I do as well. I like his candor.

As for Monero, it reminds me of junk bonds.
The coin itself may be great, but the overbearing approach towards promoting the coin puts me off from acquiring any.
The faux fanaticism displayed by a bunch of new accounts; the patronizing approach towards criticisms screams of dysfunctional groupthink (which even extends to exchange chat boxes); the repeated putdowns of other coins and technologies - all these seem to be par for the course.

Monero needs to learn to be graceful.

How will this be enforceable?
The sheer number of FUD and drama merchants around these parts will probably drown mods in reports.
Further, the following two sentences imply mods will have enormous arbitrary leeway in enforcements.


Despite your protestations, @mprep, mods will have to become even more involved to be able to deliver learned judgements.
Opinions will be formed, and decisions will be shaped by these opinions. Individual subjectivity will determine the fate of alleged wrongdoers.

At the risk of being labelled as just another serial contrarian, this is just another knee jerk reaction from forum mods and administrators that once again ignores the root of the problem.

Eh?
Reagan tripled the federal debt during his eight years in office, mainly caused by loss of revenue from tax cuts.
All this to finance enormous tax cuts to the top income bracket, as well as record breaking military spending.
By the time Reagan left, the United States could no longer realistically manage it's debt; the United States could no longer realistically pay back its debt.

Believe it or not, Reaganomics' trickle down theory is based on the Laffer Curve, a theory conceived in 1974 by Arthur Laffer during dinner with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
It was meant to be a campaign platform, since the theory is not supported by any empirical data. But it somehow became the basis of Reagan's economic policy!

By the time Bush Sr. came, the full weight of the situation hit home. The debts were unmanageable, and the projected economic growth from the tax cuts never materialized.
Bush Sr. had no choice but to raise taxes, despite his famous "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

Economically, Clinton is probably the best American president in the 20th century.
The United States experienced the longest period of economic growth in American history during his watch and a record 24 million jobs were created.
More importantly, Clinton presided over three surplus budgets - the only time it has happened since 1969!

He handed Bush Jr. a healthy economy and a vibrant job market.
One of the first economic decisions by Bush Jr. after coming into office was to enact a new round of tax cuts, which ultimately cost the federal government at least $1.8 trillion.
Once again, the projected benefits from the cuts never materialized. The federal debts got larger though, along with annual interest payments.
Bush Jr. also launched two credit card wars, the costs which are still being paid to this day.

OP, I like this sig instead of the allocated one.
May I stick with this?
#277

Richie, what are the "success conditions" that Cluster will be subjected to?

In his whitepaper, the OP states that the incorporation of the new clustering algorithm "is undetermined at this point".

Will releasing a plain vanilla wallet with promise of future developments fulfill those "success conditions"?

Essex, I have three questions for you.

(i) What will prevent two or more people from double spending by using the same wallet.dat in two or more different geographic locations?

In your whitepaper, you claimed that the Cluster protocol will automatically split blocks within the network according to geographic regions (undefined) and create multiple valid blockchains.
You further stated that sync blocks will be generated only once certain thresholds are reached. To me, this 'synch gap' creates a perfect environment for network-wide double spending.

(ii) What will prevent entities from creating blockchain forks within their own geographic region?

Since the hashrate from individual geographic regions will be relatively small, a person or organization with a significant enough hashrate could easily create forks to facilitate double spending.

In addition, said entity could fool the protocol to allocate a geographic region for itself by spamming dusts to create the illusion of trade volume. In your whitepaper, you stated:


As you can see, the threat is very valid.

(iii) Did you buy this Bitcointalk account?

If yes, may I know your original Bitcointalk account?

If no, can you explain why your earlier posts consists almost entirely of asking for giveaways (wallet address + 'Thanks!' or 'Awesome'!)?
Your four months absence between post #147 and #148 also raises some questions.

Definitively, when all the nodes are gone.

However, as cryptorob mentioned above, an MIA dev is a huge red flag!

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that the dead sometimes has a way of coming back to life.
So if you are holding a substantial amount of Legit (hey, hey!), hold on to it for a couple of months, just in case someone intends to revive the project.

Yes, Maximus. I am suitably entertained by this very amusing thread.

Because there has never been free market competition for healthcare.
It was an illusion fostered by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, among others.
There are regional monopolies, pricing cartels and ridiculously well-funded lobbies.
Why else would every American administration since Nixon had tried (and failed) to revamp healthcare laws?

How else can anyone explain the skyrocketing healthcare cost over the last 40 years, when even poor Asian countries can offer outpatient treatment to all their citizens for less than 50 American cents each?



By 2010, Americans were paying an average of $8,402 annually for healthcare expenses, the highest in the world - and yet, there were already over 50 million (and growing) uninsured Americans.
How did France and Canada, arguably the two countries with the best healthcare system in the world, managed to offer universal healthcare to their citizens at a significantly lower per capita cost?

Bloomberg did a head count a few years ago, and there were over 6,000 healthcare lobbyists handling the 535 Congressmen and House Reps in Washington alone.
There are more healthcare lobbyists in D.C than congressional staffers!
Most of the opposition for Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act was financed by organizations funded by some of the largest insurance, pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, sometimes through a labyrinth network of shelf companies.
Obamacare is far from perfect, and I expect it to be repeatedly amended over the coming years. But it was a crucial and absolutely necessary legislation to loosen the grip of regional elites.

