A man's praise in his own mouth stinks.

Yes, it was interesting to know how he does it. He streamed snippets of video of a barely moving sleepy girl and had some snippets available to switch to (smile, nod, ...) at a click. He has trouble with sound as that would be harder to loop and he's a he so dubbing his own videos would not be easy.

Taken it's a lot of preparation and requires the guy sitting by makes me believe him when he says it's just for fun.

Only thing that annoys me about this is that I tipped him (I tipped all girls to get their interest although my video is totally broken and I was more fascinated by the site than the girl but I want to see this project take off)

Naja, also natürlich würde eine perfekte Implementierung ohne Ankündigung keine Chance haben, einen nennenswerten Fork zu bilden. All die pools, die ja letztlich abstimmen können, würden proof of stake komplett ignorieren. Mit genügend Vorlauf könnte es aber schon klappen.

Ein Problem das ich sehe, ist dass alle damit angeben, dass sie mit 3GH minen, wo sie eigentlich damit angeben sollten, das Netzwerk mit 3GH zu sichern. Das Ziel von Bitcoin ist nicht, den Gewinn von Minern zu maximieren, sondern eine sichere P2P-Währung zu etablieren. Da wäre auch eine Zukunft denkbar, in der wir alle nach den Block-Rewards keine Transaktionsgebühren zahlen.

Ein proof of stake client wäre nicht auf die Pools angwiesen um zu funktionieren, sondern auf die wallets mit den meisten coins.

Selbst wenn es einen Fork gäbe, würden doch diejenigen, die POW bevorzugen weiterhin vor dem Dilemma stehen, entweder in Strom und Hardware oder in Coins zu investieren, während die POS-ler klar in Coins investieren würden, was die Marktkapitalisierung der POS-Chain nach oben treiben würde.

Sorry, wenn das alles Argumente sind, die in den entsprechenden Foren schon lange zerlegt wurden, aber ich hab mich damit noch nicht befasst. Wär nett, wenn Du mich erleuchten würdest

Also wenn tragedy of the commons das Argument für proof of stake ist, dann bin ich vielleicht gar nicht so dagegen ...

proof of stake: Ich habe 1% aller Bitcoin, also ist meine Wahrscheinlichkeit, den nächsten Block zu minen 10 mal größer als die eines Miners mit 0.1%. Idealerweise geht das, ohne nennenswerten Energie-Input. Der Satoshi-Client könnte wieder ein Häkchen bekommen, dass er minen soll.

Was für mich dagegen spricht, ist die Tatsache, dass Bitcoin-Mining zu 100% in die Taschen von Bitcoin-Reichen ginge. Zu einem Zeitpunkt, zu dem noch massiv Bitcoins auf den Markt geworfen werden (+50% im letzten Jahr) ist das völlig inakzeptabel, weil Mining eine große Bedeutung beim Erlangen erster Bitcoins für viele hat. Wenn wir mal bei nur noch +1% pro Jahr sind, dann sieht es völlig anders aus. Dann könnten nämlich die Transaktionsgebühren das werden, was sie sein sollten, nämlich eine Schutzgebühr gegen den Missbrauch des Protokolls und das dann im Vergleich zu Proof-of-Work total billige Verifizieren wäre auf mehr Schultern verteilt und sicher.

Der 51%-Angriff wäre meiner Meinung nach mit proof of stake seit einiger Zeit unmöglich, weil schon immer mehr als 50% der coins gehortet werden und ein Anstieg des Kurses zu mehr Horten führen würde.

Die hostet wallets würden im Namen der Kunden für die Kunden Mining betreiben, womit sie "Zinsen" anbieten würden und somit die Rolle der Pools übernähmen. Wer so wenig "Steak" hat, dass die 10W extra mehr kosten, als die Mining-Gewinne, der minet halt nicht oder nutzt eine hosted wallet.

Fazit: Heute bin ich gegen Proof of Stake. Wenn Bitcoin Mainstream ist, bin ich dafür. Schon der Umwelt wegen

Without verifying your accusations: So what? The best solution for a problem provides all the features requested and has 0 lines of code aka the developer knew what already existed and put it together.
Maintenance costs 0$.
Ready to market 0d.
Consultancy costs priceless.

Ich seh das als Test für das Netzwerk. Das muss der Bitcoin ab können. Interessant ist, dass SatoshiDice bisher drauf gezahlt hat.

herzmeister was weißt Du denn über proof of stake??? Steht das ernsthaft zur Diskussion?

Maybe we should ban links to competing sites on the forum? What are you suggesting?

For me neither of the sites offers a decent quality and yes, I would prefer if they would team up and work twice as fast on a solution for all the issues but (un)fortunately they have different approaches.

