Hey franky1 since you joined in Sept 2012 did you ever think that the forum existed prior to that date?  For most of 2011 Litecoin was touted by its supporters and developers as being "GPU hostile".  Most of it is still in the old threads.  You trying to rewrite history a year and a half later just makes you look like an idiot.

If LTC offered better value to SR sellers (in terms of liquidity, stability, and security) they would switch to LTC.  The idea that someone the fact that there is no negative media attention is completley backwards.  There is NO media attention.  Note sure if you are aware but people bought and sold certain contraband online long before the SR.  It was was just more difficult.  Western Union, Liberty Reserve, etc.  The SR exploded in popularity because it used Bitcoin, not because the SR operators were trying to force Bitcoin adoption but .... because Bitcoin worked.  It provided value for users because it did what it was intended to.  If LTC did it as well or better the SR (and clones) would jump on that band wagon in a heartbeat.

"all i am saying is litecoin is a lot less of a headache swaying people away from the media propaganda."
So your have a long list of major businesses you were able to sway.... Of course not.  Nobody* has even heard of LiteCoin and likely never will.

*essentially nobody

This.  It isn't fungible, isn't transferable, isn't exchangeable, doesn't float.  It isn't a currency. 

It is a gift card.  Nothing more except gift cards are "old" and virtual currency is new and cool. 

Simple answer.  $, $, and $$$$$$.

As long as they bring in the big money, keep the chagebacks low, and don't end up costing PayPal any big support dollars PayPal will just look the other way.   You as a small startup the first time you get two chargebacks in a short period of time, some low level offshore researcher will auto-freeze your account checking the "unauthorized currency exchange" box and call it a day.  You will never win an appeal, and if lucky will get your money back in 180 days.

Is it fair? No but the real world rarely is.  If Virwox ever becomes a "pain" (revenue goes down and chargebacks go up) PayPal will terminate that "friendly" relationship so far it will cause whiplash.  Until they do though they have a defacto exception, fair or not.

New version with simplified and improved sales page coming out late tonight or maybe tomorrow.

So that those "in the know" could mine with GPU before the secret got out.  The whole design choice was deception.  The default scrypt parameters (1048567, 8, 1) is essentially a GPU killer, even the authors recommended "lite" option is (16384, 8, 1).    It would have made GPU non-economical (i.e. they could run but at higher cost and energy requirements than virtually any CPU).  The parameters had to be accidentally changed to far extreme to make LTC GPU capable (1024, 8, 1).   A circa 2008 CPU (running single threaded) could verify the "lite" option hash in about 100ms and that time would only decrease with Moore's law.  There was no reason to "cripple" LTC memory hard attribute except that (16384,8,1) couldn't be secretly mined on a GPU.




"Look here GPU resistant cryptocoin.  It is fair for everyone because with only CPU it levels the playing field"
<pay no attention to the guy behind the curtain mining the shit out of LTC with a hundred GPUs>


..... some months later ....
oh look you can GPU mine LTC!
"Look here ASIC resistant cryptocoin.  It is fair for everyone because with only GPU it levels the playing field"


Strangely no explanation on why to change it.  The default values work fine as a POW on a CPU.   Also GPU never did get that "MB of fast random access on-chip memory" they still have roughly the same 32KB on chip low latency cache that they did four years ago.  Then again that is more than enough to allow a GPU to compete, it always was.

There is no mandatory fee for normal transactions.  If the network requires a fee it is because your transaction looks "spammy" (low priority).


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

How are interest calculations handled on a daily basis?  I put in a small amount as a test and the interest amount I received doesn't match the interest amount I selected to lend.  My assumption is that you actually charge interest on an hourly basis (i.e. 25% of a day earns 25% of daily rate) but I want to make sure this is correct.

About security.  Thanks for implementing 2FA.  Can 2FA be limited to just withdrawals?
Here is why ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109424.0
Also please provide more information on the security precautions you have taken to protect USD balances.  2FA on your MtGox account?  MtGox verification (to avoid potential AML freezes)?