Mourinho's teams, similar to Benitez, controls space. Even without the ball, they typically dictate the pace and flow of a game.
It's not pretty on the eyes, but very effective.
I feel that Chelsea's chances this season will depend on how Mourinho utilize Fabregas. Fabregas is the key, IMO, not Costa.
Fabregas doesn't like to be restricted, and enjoys roaming all over the pitch - which is at odds at how Mourinho likes his CM to play.
At Barca, an exasperated Guardiola once said Fabregas is like an anarchist.
If Mourinho is able to fully manage Fabregas, they have a good chance of winning the title. Like City, Chelsea has an awesome squad.

But, I will be very surprised if City wins it again this season.
Although they have made several solid acquisitions, especially Mangala, I think Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal have improved significantly.

Speaking of Arsenal, they probably have the best midfield in the league. But their problem last season was the absence of a proven goalscorer.
After Walcott's injury, Wenger only had Giroud. This season, with Podolski still injured, Wenger will still have to rely on Giroud and Sanogo.
While new boy Alexis Sanchez will score a few, I feel Wenger should've invested in another striker.

Brendan Rodgers also need to sign another striker soon. Liverpool can't depend Sturridge alone (Lambert is just for cover).
While Sterling will chip in a few, we definitely need another proven goalscorer.

We scraped by with a 2-1 win, but I hope you guys can see my concern now. The Saints deserved at least a draw from yesterday's game.

Manquillo failed to keep pace with Johnson on the opposite flank, preventing our centerbacks from moving the defensive line higher.
This forced Stevie to retreat, creating a gap between him, Lucas and Henderson, which Southampton took full advantage off.
Eventually, Johnson stopped moving up from the left flank to maintain the defensive line, which meant all three midfielders had to drop down as well.
This in turn created a gap with the forward line, which made it difficult to make lightning fast transitions, our greatest weapon.

After half time, Southampton began double teaming Manquillo, which forced Gerrard to provide cover, at the cost of losing control of the midfield.
Even the introduction of Allen failed to stem the tide.
With Flanagan injured and Enrique not fully fit yet, Rodgers had to persevere with Manquillo until Moreno is settled.
Johnson will also be able to return to the right again once Moreno plays.

To be fair, had Lalana and Markovic been fit, Rodgers would have more options late in the game.

Silver linings?
Lovren played well on his debut, Mignolet's save in the 87th minute was incredible, and 19-year-old Sterling was terrific. One goal, and one assist: http://youtu.be/dQOSNuKe6OI (commentary in Arabic  )

I'm a Liverpool fan, but there is a chance we might draw against Southampton.
On paper, they are no match for us.
However, we will be playing with up to four new recruits (Lovren, Manquillo, Can, Lambert).
The bench will also see Enrique (out for almost a year), Suso (returning from a year-long loan at Almeria), Borini (also returning from a Sunderland loan) and Ibe (promoted from the Academy).
The team might need time to gel.

This is even before we consider the injured new recruits - Lallana and Markovic.

On the plus side, both Sterling and Coutinho were electric during the pre-season.


Btw, is anyone interested in a Fantasy League?

(i) TheChive was approached asked to make those t-shirts. They have a contract.

(ii) Could you post the email from the Bill Murray Foundation here? If the content is as you say, you will see an immediate price spike.

(iii) Personality rights is no laughing matter. Just because Murray hasn't filed a suit against the dev, don't assume he won't. For all we know, he doesn't even know of Murraycoin's existence. After all, Murray is known to be a recluse. At one time, his agent mentioned that Murray lost out on a few roles because he could not be reached. Keep in mind that the Coinye dev was boastful during the early days, but when the legal letter came, he quickly disappeared.

(iv) If the Murray Foundation is interested to make money from crypto, what is stopping them from hiring a dev for a few thousand dollars and keeping all the premine to themselves, instead of hoping that some anonymous dev will donate something to the Foundation? Consenting to such an arrangement would also make the Foundation liable to any misrepresentation or wrongdoing on the part of the developer. I hardly think Bill Murray would be open to all of this.

Sorry, but as of now, this sounds really sketchy. You should advise the dev that there are few countries in the world that will protect him against a civil suit from an American court.

How much did you buy it for?
If you acquired them between $10-$20+, what's the point in selling now? You might as well just hedge and HODL and hope the price will rise again.
If you got them for under $10, you could consider selling.
Either way, watch the price. Once it has bottomed out, you can reenter the market.

Scrypt ASICs.

Could you please elaborate on this, specifically on what you mean by "yet"?

If Bill Murray, the star of iconic flicks such as Lost In Translation, Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, GroundHog Day and many more, endorses this coin in any form, shape or manner, the marketcap will zoom pass all other coins except Bitcoin.
The dev doesn't even need to do any marketing - businesses will run to him.
That's how influential Murray is.

If I'm being honest here, I would say this is all BS. But I am prepared to be proven wrong.

I missed this post by Carsen Klock.

Buddy, you sure about this?

They have moved out about 3,700BTC over the last five days.
However, I think the drop is not caused by this alone. It's a combination of several factors, though I believe the biggest of them all may be the Bitfinex margin calls.
The was a moment of panic when 650BTCs were suddenly sold significantly below market price.
It caused a short chain reaction that was exacerbated by Ethereum's 3,700BTC sell-off on a market already spooked by the proposed BitLicense framework announced by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Jean-Luc just posted the limited rollback solution a short while ago (which I still don't understand btw, since it only disables outgoing TX from BTER's wallet, not the hacker's). This discussion precedes that by a couple of hours.

Point conceded. It was a bug and patch, so yes, a different situation.


When it's relevant to our discussion, it's not overquoting.

You disagreed against my original statement, and now you're asking what's my question?
Once again, collusion of forgers/peers into a voting block in not decentralization.
Your definition of decentralization includes terms such as democracy and majority.