I noticed that these organisations received money, yet there are issues on their pages:
http://www.kenija2012.com/ - gone?
http://antiwar.com/donate/donate.php - has the logo but only offers other payment methods?
https://watsi.org - only has credit card?
http://www.hiphopchessfederation.org/donate.html - ok, there is half the logo visible but searching the term bitcoin doesn't help finding it. Maybe they should be asked to fix that?
https://www.khanacademy.org - requires login to donate? Didn't do that, sorry. Seams weird to have to login for a bitcoin donation.

Oops. I better don't mention that I studied math
My gut feeling was "ah, 20 years, rewards will be irrelevant by then."
My wrong math supported that less clearly than I had expected due to my off-chain-assumption.

Yeah, I better had not posted that

Things will be interesting long before. Already now people add fees for almost no reason at all. Many people desperately wait for the first full blocks and a year later full blocks will be the norm, so to get a transaction through you will have to compete for the space. (Unless, what I wrote some posts above, off chain is standard by next year but never mind ).

20 years = 5 halfings = 25Ƀ / 2^5 = 0.39Ƀ reward. With no need at all we now have on average 0.2Ƀ in fees per block.

My theory of why 2033 popps up again and again was that journalists assume that rewards below 1Ƀ won't work.


Why do you hope for transaction fees? I hope both will be negligible by any standard. Mining is a terribly misleading term and should in fact be called securing. There will be people interested in securing the network just because they have stake in it and not because they can harvest fees or block rewards.

Oh, am I glad not to have to decide on who the scammer is but judging from what I see there, I see how GlooBoy is keeping a positive score despite of getting gang-raped by what you try to make us believe is trying to down-rate you: a pack of scammers. How can this OTC-rating system be so broken that even "supa 1" to "supa 5" can rate a person using the exact same text without them being removed for obvious reasons?? Sick place!

I would assume that exactly this is not the case but wouldn't wonder if it took a while to decide in some cases. Last resort should be to give to charity.
As much as bitmit scares me for being secretive about their identity and holding customers funds I don't think they would easily abuse the escrow of all things.

About your warning: It's all too easy to fabric video proofs and I fully understand that for the sake of overall user satisfaction they have to take into account a wast array of indicators that not necessarily can all be public. False positives not being 0% will get them loud enemies, so they will try to avoid them, too. Still, being a loud enemy doesn't proof you are a false positive, so just one case will not make people consider bitmit to be a scam but you to be a scammer. The burden the first whistle blower has to take.

This was discussed shortly and should have reached Tosaki many times before. Sorry for repeating myself: Please make this happen at least for new users that have nothing to loose. Interfering with my sales should leave me a way to interfere with your reputation if it doesn't result in mutual benefit. Not being able to recourse to reputation, the noob is in an unfair position of power.

… just leaving this here as others might consider it worthy to know about Boussac's business ethics. This was his reply to this:

How is a claim id not enough info? How dare to make assumptions about my self perception of my intelligence and thereby implicitly question my intellect when I - for the tenth time - ask for my money back, giving my claim id which should be the identifier of my claim and therefore be a direct pointer to all the data in their database that he asked for in his rude reply?

Well, the list could be sorted by a combined score but this score should be resistant to manipulation. Take downloads for example. This one is easy to pump by buying some downloads from a botnet for $1.5.
Exchange trade volume? There are exchanges that don't charge fees, so again you might invite scammers to pump the volume.
A) Exchange trade fees of the last 30d in $$? Would be a good one but it's not as easy to determine.
B) Age in seconds is easy and a block chain surviving should be a sign of stability that is hard to fake.
C) Market cap in $$ is definitely worth a thought.
D) Number of running nodes.

score = A * 30 + B * 0.1 + C * D * 0.0001 … something along these lines. Sure the formula and the constants can be tuned to make the one or the other look good but we should talk about a formula and not just one determining value. That said: I have no AltCoins at all and feel like 99% of them are get rich quick schemes by the people running them but I don't want to be the last to know if any of them actually is to be taken seriously.

oh, lol
over LB's success I had forgotten there was this site as well. Yeah, please get your stuff together and provide a decent competition to localbitcoins! My guess would be that the train already left the station and you would really have to innovate. Ok, I wish there was such a thing as a decentralized service based on open source. Something like a localbitcoins federation, so I can apt-get install bitcoinary on my server, invite my friends and public to create accounts on my server, but if they want to use bitcoinary.org, because they have credit card gateways etc., they can do so, but searching for trades will find them across the whole federation if the server where i have an account is configured to trust others (all that bitcoinary trusts for example). Users could still say no to certain servers (think: hotmail, mail.ru, etc). Hmm, what you think?

I guess the OP better be anonymous. Else, any sorting whatsoever will get him hate and threats.

Yes. It won't happen for mining though. It will only happen if trading justifies it, but off the chain transactions can already be done sub Satoshi, so why bother? In order to have billions of people trade in bitcoin you need to go off the chain anyway so even for trade there is no practical benefit of more decimals. If by that time a Satoshi would still not buy you a meal, people wouldn't bother changing things as fees will buy the miners many meals if Bitcoin survives to that date.

Edit: My assessment about fees might be inaccurate. There is also a possibility of mining turning into an expensive effort with no reward from the ordinary bitcoin users, run only by those with high stakes in Bitcoin merely out of their own pockets.

If auctions can be destroyed by simply creating a new account and bidding with no money in the pocket, it's not that much fun to both offer and bid on an auction. Please review your 20% no-pay if it is worse on auction style as no-pay hurts 100 times more there than on buy now style where the seller has plenty on stock and the sale does not disappear just because some a**** clicked buy just for fun.