Lastly a couple usability/reporting improvements.
On the lending history page can you show some more details (i.e. balance, weighted interest average (in both APY and bpd (basis points per day), and interest paid)?

Keep improving. I put a token amount in and doing things to improve transparency and security (like form that business entity and get MtGox to convert your account into the name of the business entity) and I might increase it.

That will not always work.  The counterparty can claim he no longer has the BTC (or other property) at which point your recourse is limited to damages (in legal tender) or nothing.  No court is going to force someone to go out and buy property (including BTC) in order to it to you.  The court will want proof of the value of the property and then award damages.

If one party is unwilling to repay property owed it is very likely that damages are your only option.  Even under a scenario where ownership of the property can't be hidden, say a boat which is registered, if the counterparty wants to be vindictive they could simply sell it (or destroy it).  The counterparty now honestly no longer has the property.  The court can't force the return of property which is no longer owned by the counterparty.  Of course this doesn't make the liability go away you can still seek damages (in this example the fair market value of the boat).

It doesn't matter if it is your intent to seek damages or not.  The only guaranteed recourse you have is damages awarded in legal tender.  That is the whole point of legal tender.

There is no "should" about it.  The court can ONLY award damages in legal tender.  The court isn't going to try an enforce a contract.  If one parties breaks the contract then the other party sues for DAMAGES (in legal tender).  That is the whole definition of legal tender.  When the contract is broken and you sue in court the court can award you damages as compensation for your loss.  The requirement that creditors must accept payment for debts in legal tender comes from this basis.  If a debtor doesn't pay a creditor what can the creditor do? Take the debtor to court right?  If the court agrees with the creditor what are they going to do?  Award damages right?  What form will those damages be in ... legal tender.  The requirement for a creditor to accept payment in legal tender simply shortcuts you right to the forgone conclusion (and hopefully avoid a lot of court cases).


You have no legal right to refuse legal tender for a debt owed.  Your doing so would be looked upon dimly by the court.  Even if the court awarded damages expect an ass chewing by the court (potentially even a reduction in the damages awarded).  The only thing the court will do is award you damages in legal tender.  So for you to refuse legal tender and seek recourse in the court is a colossal waste of time for both parties and the court.

You prove to the court that you are owed x BTC (i.e. contract is valid), and you prove to the court that the value of a "BTC" is y USD and the court would award you damages in the amount x * y USD.

Now just because the court awards damages in US dollars (legal tender) doesn't mean that you and the counterparty can't reach an agreement out of court.  If the other party has the BTC and now having lost in court decides to pay up it in BTC that is fine.  It may be more economical for him to just give you the BTC directly (rather than sell it for USD, pay you the USD and then you use the USD to buy back the BTC). There is nothing which prevents settling a judgement by other than legal tender if both parties agree to it.  You would just draw up an agreement stating the transfer of X BTC satifies the judgement owed, conduct the transfer (possibly with escrow), sign the agreement and the counterparty could present it to the court to have the judgement satisfied.  So legal tender doesn't prevent conducting business using another asset.  However if one party doesn't agree then repayment will be in legal tender.

You can't write a contract which guarantees repayment in anything but legal tender.
If you lend me 100 oz of gold and I go into default, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.
If you give me 100 BTC for secure storage and I report it has been stolen, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.
If you lend me your priceless one of a kind antique vehicle and I destroy it, your only recourse is to sue for damages in legal tender.

The court can't force me to return the gold I spent on hookers and blow, the stolen BTC, or the one of kind antique which no longer exists.  The court can however find me liable and award you damages to compensate you for your loss.

TL/DR
You can write a contract involving any asset.  You could write a contract which contracts for difference on the value of oil measured in silver, with settlement in metric tons of potatoes.
The courts can ONLY award damages in legal tender.  A creditor MUST accept payment for a debt in legal tender.

