|
Financial regulation + Bitcoin = You lose.
Fiat based economies can afford to lose time and and resources again and again from due to their incoherent rules. They just print more get away with it.
Bitcoin is different in that supply is very limited and it cannot afford to lose BTCs and lawyer fee to outdated, obsolete oligarchic restrictions. (whatever that mean)
I refuse to limit myself to documents such as SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
Haven't read but I think it's safe to say ~30% of what's written in there is ridiculous and make no sense when applied to a world of bitcoins and global online transactions.
|
|
|
|
Friedcat:
Did you guys take all the BTC out of GLBSE after the IPO was closed ? I hope you have the remaining BTC somewhere safe in an offline wallet !
Like every other assets on GLBSE the IPO btc are sent to the owner. In this case, not only are they in Friedcat hands, they have been sold at ~8 and spend on ASIC production. (most / not all) |
|
|
|
That is absolutely absurd. I'm just shocked at all the unbelievably stupid people... I'm gonna be rich!" crap. ... the mega-sketchy jerks over at Butterfly Labs, which is run by a scam-participant asshole. WTF is wrong with everyone?! ... a slap in the face...
...Btw WTF is $253.67 / 10 / 2? ...
When you resort to personal insults, it only makes one person look stupid. I'll let you figure out who that is. How about you try reading my post next time. $253.67 / 10 / 2 = the single would make $12.68/day. I'm talking singles, not Jalepeno's. $253.67 is the amount that a 60gh/s single would make at today's price/difficulty rate / 10 accounts for the difficulty increase / 2 accounts for the block reward drop Also, for your sake, I'll add in electricity and shipping to my calculations. Shipping is $34 (?). That's 3 more days. 106 days in total now. Electricity is 60w x 24hrs x 106days / 1000kwh/w x $0.08/kwh = $12.21 in electricity. 107 days now. So, we've added 4 days because of shipping and electricity costs. I'll quote you again now. A LOT more when you add in shipping and electricity
No, not so much. I have no GPU miners at the moment, no ASIC pre-orders, and no interest in an ASIC pre-order if I'm not guaranteed to get it earlier than most people, and actually I have almost no bitcoins either at the moment, as they were convereted to USD at an opportune time...
... So answer me this: why the FUCK are you trolling this Bitcoin forum? ...Can you give some sort of response, defending yourself? If so, I'll take it back. Otherwise, your posts are worth absolutely nothing.
The ignore button,,, That's what it's for !
Ps: I don't mind not paying my hardware back, It's only to protect the network. |
|
|
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/10wlva/so_how_long_until_the_bitcoinqt_diskio_tipping/It's shit like this. They want every user to be a verifying node regardless of their technical proficiency and what the end user wants out of Bitcoin. When a user complains about the program using excess resources while being verifying node, the devs and some others often strikeback with a sense of entitlement "You should help out. If you don't like it, leave. Come back when the tech is better." The tech IS better guys. There are thin clients and ewallets that resolve this but you deride them and continue to work on a vision of software nobody wants. It's rather limiting for Bitcoin as a whole. Can you imagine how many people have dumped Bitcoin because Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind continues to be a slow, overburdened pain in the ass? It's very clear: This desktop-based vision for Bitcoin is one of Autism and general lack of ingenuity. Please Atlas learn no make descriptive title, You sound like nothing more than an attention whore. Your new topics take for granted we care to fill the blanks in your incomplete version of reality. If you want to know why I hate the dev team and how they treat Bitcoin Should be ... Dev team and how they treat ... WHAT SPECIFICALLY  ... |
|
|
|
|
Bug report : 100% CPU usage while the Blockchain is updating.
Spec : Clean install, Win 8 64x, 70k block to go.....................
|
|
|
|
|
I tried donating but later noticed it was a PP address,
I suggest you add a BTC donation address.
(I just mine them for now)
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately the name has been set so there is no point to change it now. Hard to come up with a name with domains not squatted already. So this was what I could come up with a year ago. On the other hand at least the symbol has good sense as its two 'P' (peers) connected.
I would expect people to gradually disassociate the pp part from certain distasteful things, should ppcoin gets very popular. So the name is likely not a big deal in my opinion.
Thanks for responding. I can see the problem w/ finding free domains. If you somehow do get the opportunity to change the name, I for one would recommend you do. The sooner the better, while it still has low adoption and awareness levels. It would just be a superficial change really, but maybe there are difficulties that I'm not seeing. Or maybe people can just informally refer to them as PCoins when spoken, since that sounds better and is easier to say, in my opinion. I still think PPCoin is innovative and promising, I'd just be a lot more bullish about its prospects with a different name and better website. Good luck! What does PP even stand for ? PScoin ? Proof of Sake . |
|
|
|
While at it, What would happen if everyone on the forum is in fact fake and you're only talking with bots.
Do you wish that everyone on the forum is in fact fake and youre only talking with bots? No, I'm wondering what would happen IF. Do you wish that []? No, I'm addicted to brain farts. |
|
|
|
While at it, What would happen if everyone on the forum is in fact fake and you're only talking with bots.
Do you wish that everyone on the forum is in fact fake and youre only talking with bots? No, I'm wondering what would happen IF. |
|
|
|
What would happen if: - All startups selling mining ASICs either directly or access to them are scams.