The market for streaming is huge!, but HUGE!!!! I'm so sure such a streaming site will make big news later in 2012. The only reason there are only girls from the USA and only so few performers on MFC is the barriers put up to stream there. With these new sites the sky is the limit. Well ... maybe upstream is the limit but that opens up personal streaming to another 90% of the world. Don't blame these pre-alpha-websites for having only 0.5 performers on average. With ways to stream to more than one site, the barrier to stream there, too is virtually zero.

@1: A wise man said "I'm all in on bitcoin with all I have and all I can borrow" to claim weeks later he has nothing in bitcoins anymore. I suggest you claim the latter at some point, too or at least move your coins once so you can claim it easily. At 100$/BTC taxes might trouble you. At 1000$/BTC weird people (I heard you can hire them for bitcoin) will find a way to make you send them a little tip

@2: When should we try to get a vaporware award for them?

nice

... almost. Knowing how to somehow forge a link is a cheat. Seeing this link in the browser's address bar or inside the channel is a feature.

chromium on linux. right click reveals it's java but I doubt the average visitor will ... ok, forget it. The average user has no bitcoin =D

feature request: link to a channel. if channel is not online, default to lobby.

good luck Zhou

No plugin available to show this content - and it doesn't even tell me which content type it can't show so I could fix it.

ok, so if there is a channel, there is not necessarily a video or audio stream? would it make sense to show a "not broadcasting" image instead of the video and a mic muted symbol when there is no sound intentionally? i reconnected and saw "3 people online" but did not try to chat.
The chat also does not tell me my name so if i pick one each time I tend to just smash the keyboard and then don't recognize when people talk to me.

Gut dass wir kein Geld drucken wie blöd Wie steht eigentlich der Bitcoin-Kurs inflationsbereinigt? Seit vor einem Jahr wurden 30% aller Bitcoins in Umlauf gebracht? Das wären ja dann ... so im Kopf ... eins gemerkt ... 7.5$? Passt doch

(Rechenweg: 6Mio BTC mit selber Marktkapitalisierung wie die heutigen 9Mio wären 150% pro Einheit. 1.5*5$=7.5$)

the last times i tried i had issues. on chromium the "Allow blablabla" window did not react on my click and on firefox I saw dino_rawr was online but clicking on his "show" I neither got sound nor video after allowing.

Feature request: The schedule needs a link so the performers can give some introduction although this might be an invitation to link spam :/ Maybe a description without link is more realistic?

I lolled
Telling from your other later posts, this is not trolling? Yes, we can decide to add a billion decimals and in fact if the smallest unit buys you a house, we will. Definitely. Most likely we will even when it can buy you a grain of rice.
For now nobody cares about the 10 digits other then when you want to brag about thefts in anonymous messages.
With the recent sky-rocketing of the USD the FED will soon print bills µ$

Blacklisting and destroying can work with the protocol as is. The biggest exchanges maintain blacklists and send any amount to /dev/null that sources from their blacklist unless the amount received already got that amount sent to /dev/null before.

If I send Bitcoins to MtGox and they destroy 1/1000th of them explaining it stems from that recent raid, I can take legal action against them but if judges start supporting this behavior there is little you can do in the protocol to stop it from happening. Now I can check where I got my coins tainted from ... ah .. SatoshiDice. I can demand my money back from this guy which would lead to him starting to use the black lists as well and as I don't want to hear from Gox how I had dirty fingers next time, I will also run the blacklists on my client.

Slippery slope but we are already on it. This will come the one way or the other.

For generating bitcoin, the exchange rate does not matter (a rise in difficulty is what reflects the rise in popularity and the technological progress in his model). For buying now it does not matter neither.

If I have a wallet to run my business, how can it be a good idea to have more than one person having access to the private keys? In this case at least 4 people (owners and zhoutong) had officially access to the key, a dozen others to the server physically and many others had access to root-password-reset-email-account-servers. Any theft is perfectly deniable by the thief if it's any of them.

Bitcoinica can have mechanisms when cashing out that put certain amounts on hold if they look fishy by some metrics but that's application layer and with the unencrypted keys on the machine many people can just circumvent that layer.

If I wanted to do it right, how should I do it? Keep the private keys at home providing signatures to the application after sanitizing? This way I could reduce the access to the wallet from many to one. I could have a fraction of the wallet in each owner's machine or one takes full responsibility. Then the attacker would have to forge legit api requests to sign transactions flying under the radar and the parameters of the radar would not be public. Worst case would be pissed customers waiting longer than necessary and apparently legit cash outs that weren't but that will not sum up to 20k in one day. If one customer cashes out 20kBTC, I call him. Twice. And he will thank me for the nice chat.

On my "laptop" with the wallet I could have a service running that constantly polls a bitcoinica api for transactions to be signed. Small amounts summing up to less than x BTC get cleared automatically, bigger amounts get delayed by an hour for random review and checkpot amounts are put on hold indefinitely until clearing them manually.

This would not require any trust to more than one person and the PC at home would not even require to accept inbound traffic.

... crazy ...