Paul SHOULD be the president next but WON'T be without being assassinated or votes manipulated just because he stands for the right things. Just like all the other presidents of the countries who didn't like to cooperate with US corporations to create US monopolies long term in different sectors.

Even if there would be less miners, technology (e.g. better mining chips) is going to increase difficulty.
It is very unlikely that we will see a lower difficulty any time soon.

By sending almost only law enforcement agencies, they clearly show how they classify the topic.

Paranoid much?

Just like nuclear war is inevitable, and nuclear proliferation won't happen, the cold war gonna kill you all.

Wait, nuclear stockpiles are decreasing dispersing since over a decade? Unfathomable!

the base of what I hear
on board called speculation
is greed and naked fear
not sober calculation

That's something I don't get: how voluntarily increasing your difficulty will help you.

Wouldn't you want to claim as many shares as possible, even if they are small amounts?

Since each share you find increases your payout allocation within p2pool's 8640-share window, it should always be beneficial to add more shares, right?

It seems to me that all you would be doing by increasing your difficulty would be to forfeit some potential earnings from weak shares, by throwing those shares away instead of submitting them to the sharechain, unless there's something I'm missing.

Maybe if p2pool is CPU limited, or you're running remote miners that are network-limited between them and p2pool, and you have so many miners that you're constantly spamming p2pool with 1-difficulty shares, that might make a difference.  In that case, wouldn't it just be better to voluntarily increase your difficulty to something that is still well below the minimum required for a valid share (perhaps a difficulty of 1000 or so), which would cut down traffic dramatically from your miners, but still allow you to claim every share in the sharechain that you are entitled to?  Or, am I missing something here?

Josh

How many wars has the US lost? Think a civil war against the government would be any prettier?

Maybe, if you fixate on a single indicator it can fit any number of scenarios.

Can't ignore horizontal support and resistance, momentum.

Strictly correct, but its actually 427 Celcius http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2015404

... and all because of a minor error by Ray Bradbury (great writer though)

[FlameBait] Now when are you USians going to join the modern age and start using sensible units? [/FlameBait]

This thing is still going on? Ha ha.

Mainstream awareness. Not mainstream use.

IMO the peaks before July are of little relevance to future price developments.
The important ones are 104 on July 11st, 111 on July 31st and this last one of 125 on August 21st.
I may be off with a day or two, just estimated the dates from the charts.
What's important is that those peaks belong to Elliot waves 1, 3 and 5.
Unless some miracle happens and the price rises again soon above 125, we're now in bear market.

Not just bots which anybody runs, bot run by the exchange itself which respond to orders before placing them on the exchange. Sort of an insider knowledge of upcoming trades giving them an unfair advantage.

This seems rather paranoid, but there is little you could do to prove it was happening.

That was kind of my point.

Tell that to the guys who came up with floating point in computers.

The number 0 is usually encoded as +0, but can be represented by either +0 or −0.

Too bad the moderator of this sub forum is also a troll.

Like in a sense of positive zero being larger than negative zero?

When people talk about exchanges manipulating the price to make $, they are talking about something a lot more subtle than that. 

Basically let's say the current price of BTC is 89, so there are sellers on the exchange willing to sell at prices between 90-110.  Now someone makes a big buy.  The exchange "sees" the big buy and knows it will drive the price to 105 so it quickly injects its own purchase to grab all coins for sale from 90-91 (for example).  Next, it lets the large buy through and so the price of BTC rises to 105.  Buyers see this move but they still want coins so they increase their bids up to 100.  So the exchange got coins at 90 and can now slowly unload them at around 100.  Or wait for a big seller and do the same thing in the other direction.  This is called "front-running" the market.

But as you can see the exchange is not really able to set or manipulate the price; it can only grab a bit of dishonest profit for themselves by reacting to early information about other people's buy/sell action.  Who loses?  Well, the buyer got cheated a little; he was expecting some coins at 90 but his lowest coin purchase was 91.

That's an interesting question. I think the exchange price is a mix of supply/demand and psychology

Fiat money worth nothing because it cost nothing to make, but they do worth something on the exchange because there is a supply and demand balance, and that supply and demand balance is maintained by a psychology. If all the people would lose the confidence of a currency and start to convert them to physical goods, the supply and demand balance will be broken and it will lose most of its value quickly