The same could have been said about pirateat40's scam.  By its very nature a Ponzi is mathematically unsustainable, even if you assume a nearly unlimited money supply, and with BTC it is even more obviously a scam.

Despite that, "respected" people here pimped the pirateat40 scam for months, many getting out just before it went belly-up.  Things that make you go hmm.

I don't suppose there's any chance of getting a scammer tag until and if this idiot actually steals money, though it looks as if he might have started already.  After all, the best time to close the barn door is after the horses are gone.

Sold just a few at $180 on the way up.  Felt silly for a few hours 

Why not specify a cheap device like a Raspberry Pi?  As little of the power draw as possible should be from whatever computer to which the ASIC is attached.  A Pi probably costs much less than even a small fraction of the bet.

ROTFL.  YOU failed.  Rest of us are doing fine.  Get a brain.

Jesus Christ.  Strong hold. 

As dumb as the idiots who bought in at $250 are, the morons trying to sell out at the bottom are even dumber.

I'm not sure this is active any more.  Hello?  (taps mic).

Why is betsofbitco.in still listed in good standing after perpetrating a huge scam to the tune of tens of thousands of USD at the very least?

This list can't be trusted to be up to date if this isn't fixed.

Actually, I fixed that almost immediately.  It was an error to have left that in place, as I had only set it that way to experiment.

So, basically, the idea was adopted simply because it was good, and not because of some imputed authority of its proponent?

That's actually a good thing.

I think the concept of this thread may be mistaken.  The question isn't really whether some guy should resign from some foundation, but whether we should even be making decisions based on the opinion of some foundation.  Really, who cares what BCF thinks?  Am I the only person practically unaware of the activities of this entity?

Okay.  So he's a scammer.  At least he didn't go full retard.

The more blocks go by, the larger the chance it will be included, unless you are talking about some pitiful micro-transaction (some of those can become lost money).  Part of the probability of being included in a block is the size of the transaction.  You should probably read up on this if you plan to do many transactions with no or minimal transaction fees.

In this site of so-called Bitcoin geniuses, not a single person even had a response to my own thread asking about a certain peculiar behavior of the reference client.  Maybe nobody here knows.  Maybe they're too dumb.  In any event, I'm still interested in knowing why the reference client did this thing.

I'd only worry if you wake up tomorrow and the transaction still hasn't cleared.  They generally do eventually, if they are for any substantial amount.

I was only willing to give 3x on that, because only at that would I have a really good advantage on it.  As for Muslim/USA, I think the USA side is a slight favorite.

Of course, events could easily moot any of these bets before they're made.

What odds and stakes are you offering for that ginger bet?  And how ginger does ginger have to be?

That makes sense.  Personally, I didn't vote in the poll because I don't give a fuck.  I don't give a fuck about the Bitcoin Foundation, either.  I've managed to use BTC over a year without knowing or caring about the membership of this entity.  The only time it made a decision of importance that I noticed, it was actually a reasonably good decision (on the fork).  If they had come to a staggeringly idiotic decision, I think most of the miners would have just ignored it.

Greed is a comprehensible, if not admirable motive.  If Luke-Jr did this for free, he is some kind of retard who should be protected from himself.  What an argument for a nanny state!

While this thread has been up and down in terms of entertainment value, one of the most actually interesting aspects of it is the implementation in the real world of this escrow concept, which could be easily used for non-gambling contracts and effectively be self-enforcing.  Conceivably, practices like this could cull the herd of the worst scammers, without the inefficiencies of the court system, that has so far prevented these scammers from being prosecuted and allowed them to steal at will.

Of course, as the real value of trusted arbitrators increased, it might be they eventually would cost as much as real judges and mediators.

My problem is not what this guy does with his own business.  If you're going to interface with U.S. banks, you're going to have to submit to some degree of regulation.  My concern is that this guy appears to be in some position to make decisions for the rest of the users, who may just want to stay away from banks in general.  Why should someone with this conflict of interest have any authority? 

As for the fork problem, people went along with that solution because it worked a lot more quickly than any other solution would have.

I certainly don't expect anyone running a Bitcoin business to sacrifice their livelihood for some bullshit idea of ideological purity.  However, I'm not sure someone running such a business should be telling anyone else what to do.

So basically, at this point, BCF can be considered a lobbying organization operating for the benefit of Coinlab.

I don't want anything to do with that business, and still wonder why BCF can't simply be ignored.  What authority does it have to tell anyone to do anything?  If you don't like it, don't support it.

If BCF is considered somehow to represent Bitcoin itself, then there is a glaring conflict of interest in it being run by a principal of one specific business that is competing with every other Bitcoin business.

You probably found the one bet Micon won't take.

What power does the BCF have that prevents everyone from just ignoring it?

A combination of stupidity and (perhaps) market manipulation.