Actually, in most retail transactions, I believe the party most concerned with his reputation is the seller. The buyer frequently has no reputation to worry with. Cheating is more likely coming from the buyer than the seller.

And in more p2p-like transactions, where the seller isn't really a business with a reputation to care, you can always try to use a scrow as ClearCoin for instance.

Also keep in mind that bitcoin is a currency, like the dollar or euro - only orders of magnitude better -, not a method of payment, like paypal, checks, credit cards etc.

There should be better ways to identify a spam attempt and deny relaying them. But I see the point, it's much quicker to just reduce the limit.

Please, just abolish this minimum fee. (If you remove this standard fee policy altogether it would be great too )

Cool to see more interest on bitcoins coming from my home land. With those creatures in the central bank and government, Brazilian people could definitely benefit from this technology!

But, besides the language, what's the goal of your site? I mean, couldn't the same job be done with bitcoin.org? Translating it, adding specific Portuguese sections to the forum and wiki etc, so that there is a common point of access for everyone?

Well, you can always look the block chain too. If the money remains in the address, you should see at block explorer for example. But yeah, on offline transactions, you have to trust it's not a fake card.


I think he expects the holograms to be enough for it. And, well, it's pretty much the same thing for state money bills...

Quite cool! Congratulations.

It's a nice geek gift card this one.

Suggestion: upload videos showing how to redeem a card, as well as how to verify authenticity.

It's the change feature. When you send money, bitcoin will use all inputs of the transaction entirely, and the amount exceeding what you intended to send will be sent back to a new address of yours.

I don't really see what's the point of this feature, but that's how the default client behaves.

Anyway, with the 100 addresses pool, you shouldn't need to back up every time, only when you use the entire pool.

@grondilu, Something's wrong, your backup should contain at least the transactions done before it... do you see your old receiving addresses in your address book? You could confirm them with the block explorer...

Why have you put me there?
Transactions fees being mostly payed by banks will only made them lower, as most people will make their transfers without the block chain.

I do think the block size limit must create artificial scarcity to push up the transactions fees. My comment saying that we are already paying a lot to miners in the form of inflation was exactly to argue with those who don't want to pay such fees.

I defend an automatic adjustment of the maximum block size exactly for creating such artificial scarcity. Something like, at each X blocks (maybe at the same time we have a difficult adjustment), the maximum block size is set to be 110% of the average size of the last X blocks.

On the other hand, Gavin has a point when he says that you seems too much desperate with an issue that will not manifest itself in the next 15 or 20 years at least. It's true that we'd better worry with it before going mainstream, when such a change would need a blockchain split, but there is some time yet and maybe other more important priorities to be dealt with.

The idea is good, but the price quoting you mentioned seems high. $1 per card, not to mention the $50k initial investment?

It would particularly awesome if somehow you made it work in existent machines that accept Visa and Mastercard, but I don't think it's possible... is it? Can new software be installed in these machines?

I like the idea. It's already quite difficult to follow the forum, better categories like these could help.

RSS per category would be good too.

I share your concern, that's why I proposed this: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1865.0

It would still need one backward incompatible change, but just one. Gavin once showed himself open to the idea, if somebody manages to implement it safely. Now we "only" need somebody good enough in C++ willing to give it a try...

Cool!

I could participate too, of course, it would be an honor.

I'm Brazilian, but I don't live in Brazil right now... does the person have to live there?

Do you know which is he radio station, Gavin?

Probably. But that doesn't mean the US forces actually killed him.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts302.html

Great job!!

Regarding the issue of the server providing you bad scripts, how hard would it be to make this code a browser extension with a configurable connection point to access the bitcoin network?

This raises the importance of a resend feature.

Nice! A + for each of you.

Yes and they were probably poorer at that time.
It's true that's not only machinery that makes the difference... it's capital as a whole. Capital = means of production. Anything that can increase people's productivity. More skilled labor, better installations, better infrastructure and so on. Machinery has a major role anyway, particularly in industry.

It seems you have that socialist-biased view of history. Are you even aware how much the life of poor people improved after the industrial revolution, when the "less scrupulous business" started "exploiting" them?

A parenthesis: just think in any animal with no natural predators (and which hasn't yet discovered contraceptive means ). White sharks for instance. If they have no predators, and reproduce in an exponential pace as most animals, how come they haven't yet completely taken over the oceans, occupying every available cubic meter of it? What holds their population from growing more? The answer is: there are no available resources for it. Marine biosphere wouldn't bare, in other words, they wouldn't have enough food.

Closing parenthesis, now take a look at human population growth rates, from the roman empire time to present date:


Interesting, isn't it?

People were dying of poverty (lack of resources) before the industrial revolution and modern capitalism. Infant and children mortality were huge. Industrial revolution cut that short dramatically. Yeah, life at the 18th century was still horrible if compared to today's standards, but it was much better, particularly for the poorest people, if compared with the earlier centuries. This fact socialist folks tend to ignore. The "capitalist pigs" and their "exploitation" saved millions of poor children from starvation.

By the way, this idea that without minimum wage laws wages would fall dramatically demands one question: if employers can simply decrease people's salary like that, how come there are people who earn more than the minimum wage? Why haven't employers managed to decrease everybody's salary to that lower limit?


As far as I know the Russian Revolution was against the state. They barely had any industrial capitalism there, if they had any at all. They precisely lacked the "less scrupulous" people you criticize, to "exploit" them making them richer.


Black markets only exist because there are prohibitions.


hehe, right, but armed violent monopolies of "justice", those are to be trusted, I suppose?

It's funny how socialists attack the greed of people but then forget that states are filled with greedy people, with privileges that no human being should have.

Market prices are not always falling. They reflect offer and demand. For most products and services, it's true that their offer increases systematically due to improvements and accumulation of capital, so the prices tend to fall. But for labor specifically, while the demand has no bounds, offer is strongly limited by the number of people and time. The more a society accumulates capital, the more the labor of its citizens is worth*. History shows how the price of labor continuously increases in comparison with most other prices, particularly after the industrial revolution. Obviously this progression is not without fluctuations, and there are many different types of labor with different prices.

*This is so evident when you migrate from a poorer country to a richer one, like I did. For ex., it's clearly visible how much better equipped construction workers here are when compared to those from my home country. They have machines for everything, they barely need strength. Obviously, all these equipment allow them to produce much more than their equivalent from poorer places who so much depend on the strength of their arms. And I don't think such difference is present only in construction, it's probably all over the economy, meaning people here manage to produce more, what pretty much explain why in general they are richer.

True.