So I know that bitnodes has been monitoring the network for quite some time, however their website only displays data from the last 365 days. Any way to look at older data?

all investments have some sort of risk, its about getting what edge you can over the long term; a dice site's bankroll for example, should increase over time given the house edge. for this reason, I sometimes tend to put some coin into dice sites, and so far theyve been growing decently well.

Escrowing is not too peofitable unless you are extremely trusted and even then its still hardly profitable, you could start giving loans to people on the lending section to build trust and to also get a good profit but always use escrow and ask for collateral

There are some physiological limits. Approximated limit of average lifespan is about 250 years. If we solve genetic issues then there still would be another limitation due to nature of our brain. To be exact, there is no possibility to remember more than 4000-5000 years of living experience. You won't die but you'll forget anything what happened before last 4000-5000 years of your hypothetically unlimited life. And there will be no way to recover these memories.

Earlier running a full node was the only way to have a wallet. Now, there are many lightwight clients and online wallets to give people the ease of use. Naturally people have stopped running a full node. Now-a-days full nodes are mainly run by those who need it, i.e. business to verify their Tx and miners. There are few volunteers who run full node though.

Very good point. Back then Bitcoin QT was basically Bitcoin within itself, now no one wants to use it because it's a pain in the ass. The increasingly demand on the computer to deal with the ever growing Blockchain doesn't give people an incentive big enough to use it. Plus it's very limit within its features. Has no HD addresses, there's no way to sort out addresses, you need a backup everytime you create a new address.. it needs a lot of work to make people come back to it so we can increase the nodes again.

With the two leading markets for Primecoin both being Chinese-based, paired with the fact there was such explosive growth in both price and volume over the last 7 days, market manipulation based on insider information is a strong contender for why Primecoin is moving the way it is.

With the latest submission on Primecoin’s subreddit being a month old, and with its Twitter lacking substantial news updates, it seems that buyers are accumulating Primecoin for something big in the next couple of weeks, or are just looking to make a quick buck from the standard pump and dump scheme.

No idea. Datacoin next.

Why is a casino's license significant to you when you want to gamble with bitcoin? I don't think that bitcoin casinos take steps towards being licensed. Provably fair gambling is the way to go. As of the legality, in most regions and countries it isn't illegal to gamble with bitcoin because of the lack of laws about it. Until this changes, we're probably not going to see many bitcoin casinos being blocked.

Any lawyer worth his salt will probably tell you to have a third party agent incorporate a casino on your behalf. Incorporating does very little for the actual user, it does help the owner establish a banking connection/trust and cash out though.

I think incorporation actually reduces the protection of investors/gamblers as the liaibility is shifted from operator to company. That being said it's a wise decision to incorporate but I can't personally see any reason for it benefiting users. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

This means that when you incorporate a company/business in this way, in most cases, the liabilities will be shifted from the owners onto the corporation itself. So if/when the site gets hacked, or something similar causes the site to lose money then the owners would not be responsible, the corporation itself will need to bear the losses.

The owners would have this protection while still keeping the benefits of getting to keep any profits that are not reinvested into their company.

Assuming their security is strong enough to prevent people with malicious intent from stealing from the site, and assuming the owners are acting in an honest manner, then it will most likely have no visible effect on players/investors.

Legal actions will be taken no doubt about that and if a legal actions is taken on these unlicensed gambling sites than it will get them much more lost then their decision to stop accepting bets from the UK based players.
Basically unlicensed means illegal and everything that illegal will be seized down also that affiliates that promotes an unlicensed gambling sites are also at risk by this point if they UK gambling comission decided to take legal actions

This is completely false.

Seems there's a lot of misinformation and basic misunderstandings here. Whenever I see this topic come up in the non-BTC gambling world, I see the same vague and incorrect suggestions over and over.

Just because online gambling is legal in a country does not mean you can host an unlicensed site there. The UK has a very strict licensing regiment with master licenses costing around £500,000 per year. Hosting unlicensed games on a server there is a quick way to get booted by your hosting company who is required to comply with UK law.

It is, however, legal to serve games from offshore into the UK, if they are legal in the country where they're hosted. The key here under UK law is "where the bet is struck". The bet is considered to be struck where the server is. Since the UK abides by international trade laws (which the US refuses to sign onto), they have to allow their citizens to strike bets in another country so long as those bets are legal under that country's law.

Now here's where it gets interesting. There is no jurisdiction on earth where it's legal to host an online gambling site without a government-issued license, except for Costa Rica. Costa Rica requires something called a "data-processing license" but it is not strictly a license (more a way of incorporating) and is not subject to gambling regulation as such. The reason for this is that, for historical reasons and thanks to a byzantine Napoleonic legal structure, Costa Rica contradicts the rest of the world (except, interestingly, the United States) and considers the bet to be struck on the user's computer, not where the servers are. So they see nothing wrong with hosting a casino there. What you're not allowed to do in Costa Rica, if you host there, is take Costa Rican players. Because then you'd be breaking their law by running an on-shore casino. Funky, right?

It is certainly illegal to host a gaming site in Ireland without an Irish gaming license (this came into force several years ago; before that Ireland had no specific legislation on it and it wasn't prosecuted).

