That's the way ignores work.  You see a user has posted, but it says that the user has been ignored, so you can't see what they said.  So Luke's post makes sense.

Several people in this thread seem to think the sole issue here is differing opinions on BIP 16 vs BIP 17.  The original post cites that as a single example, and not the entire motivation, behind Gavin deciding that Luke was poisonous.  Maybe Gavin was being disingenuous and it really is about this single issue.  If so, call him out on it.  But lets not turn this discussion into a rehash of BIP 16 vs BIP 17.  That's a different discussion.

Any coin shop will buy the silverware.  You could probably even trade it for bars or rounds if you wanted.

I guess I wasn't trying to particularly recommend silverware, but I don't feel like silver bars have either the sentimental or physical value to be genuine heirlooms IMHO.  I feel there's a difference between "this was your great-grand-dad's pocket watch" and "this was your great-grand-dad's 1 oz Apmex silver bar."  I personally don't feel like silver bars have any history to them, they're simply a store of value.  (It might be a different story if you bought coins with numismatic value instead of just bullion.  A rare sliver coin from the 1800's or heck even a roman coin has some history, and will also maintain or improve it's value.)

That's why I would think of generic silver bars more like a savings bond than a family heirloom.  You buy it for the kids when they're young, maybe show it to them when they're old enough, but keep it so they don't blow it on beer.  Then when they're grown up and can appreciate the value, you hand it over and let them know it's for an emergency or a rainy day or the honeymoon they wouldn't be able to normally afford, etc.

38.  I wouldn't think of silver bars as heirloom quality, but compared to the more traditional (at least here in the US) savings bonds that people get for young kids, I think silver is cooler, and will probably have a better return on investment.  As a rainy day fund for when the kids grow up, I think it's not a bad idea.

Then again I have a friend who used to get a 1 oz silver bar every year for his birthday from his aunt (dating back to when silver was $5 an oz) and he had no idea they were worth anything.  They are just sitting in his coin jar.

Perhaps proper silverware has more of an heirloom quality to it, but the 20 year old me would probably think my mom and dad were weirdos if they gave me their precious forks and spoons.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to debate Luke-jr himself, which is the problem.

I first became exposed to his debating style on bitcoin-otc.  As we know, OTC stands for Off-Topic Channel and I don't take discussions there too seriously.  But he'd get into debates with people, and respond to well thought out points with "No."  Or "You're wrong." Without providing any evidence, without saying he's already discussed that, etc.  Other responses proved equally obtuse.  How do you debate with someone who simply cuts you off with "No."?  With someone who refuses to take your opinions and even evidence into account?

At first I thought he was just trolling, since these weren't the most important conversations in the world.  But since then I've seen a pattern across the board, not just -otc, where he thinks in absolutist terms, and refuses to even consider other opinions or evidence once he's made his mind up.  You'll see the same thing in serious discussions about serious matters.

And it really is unfortunate.  Luke has obviously contributed a bunch of stuff to the bitcoin code itself and the community.  But I can see why Gavin thinks the problems outweigh the benefits, and why it's difficult to believe that Luke would 'reform' or moderate his behavior.

Neither one of these tidbits are facts, and neither remotely constitutes any proof that the CIA uses bitcoin.

At best, the random people involved in the CIA thread are spouting (completely uninformed) speculation and hearsay.

Allusions that Satoishi is actually the CIA are specifically that.  Allusions.  And if it was true, than there wouldn't really be any point in Gavin giving a presentation on bitcoin to it's actual creators, invalidating any of the above hearsay.  (Should we get all conspiratorial about it and say that the CIA invited Gavin to provide plausible deniability that they had any prior knowledge of bitcoins?)

There isn't a single verifiable fact in the article that indicates the CIA is paying spooks in bitcoins.

There isn't a single line in the article that even points to any facts that the CIA is doing this.  No evidence.  Not even an anonymous source.  The title should be "CIA could possibly maybe be paying spooks with bitcoin".  The current title is a flat-out lie, given the content of the actual article.

A better way would be to start with an even smaller timeout, and double it upon each failed logon from the same IP.  This gives a human plenty of chances to retry the password, but quickly makes brute forcing impractical.

Bite me?  No that wasn't a veiled threat.  I never had the intention of personally complaining about you in other threads.

On this forum, I've repeatedly seen:

1) People get labeled scammers for bailing on deals, whether they actually had the intent to scam or just didn't follow through.

2) Angry victims or vigilantes go to every thread the alleged scammer has ever posted in, screaming aobut how this person is a scammer and you shouldn't do business with them.

This is probably not something you want to deal with if you're running a bitcoin business.  Furthermore, the defense that you were only in breach of contract, and not a full scammer, still essentially has the same effect on you and your business' reputation.

Most people don't believe either of your attempts generated a reasonable solution, and even if they did, Vitaliy's opinion is the only one that matters.  Since he hasn't accepted either offer, he clearly doesn't think the offers are reasonable.

I'm now wishing I hadn't sent bitcoins to both robkohr and kujoking7.

Yeah, that sounds like an attack.  You should post the log in a pastebin or something.

First off, that sucks.

Do you actually have evidence that there was a brute force attack, or are you simply inferring all this because the bitcoins disappeared while your firewall was open?

Sorry, rob, but it sucks for you.  For printcoin to be successful, it requires that people implicitly trust you.  Refusing to honor terms that you yourself set out calls that trust into question.   It won't be long before people start calling you a scammer in your printcoin threads.

[I don't say this as a threat, it's just the natural course of action on this forum.]

So you just lied to Vitaliy?

So your problem was on Bitcoinia or directly on mtgox?

There are persistent rumors that spammers get users to solve captchas in exchange for free porn.

Good job.

Two minor complaints.

1) there's no explanation as to where you got the number to enter block explorer.  Watching the video it's not obvious it's printed on the coin.

2) You don't mention the website you're redeeming the coin on.  I can read it in the title bar but it would be nice if there was a better indication.

I'm not sure how it works, but I've seen people add notes to their videos after the fact taht show up as pop-up balloons.  If you could easily  just do that I think it would be awesome.  No need to re-record the soundtrack.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, you met all the requirements, the above will just get you extra credit.  I'll PM you to discuss the payment of two physical coins.

This was the same clip that was on my DVR from today's show.  I guess it was a re-run.

About 5 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3s6R23vmRY

There are rumors it just hit the torrents.

That's a fair enough counter-argument.  But I don't see many people complaining its unfair that someone took care of that rare magic card, or their copy of Action Comics #1, or their Jackie Robinson coin, etc.