Absolutely agree with this from the buyer side but please take into account the damage done to your active users, especially to those that – like me – prefer auction style for getting rid of stuff they don't want to put a price lable on.

I have 4 throw away numbers, others prefer not to give you their number. In order to bid, make them either provide a phone number or charge the account with BTC and please make auction style with payment mandatory for users with less than 1 successful purchase. It sux soo big when an auction comes to an end after a bid war with 5 people involved that all invested time, sweat and tears when the winner doesn't collect his purchase.

I could imagine much stricter rules that would prevent 5 times buyers of some voucher items to bid on houses and other expensive stuff cause how can I auction off a house on bitmit with every interested party being able to destroy the auction with a throw away account?

Therefore, contain those first timers on sales where they don't make offers disappear for the time it takes to learn about bitcoin. Always  look at the two sides of the decision. Sure, those noobs might refrain from hitting buy and never come back but half of them might never buy a single item and the other half might not compensate for the frustrated customers of you that simply leave because you unleashed a horde of idiots on their customer support capacities.

Find it out yourself!
My approach would be to first search for some strong correlation between attributes I have at hands. Age of the account at time of buying, auction style or sale, ip proximity between buyers and sellers (aka is he buying his own stuff?), prior feedback of both buyer and seller, country, use of messages, frequency of visiting certain pages, distance between buyer and seller, etc.
If there were no such thing that I could use to well predict most of the no-pays, I would add additional parameters like timing during the buy process, timing when browsing the site etc.
If still there were no obvious correlation to some parameter I would throw machine learning at the collected data. Above parameters -> pay/no-pay.

Ok, I would love to actually use ML and plan to do on my FluxCards and if you don't love ML, you might want to do some user survey first. Do it on Bitmit. This way you get the actual user history linked to his answers.

Also 25% unpaid are a real downer! I understand that you want to get people to hit "buy" as conveniently as possible but the sellers will run away if they get noise from sales that never materialize. Especially with auction style this is very frustrating to have it running for a week with 20 bids and then … great. My quick fix would be to not allow to end an auction without actually putting money in escrow and apply exactly this to whatever you find by above method to be the main candidates of not paying later. My guess would be that among those without rating, no-pay is 80%.

(Please disregard the last paragraph if without money it already is impossible to end an auction. I didn't feel like clicking "place order" just to see if it cancels the auction or not.)

Hehe, I just defended your OP but I doubt this point a bit. People have bitcoins in truecrypt drives that they forgot the key for etc. and consider it extra save to care about recovering this data in some distant future when it became easy to recover passwords to a truecrypt drive but not easy to guess the private key to their bitcoins

Ok, as there is so much hatred towards the the OP:

I totally agree that unmoved coins should be removed. I disagree with the OP that this should be some singular event (I don't like singular or recurring events like the reward halfing) but it should be some rule like coins that did not move in 10 years are dead.

Yes, I gave bitcoins to friends and family and told them that they just should remember that it's called bitcoin and if in ten years they find the cd and have no clue what bitcoin is they should throw it away. Else, they would be rich. Well, guess what, they are all excited about their bitcoin holdings now and within 10 years they would not miss to move their coins, so I am not worried about people loosing their coins.
I think 10 years would be a reasonable amount of time and being introduced now, it shouldn't take effect before 2023 but I think we should do this because:

We will loose considerable mining capacities to people trying to crack those big addresses that don't move to the next more secure algorithm once the current ones become insecure.
The sins of the past where tons of dust is created will also get wiped out of the block chain once the nodes may forget about +10a transactions.
It is not stealing when people can at no costs keep their wealth as a client of that generation would automate the refresh and the transacitons would be for free as they would not be urgent and certainly qualify for zero fees. Miners not including those keep-alive transactions without a fee would be attacking bitcoin.

The down sides are:
Sending reduces the security by revealing the public key which is why you would better not continue using the address after refreshing it, which would be maybe sad for some vanity addresses that only collected and never spent coins but maybe a rule could be derived that would allow to keep addresses alive without revealing the public key.
Sending requires becoming active somehow and I guess this fact is what really pisses off people here. Hey, I bought a car and now you want to install a dead man switch that I have to press every minute? Yeah, I understand that but when the current algorithms become insecure it will become an issue and I am 100% sure that we will come to some such agreement at some point, so I would rather want it to be in place before it's urgent. Sure, if Satoshi is the GOV he will not want to move his coins never ever before the world agreed to use his coins but hey, in 10 years we most likely have ZeroCoin or something anonymous like that and even if not, it should be possible then to move the addresses without people knowing who did it.

Thanks for that link. Would definitely had me more motivated. The sequence and the symbols questions annoyed me and another one got me put an answer before realizing that my research was worse than outdated

xorxor thank you for maintaining this great list! did you think about moving it to the wiki? Guess the edit war would be epic

Ok, I did your little test and I would actually be available starting November but still, please add some info here.

Mind telling a bit more about what this is about? I would love to work in Bitcoin for a living and I would most likely solve your funny riddle within an hour for the fun of it but I find it rude to not say anything about what this is about or show a link from coinbase itself to it that would proof that you actually are from coinbase. What do you need? I mean do you need language skills? Do you need global distribution? Why ask the time in a certain time zone as a hard discriminator? You believe that you get an indicator of how fast people are via this? People that know all the answers to your questions are certainly capable of training and submitting the test from a different ip/machine, so you will not get a timing neither.
Also to generate a 1BASE-vanity address you might have bad luck and it takes an hour alone to install vanitygen and generate that address. I wouldn't like to jump through hoops and loops just to be sorted out because I was too fast aka solving your time lookup last is considered wrong.
… and what has sorting letters to do with customer support??