better reflects the fundamental value of bitcoin than the peaks and valleys. Currently, the 30 Day price is listed at $17.69 USD/BTC. IMO, anything less than that is a good price if you are buying for the medium-long term. Keep in mind that the 30 Day price won't predict any fundamental problems with the currency that may cause the value to drop to 0. Conversely, it won't predict a long-term price adjustment; there will be a 30 day lag. |
|
|
|
Even Snort + fw + browsing in a VM would not have protected you against, say, a tabnabbing phishing attempt. (I mention this example again because of how deceptively efficient it is...)
Just when I start to think I am being too paranoid leaving JavaScript disabled, I read this. I temporarily enabled JavaScript for complaining about that bitcoin trademark :/ |
|
|
|
Any examples? Or links to examples?
Forget if it was the courts or an arbitration panel, but Canadian Tire sued for the Crappytire.ca domain name. The original domain holder had a parody site complaining about crappy goods he bought at Canadian Tire. Domain name: crappytire.ca
Domain status: registered
Creation date: 2000/10/11
Expiry date: 2016/07/06
Updated date: 2011/06/14
Registrar:
Name: Webnames.ca Inc.
Number: 70
Registrant:
Name: Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
Administrative contact:
Name: DNSadmin CTC
Postal address: 8550 Goreway Dr.
Brampton ON L6T5J8 Canada
Phone: +1.4164803000x
Edit: The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center considered the complaint from Canadian Tire and Dismissed it. Not sure what happened after that. |
|
|
|
Don't need to be fancy. Just scan discarded hard-disks for wallet.dat files  |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that e-mails sent to "TMFeedback at uspto.gov" don't enter the official record Edit: |
|
|
|
E-mail sent: To: Info at pascazilaw.com
Cc: TMFeedback at uspto.gov
Subject: Bitcoin Trademark dated 20110622 is invalid
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Wed 06 Jul 2011 08:00:53 PM MDT) --]
gpg: Signature made Wed 06 Jul 2011 07:57:17 PM MDT using DSA key ID 1CFDA27B
gpg: Good signature from "James Kenneth Phillips (TPM Consultant) <james at phillipsjk.ca>"
[-- End of PGP output --]
[-- The following data is signed --]
Hello,
It has come to my attention that you have applied for a Wordmark
"BITCOIN"[1]. The peer-to-peer crypto-currency project has been ongoing
for two years now: greatly predating your trademark claim. For most of
that time, the term "Bitcoin" has been used in commerce (in the United
States, among other countries).
Prior to that the domain bitcoin.com was used for an unrelated
electronic currency. According to the WayBack Machine[2], the domain was
registered by "ivntech.com" from June 2003 to February 2005. The page
appears to be Korean.
Because of the widespread use of the term "Bitcoin" when describing a
specific peer-to-peer crypto-currency with a public transaction history,
I suggest you withdraw your trademark application.
Sincerely,
James Phillips
[1] http://rogerwehbe.com/?p=73
[2] http://classic-web.archive.org/web/*/http://bitcoin.com
--
OpenPGP Public Key: http://phillipsjk.ca/signature0611.txt
[-- End of signed data --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFOFRJ9PPYMXhz9onsRAi0tAJ4hy6MFPiapyuDiimJx5o4UiK1dhQCeJ29t
tmvUFxOCgqe/PCAnc4U0uKs=
=za1p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
|
Buy stuff online without mailing financial instruments or "agreeing" to unconscionable "Terms Of Service".
|
|
|
|
No, I mean it can take >3-5 seconds to refill the keypool (only creating 100 keypairs) when it gets exhausted. I'm not talking about generating vanity addresses.
Got it. Ouch, that's terrible! I can certainly see about making a patch for that. Proper entropy is hard. Process ID is 16 bits. Unix time is about 26 bits of entropy (assuming 2 year span, second resolution). Total Entropy: 42 bits. (unless I am missing a source of entropy) </wild ass guess> |
|
|
|
I would expose the I2C, JTAG and USB interfaces on the DIMM, so that the backplane can decide which one it wants to use. Right now we'll probably go for USB-only, which greatly simplifies backplane complexity and cost (the backplane is basically just a USB hub with DIMM sockets and power distribution), but more intelligent backplanes (which might be designed later) might have a processor that talks I2C and JTAG natively, so there's no reason to add the USB overhead there.
I was under the impression that the use of DIMM sockets for power distribution wouldn't work well and that power connectors on each card are going to be used. Unless "power distribution" means power distribution for interface logic in this context. Are these DIMMS going to be keyed such that any memory chips placed in them won't get fried? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
