Voted with my wallet.dat.  10 btc Keep up doing the good work. |
|
|
|
|
Why does he want bitcoins donated if his code can generate them? Is this a similar scam as we saw earlier with a GPU client?
Not that I care that much, I don't have a CUDA gpu.
|
|
|
|
|
You could attach an already encrypted text to it, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, that's hard to read. With a quick view, it looks solid/usable.
Might be more useful/structured as an oo class.
|
|
|
|
Great news: The EFF is definitely interested in recieving Bitcoins!
WhooHoo!!! |
|
|
|
Bootstrapping problem: gotta certify the teachers  Also the proposed "committees" might become to powerful and bureaucratic after some time, who is going to keep them in line? Committees are already some sort of centralisation... what you might not want. |
|
|
|
no.  Second that. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea. How about encoding grades in the certs? A teacher could judge, based on the cert, to accept a student who is willing to learn (show by many high grades) and who is just trying to get certs ("just passing" grades).
|
|
|
|
|
Export/import function for private keys?
|
|
|
|
Then those users get what they deserve for using a closed source version, while a reliable open source/MIT version would still be available. Oh gosh, I have to calm down ... it really is hard for some people to grasp this. Please listen to yourself, you're saying that using closed source client is a bad idea, do I understand that right? And you are encouraging people to use the open-source MIT one over the closed source one, right? That means people should really use only the open-source version to not get screwed ... what. is. the. point. of. the. MIT. license. then!? The MIT license is specifically designed to allow for closed source derivatives! If you're saying that people should only use open-source one without the risk of getting "what they deserve" if they don't ... you are in total agreement with me and you are making the exact same argument for using GPL as I am. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for MIT license then? Do you not like me personally that you just have to disagree with me for some reason? Or is this some ego thing about "winning an argument" or something? I honestly do not understand why people do this, it's frustrating. You may not like me, you may not like my style, you may enjoy arguing or whatever but I beg you to leave that behind and look at the facts and logic instead, please! Whooh there!!... I'm not trying to be against you. Just trying to have a normal discussion, nothing personal. It is normal that people might have different opinions about something. As for my reasons in this discussion, see below. If the closed source version is eating their bitcoins they will abandon it soon. There is even the possibility that some person develops a closed source version from scratch and does the same, no MIT/GPL/other license of the current bitcoin client is going to change anything on that.
Ok, one by one: 1) Proprietary version doesn't mean that it will be doing only things that you'll easily notice, it can have backdoors, it can be dormant for several years and then rob a half the community at some point effectively destroying bitcoin (but still making a huge profit for whoever has done this) 2) Yes, there is a possibility that someone will develop a client from scratch, is there any reason you can think of that we should make that possibility much higher by making it easy to do? I love this logic, let's all put wallets on our front porch ... they could just taken them by stealing them in a crowded bus anyway, so what's the harm. All you've written are excuses to do nothing ... not reasons to have MIT license, you did not say why MIT would be preferable to GPL, you just made excuses for the additional and unnecessary pitfalls of MIT. There is no reason to keep these pitfalls if there are no benefits that outweigh them. I see no benefits to MIT, only unnecessary dangers. The only supposed "benefit" is the possibility of closed sourced forks which you yourself said are dangerous and discouraged. So I really do not see why would you have any rational reason to disagree with me. Ok, to be clear about my point. I've been using FOSS for over 15 years now and I don't care if it is GPL or MIT. They are both open source and free. That is the pro against closed source licenses for me. If a developer chooses one or the other, it is his choice, I can't force him to use an other license if I haven't written any code myself. If I don't agree with this, I write my own code and place it under my license of choice, or I shut up. I would love to see the/a client under a GPL license and I think I would prefer to use that one over the MIT one, but there is currently no GPL one, so I have to do with the MIT one and that is fine with me (as long as I have the basic rights that define it as FOSS). Now, back to the GPL vs MIT discussion. Both licenses were once made to give the user the freedom to use the software how he/she wants to use it. But the licenses have a different view about the freedom. GPL restricts the user in taking these freedoms away (copyleft), making it in BSD eyes less free. BSD/MIT on the other hand give the freedom to take freedoms away from the user. Two different point of views causing a dilemma about which one is more free. But, IMHO both are valid to use. Personally I don't mind the copyleft restriction of the GPL, but you also have to respect other peoples opinion that this "hypocritical" restriction should not be needed in the first place. I have enough thrust in FOSS that the open source MIT client will keep its leading edge over future closed source ones as long as it keeps actively developed and keeps support of its community. |
|
|
|
Satoshi,
So you support people taking your code, modifying it to skim bitcoins off the miner, and then releasing the binary without releasing the modified source code?
That's exactly the point! I get the impression that many people commenting do not understand the issues involved quiet well enough and get confused a little ... no offense  So I would like to hear a response to that question too ... are you going to support and condone someone taking the code, adding a little eye-candy and little nice features perhaps and distributing this proprietary closed-sourced client to the bitcoin community? As you seem to be actually encouraging that by releasing the code under MIT license. How are you going to check if there isn't any "bonus" to that eye-candy in the form of a backdoor, if it does follow the protocol correctly, if it doesn't at some point in time just transfer all the bitcoins from everyone to some hardcoded address? Is there any reliable way or are we just supposed to *trust* the publisher? Then those users get what they deserve for using a closed source version, while a reliable open source/MIT version would still be available. If the closed source version is eating their bitcoins they will abandon it soon. There is even the possibility that some person develops a closed source version from scratch and does the same, no MIT/GPL/other license of the current bitcoin client is going to change anything on that. |
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin" should get a freshmeat.net account. That will give it some exposure (especially with the many releases).
|
|
|
|
|
I think many people loose interest when they see that it is very difficult to generate bitcoins. But buying bitcoins isn't so hard, so getting them is not the problem. I think more in the lines of being able to spend them. Sure, there are some nice ways to spend them, but many things are a bit of a niche currently (relative little people have real use for it). If I have a look in the first few topics in the Marketplace, I see financial related stuff and lotteries/poker related stuff. None of which I would be interested in.
Also, please note that amount of forum sign ups doesn't need to be related to the amount of people using bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Ehh.... Macho, bitcoin IS open source. MIT license IS a open source license.
No closed source, proprietary software or DRM here.
|
|
|
|
1) resend again to same address 2) resend to informatio AT eff DOT org 3) If you live in the US, send a fax or the letter via snail mail. 4) call them. https://www.eff.org/about/contact |
|
|
|
|
Updated the ebuild on github for version 0.3.12.
|
|
|
|
All you could buy with bitcions was spongebob stickers, stamps, and pencils. Now you can choose from 60,000 books. I'm glad people have gained confidence in this. I lost confidence in Bitcoins and deleted my wallet but now I'm ready to start generating them again.
You could have a nice bit of money now, if you stayed then. |
|
|
|
|
Protocols are IMHO not licensable anyway.
If you do clean room reverse engineering, you could make a compatible interface to a protocol and would not have to agree with any license.
|
|
|
|
Liberal licensing is the best way to minimize duplicate work.
Heh... no clear view of the current software world? If you see how many different "duplicate" software packages there are, duplicate work is done a lot (for various reasons, even licenses). I think even on this forum people are working on a second client (the python client). Having multiple clients does not have to be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
|
Nice. How about being able to set <destination> as a config option and have the function called after every send(/receive?) of bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
