This thread has been "harmonized", the relevant posts have been taken out back and shot. The internet police are watching.

Fine for me.

If you're Irish you don't need one. They have a visa waiver program, you just need to register online or something.

Get some tinfoil, fashon it into a semi sphere/oval shape, place on head, now you're safe.

Yep, here http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6025

Wasnt there another thread announcing just this? Wasnt it exactly the same?

No way.

I'm coming, I'll do whatever it takes to get there.

I see, so what would you recommend be the terms for shares in BitcoinGlobal (these terms are to be spelled out n the share certificate).

With the intention that each share is paid a dividend, and is worth 1 vote. What else might we want to add?

OK

It sounds like you've had that problem before, you should set it up so that your system plays an mp3 or something haha.

Thanks for the info, I'm kind of looking for someone to help me security harden my server at the moment.

In looking for a standard text for some fo these contracts there is this one by Atlas for his bond.

Is that really all that's needed for such a contract? How come anything I get from the bank has pages and pages of terms and conditions?

I've not found any examples of shares or futures conrtacts on the forum thus far, lots of mentions of shares but nothing in terms of a contract.

I love your pic, what are your sys-admin skills.
Specifically what DBMS's are you familiar with (PostgreSQL, MySQL), and do you have any idea on security hardening a Linux system?

This is something I and a few others were going to start working on a few months ago, until we got side tracked doing the stock exchange. It's still next on our list though.

Not starting. If there is demand then we'll implement it.

gigabytecoin, yes that's the one.

Being done, launching soon.

http://glbse.com

Hey, just checked this, what seems to have happend is the deposit was recorded twice for some reason, giving you a balance of 0.02btc (there are two identical records for this deposit). So the system had you recorded as having 0.02btc, but bitcoind had you down or 0.01btc.

Once you attempted to withdraw it was succesful for the first 0.01btc, and then any attempt to withdraw after that failed (you've recieved the btc http://blockexplorer.com/address/15XnjVSuFpoUoyFCyTZGXabauw4HMT4VVL), since there are 2 sets of books so to speak for each account on the system, a user could never withdraw more than the lowest amount of the two accounts.

What is causing the double entry, I'm not sure, however I am taking steps to prevent it happening again.

With regards the overall system balance, it's correct. I had withdrawn some btc myself directly using bitcoind which had caused the difference.

You need a minimum of 10btc to be able to sell on mtgox (AFAIK)

Then there does need to be a hard limit on the number of new domains created per hour.

The entire point of having raising or falling difficulty is to limit the number of blocks per hour, to keep it steady. This is to ensure a steady rate of (in bitcoins case) new bitcoins are created, in our case it's new domains. We've already seen that we don't want to limit the number of domains created at any time.

I'm sorry, I don't know what are the technical reasons against varying blocks per hour.

Yes it would get cheaper to create more domains, and it would get cheaper to hold more domains, this is not a bad thing as the number of domais will increase condsiderably as the system grows, why would we want it to get more expensive to hold onto and get more domains over time?

At that point all the lower level domains will be taken, and only longer ones remaining, the relative value of new domains decreases with their length (to an entent, there are exceptions). With the increase in computing power, and the resultant lowering of cost would reflect the lower value of longer names.

How about using the entire system as the base database for dns?

To get domains(including subdomains) miners need a block, each block yields 50 domains.
Have no increase in difficulty at all such that getting a block requires... something like a days work for a GPU. If someone wants more than 50 domains in a day then they need to put more miners to work. This way there is no arbitrary limit on the number of domains created per day, the only limit being CPU power, which costs money(this will prevent too much domain squating.

Also domains have an expiry of something like 100 blocks, so in order to keep ownership of a domain the owner must continue mining, such that I don't know, a decent gpu can hold onto 10,000 domains(more?less?).

Transactions being 2 things, first transfering the ownership of a domain, second, adding an IP to a domain. This way dns servers can use the block chain as the domain db.

Finally have the entire blockchain re-written every 100 blocks or something(I don't know that this is even possible). As we don't need to know the entire transaction history of every domain so every 100 blocks or so we throw away all the transaction records and just keep a record of who owns what domain associated with which ip address. Hopefully that would keep the block chain at manageable levels.

You could also increase the level of work required to aquire a specific domain, such that shorter domains require more work, longer domains require less work. But I don't know how you would implement this in the above. Or at all

This does not tie into the current bitcoin blockchain at all (and it should't anyway).