I think sadly as much of a long term believer as I am in Bitcoin I would sell out too low and too early under such a scenario.
I tend to sell into parabolic rallies and while I am never "out" (0 BTC long) and never at a point I couldn't add more funds I think the scenario you described would result in my handing a lot of wealth to aggressive buyers.  Personally I get the most bullish in the long slow upward periods of time or the corrections with snap back buying.  I bought heavily into the "Pirate crash" (regardless of it was caused by Pirate or not) and dollar cost averaged by mining since mid 2011.  I would hate to hand those coins to someone too early. 

Why is this nonsense in Bitcoin Discussion?  Mods?

Yes it is 100% you.  Looking through your posting history you come off as technically incompetent, delusions, arrogant, and juvenile.  Not exactly the things people look for in a trading partner.  Take your post here for example.  This has nothing to do with Bitcoin Discussion.  The last 3 or 4 threads you started were insufficient?

Say it isn't so?  I thought you said it is was 100.0% absolutely fraud proof? 

Wait ... "4"?  Is that a typo?

4) It is impossible.

Barring a scenario where you convince 100.0% of all users (not miners all users) including those not participating in the community, and those offline with copies of the blockchain and older clients the best you can do is create an incompatible fork.  No matter what you do outside of a complete and universal global consensus the original 21M BTC fork will still exist.  You can't stop that fork from continuing.

Still no reason to use small numbers, use mBTC.  

"If 1 Bitcoin is worth $60 next year are you really prepared to pay for a soft drink with BTC0.0208."
If 1 BTC = $60 then 1 mBTC = $0.06.  Most people would price things in mBTC.  That soda would be 20 mBTC. A discount steam game might be 80 mBTC.  BFL Jalapeno might go for 2,500 mBTC.  

"What if it reaches $1200.  The soft drink would be BTC0.00104."

At >$1000 exchange rate it is very probably that almost all consumer transactions will be priced in mBTC.  There is no reason that exchanges couldn't by default show bids and quotes in mBTC:USD and many likely would (i.e. some future version o MtGox homepage shows "Last price:$1.2238 per mBTC".  That soda would be 1mBTC BTW.  I could see Cascius making a 1 mBTC coin given a high enough exchange rate.

Good point forgot about the lower threshold for relay vs inclusion.

In the long run 0.03 BTC is probably a good guess (about as good as we can make given the limited info available).  Now depending on how soon you get your Jalapeno the initial rate may be higher but it will trend downward and network size increases.

So if you were one of the lucky ones to be in Batch 1 you might get (hypothetically) say 0.2 BTC the first month, the 0.1 BTC the next month, then a couple months at ~0.06 BTC then a couple months at 0.4 BTC before settling at 0.03 BTC.  If you are thinking of preordering today then you likely are looking at 0.03 BTC from month 1 (because network will have already grown long before you get your miner).

Mining isn't a get rich scheme. 

I only looked at the first one but it is one giant "spammy" transaction (per low priority rules) which is 22KB and has a fee of 0.005 BTC.  The min mandatory fee for low priority transactions is 0.0005 BTC per kb.  For this tx that would require 0.011 BTC so the tx is non-compliant and many nodes will simply drop it.

Even with a 0.011 fee how long it takes to be confirmed depends on if a miner wants to include it in a block.  Most miners are just going to pass on including junk like this.  22KB with 600? outputs is enough to increase the risk of getting an orphan.   So say it increases propagation delay by 1%.   So I can collect get 25 BTC or include your tx and get 25.01 BTC but 1% of the time I lose the entire block.  In the long run I earn more by not including your tx.  If I were running a pool I wouldn't include it ... ever.

OP is totally wrong.  Ripple doesn't even sound nice.

It is going to happen organically as the exchange rate rises.  Personally I think pricing in mBTC is likely a little early but Bitcoin is decentralized and open.  Start quoting prices and exchange rates in mBTC if your prefer.  I may throw it up on https://fastcash4bitcoin.com  it takes ~43mBTC to receive one dollar ($1 USD).