However, the vagaries of where a bet is "struck" leave open a number of interesting loopholes for the clever site operator. For example, some countries which require a license to host gambling have various amnesties in their laws to attract business, which allow back-office operations to be run there, even downloads to be served there, so long as the bet isn't struck there. Some will consider the location of the RNG to be where the bet is struck, and others consider it to be where the player connects to the game server (assuming those are two different machines). Hosting in Costa Rica is enormously expensive, the bandwidth is terrible and the service is nonexistent. So many companies host their primary website there and serve the games elsewhere.

The ONLY way you can be sure that what you're doing in a particular country is legal is to hire a gambling attorney in that country to advise you and, if possible, put an opinion on it in writing. The safest route for a casino not willing to pay for a governmental license is to get incorporated in Costa Rica for $1000 or so and serve the games and RNG from there; and then put your non-gambling stuff like videos, graphics, sounds, etc. on faster servers wherever you want. I like http://nohostsland.com for finding servers in odd parts of the world. But DO NOT consider sticking gambling services on one of these VPS's, or on a server anywhere in the EU without a proper license from the country you're serving from.

If you have the money, some countries which offer packaged license/hosting/banking arrangements are: Malta, Curacao, the Isle of Man, Kahnawake (First Nations, Canada), Belize, Antigua; and on the top shelf, the UK, Australia, France and Italy (primarily for domestic markets).

Also be aware that the UK classifies two types of offshore casinos: Those licensed in the EU or with a country whose gaming regime is recognized by the EU (e.g. Curacao), and those not recognized (e.g. Costa Rica). While it is not illegal for a Costa Rica casino to take UK players, it is illegal in the UK for Costa Rica based casinos to advertise in print, on radio or television. Again, lots of rules, so the best advice? Lawyer up and don't take advice that could land you in jail from anonymous people on the internet.

Why would a transhumanist trust technologies others humans make with closed codes and patented inventions to be part of the living fabric of their existence? Have you heard of Deere and their patented farming machines?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1034731.0


You will become someone else's product eventually if transhumanists don't bet on open sourced future tech-enhanced life widgets, gadgets and services...

That would be a instant nail in the coffin for Gavincoin.
Look, I think we need to do something about the blocksize, and maybe unless someone comes up with something better, we'll need to modify the blocksize, but forking it to 20MB does shit nothing, we'll meet the same dead end in the future. What we need is doing something scalable. A fork for 20MB is not scalable. Staying 1MB is equally stupid.
But the total supply will always be 21, unless you want an instant dump of epic proportions.

Dynamic limits

One very popular idea is to implement a dynamic limit, based on historical block sizes.

The details vary: how often should the maximum size be adjusted? Every block? Every difficulty adjustment? How much of an increase should be allowed? 50% bigger? Double?

If the block size limit is just a denial-of-service prevention measure (preventing a big, evil miner from producing an 11 gigabyte block that the rest of the network is forced to validate), then any of these proposals will work. Engineers could bike-shed the parameter choice to death, but I like the idea of a simple dynamic limit on the maximum allowed size.

There are more complicated proposals for a dynamic block size limit that (for example) involve proof-of-stake voting or linking the maximum block size to the mining reward and/or the amount of fees in a block. I like them less than a simple solution, because consensus-critical code must be absolutely correct, and every additional line of code is another opportunity for a chain-splitting bug to slip through code review and testing...

If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.

No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.

Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".


If any one large pool and I suspect most will switch, the domino effect will be fast and furious.

This argument is over as a large majority will switch to any new client that is an update and endorsed by Gavin.



~BCX~

Actually, the 21 million coin limit can be raised at any time, and most probably will be in the future.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section eight) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.  A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.  That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Is this coin dead, or what's the status?

https://www.coinbase.com/multisig

No other online wallets AFAIK.

out of all those coins. it seems nxt had the least funding at 21 btc. why is it that certain coins even with alot of funding doesn't even come close to what nxt has so far? im really curious to why this is.... is it really not the funding that plays a factor? so what is it? i mean all those coins have talented devs too.

yeah but it was in the same range for many other month, basically from late 2011 to all the 2012 until the halving, so something much worse than now, compared to that time the current price stagnancy is still a joke

Imagine this : an illiterate druglord from Harlem/Brooklyn pleads guilty and gets 20-30 years in prison and an educated guy who tries to fight the system (even though he was guilty in my opinion) gets life in prison without the possibility of parole...

who is more useful to society ?

the illiterate/retarded/ drug dealer from Harlem who in 20 years would be just as retarded as before with slim chances of rehabilitation, or an educated guy who in 20 years from now might have something to give back to society : such as advices to young men following in his footsteps...he could lead some really interesting seminaries and help a lot of people along the way to learn from his mistakes but as it turns out he will never have a second chance


The prison system in the US is just wrong...locking people up is not the solution, re-educating them should be a main priority....life in prison for Ross is unfair to say the least...the 20 years prison sentence would've been more appropriate but the US judiciary system has no interest in rehabilitation...

Are the people mentioning Litecoin insane or just bagholders? I could not think of a worse investment (unless you're shorting).

Stick to BTC and if you have to choose an alt, go with NXT. Amazing development and community.