... Before some of you call the scenario ridiculous and cry FUD consider this: Before these ASIC companies showed up it was common consensus that a bitcoin ASIC would be very far down the road and that it would cost simply too much money and resources to do it. Then BFL showed up and the opinions shifted, suddenly it was the skeptics who were on the defense. They created an army of "supporters", yet the fundamental challenges remain. A background check didn't reveal any capability of producing such technology but a history of fraud. ... A. Go ask for a quote on making a chip produced on 110nm to the various fabs. B. Consider that the chip logic of SHA2 is one of the stupidest and simple to produce. C. GET A FUCKING CLUEWhile at it, What would happen if everyone on the forum is in fact fake and you're only talking with bots ? |
|
|
|
Take no offense but I think the community will improve with less interest from gamers. The big change I see coming is newer miners wont be able to jump in and try on existing hardware, mining has brought a lot of people to Bitcoin, soon they will need to buy dedicated hardware to participate.
... As a gamer, if I'm willing to drop 400-600 bucks on a new video card every time one releases, I shouldn't have any problem buying hardware in that same price range if I want to mine.... I could still see some fractional generation of btc as from a video card to 'test it out' enough to decide to buy hardware or not. At some point it becomes a way to earn vs a hobby. And I'd rather spend on a product that will let me game while mining... Instead of having to choose between income and gaming time. You will be mining BTCs on a GPU the way you would now with CPUs. -Completely irrelevant amounts. |
|
|
|
|
How will that affect the resolution of payout process ?
|
|
|
|
+1 but I don't see an easy way to get email notifications with the wiki. |
|
|
|
I am against policing the promotion of paid advertising in signatures but I think it's time we set some rules to the use of signature in an attempt to improve content quality. This sentence made me cringe. 4) You must post at least one post every day - somewhere on the forum during the contest period.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114454.0
Suggestions :
* Signature filter. > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114511.0It could be done with a greasemonkey script but I think the latest events command for a built-in feature. * Limit size of signature, Text size of no more than 3 line and size 10 ? * Allow for longer / bigger signature but with a cut-off at 2-3 lines and a mean to expand signature, (like we do with "Show post" of ignored users) These are relatively easy to implement, require no maintenance and does not censor anyone. Given the site-wide exposure of signatures there should be clear guidelines as to what is prohibited and what are the consequences of infringement and repeated offenses. Would it be better to ban the user or block it's use of signatures. ? |
|
|
|
There's some networking issue with RackSpace.
When there is something constructive to say it will be put on bitcoinica.com
Networking issue ? after 3 month I don't think anyone sane would still be looking at the website for updates. Better post here and it would also be wise to email all customers. |
|
|
|
The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all. < 100% CORRECT (by default), but actually he said :" OVERBLOWN and a BIT of a myth.">- Incompetent: because Peter Vessenes doesn't know about mixing services https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Mixing_Services , and have no idea about very real possibility to make Bitcoin transactions absolutely anonymous by default with a feature such as Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing
- Dangerous: because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information, in another words he thinks it's fine to carry 10,000 USD in cash walking around in troubled neighborhood at night while loudly advertising that fact.
Earlier today Jeff Garzik said that Bitcoin Foundation scope is limited to Satoshi's vision: Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.
Peter Vessenes has no such limit, what he said contradicts satoshi's vision that it should be easy to make anonymous Bitcoin transaction For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away. I'll post TOR instructions at that time.
I am starting to see it's in Hazek's way. It is nice to have powerful organization to do things for you, but it becomes very annoying the moment its goals is different than what you think is right. = You fail hard. Fact of life, BTC do get stolen, BTC are use for hideous crimes. Don't you think BITCOIN is facilitating these enough already ? Anonymous by default would surely kill bitcoin in the long run. How about you start a mixing service and I pay you to report the IPs of people who stole my BTC ? Seems like a win-win situation. |
|
|
|
|
If on gMail check your spam folder for confirmation email.
|
|
|
|
I think tseale and his gang should release intersango guys from their NDA.
For what point? genjix violated the NDA already anyway by leaking those e-mails (not to mention the bitcoinica source code). If tseale ever accomplishes whatever legal paperwork is necessary to give customer funds back, I'm still curious about how he plans to process bitcoinica deposit claims without the database. I'd like to know if the Intersango guys gave him their progress on claims verification or if they are holding it from him. At first I though the "inaccuracy" of the process was what made this so lengthy. The current state is that Intersango guy did what they "though" was the best and stopped everything. So now what was the best to Patrick may not be what is the best for the person taking the process over. Unfortunately it would seems Intersango / Bitcoin Consultancy guys are planing on using the "progress data" in hostage for protecting themselves from the numerous error they made afterward. Maybe they think they should be paid for having handled the process half way. I would like to remember you that the Intersango's are not the only responsible for our problems. From Zhou to Tihan everyone who delegated the responsibility of our accounts and fund had a duties of doing so correctly. We haven't even been notified by email of the transfer of ownership or allowed time to withdraw our funds. Tihan and Zhou have with some success been able to defend their point while the ones at the center of it refuse to even make a statement. I am counting every hours I spent waiting for constructive actions from Patrick Strateman, Amir, and Donald and they won't get away with it if that wait amount to nothing more than an empty stalling tactic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
