Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:47:01 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoins, or the ultimate proof of ownership  (Read 2210 times)
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 01:12:30 AM
 #21

It's certainly a nice idea in principle. We do need more transparancy around share ownership, investment brokers, ponzi schemes etc.
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
1480942021
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480942021

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480942021
Reply with quote  #2

1480942021
Report to moderator
Frozenlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 02:11:55 AM
 #22

I still don't like the idea of diluting one's shares. It isn't a question of value, but rather of vote power. Even if my share are worth the same on the market, if my vote is only a tenth of what it was before, I've lost something. Imagine you are 50% owner of a building with a friend. If he sells 40% of the entire property (not only his part, but yours too) to buy new furniture, new paint, renovate the bathroom, I would consider you have been screwed -even if your share is worth the same thing on the market.

Unfortunately (for me), a new Master Bitcoin could be declared. It's up to the owners and the public to decide if they accept it. It was a personal taste declaration.

There is in many country (not everywhere- this is the internet) laws against insider tradings.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the fact of acting on information others might not have. I do it everyday. My whole career is based on the fact that I have knowledge others don't (engineering).

So even if some of you don't like the idea of insider trading, I won't use my precious time to try to find a solution to what I consider is a non-problem.  Wink
Of course, you are welcome to think about solutions if you want to.

I will add that trying to prove someone acted because of a precise knowledge is way- waaaaaay harder than simply proving someone acted. It's in part why I think insider tradings laws are shenanigans.

Now, back to basics:
Yes, mining is necessary to the security of the network. He who controls mining controls history! Mining doesn't have to generate coins, but you'll have to find an incentive for the miners.
This is where I don't follow you. Sure, a protocol made only for a specific usage could have more interesting functions, but I don't see how it could take off.
Alternatively, the Bitcoin's blockchain is already here, already secure, and ours to use!  Grin
Karmicads
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 185



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 04:51:06 AM
 #23

As discussed before in How Bitcoin will change the voting systems, the power of the blockchain enable us to do much more than simply exchanging bitcoins.

I think dacoinminster has somewhat grasped this power (see [PROPOSAL] The ticker and the hole (path to bitcoins worth $1M each)) but try to use it in sub-optimal application. (Or I didn't quite understand it, which is more than probable.)


Proof of ownership, such as the stock market, is probably the most fertile ground for the blockchain power.

With my broker, it costs me 30$ per stock related transaction. That's per transaction, so 60$ to buy and sell. Even by doing so, I don't ever see any proof of ownership of any company. I have to trust that my broker didn't simply write a bogus number in my account. [tangent = on] Bitcoins make you realize how much you trust everyone around you. [tangent = off]

Can I sell directly to a friend? No sir, I must contact my broker who will then sell - and I don't even think I can decide to whom he is going to sell, not in the usual web interface for sure.

What Bitcoin offers is a way to avoid all that, and in addition make it even more secure - by a wide margin.

What bitcoin actually offers, is the opportunity to transact in a digital currency over the internet without the need for third party intermediaries like banks. I don't think it offers (in it's present form at least), the posibility to represent anything other than the distributed value of a single commodity, that being the bitcoin currency itself. YES!! It provides the principal enabling a ubiquitous, digital proof of ownership, but that ownership only pertains to bitcoin itself and the amount that specific commodity that each node posesses at any given moment.

Quote
My company, Acme inc, wants to go public to finance a big project. We organize a big press conference and publicly announce a master BTC. (see How Bitcoin will change the voting systems)
When someone buy a part of the company, we send him a part of the master BTC. (100% ownership = the whole master BTC).

How then is the value of your company allowed to float in the market as a free market entity? Unless I have something horribly screwed up, it seems that your shares are not independent units of value representing a share in the net equity of your company, but rather they are linked to the fluctuating market value of bitcoin. If I buy 1000 shares in IBM today, I will have to surrender a particular amount of money that represents the value of IBM shares by comparison to the units of currency I am using to exchange for them. 1000 shares of IBM may cost me X USD today but in one week it may be X + 3%. That's because the value of the company floats independantly of the value of any currency. It's effectively traded as a seperate comodity. Now if your company releases a fixed number of shares, represented as a bitcoin value, but to trade in those shares the shareholders need to retain ownership of the equivilent percentage (say 5%) of the master BTC value, then it seems to me, that what they have hold of is either worth whatever that sum of bitcoin is worth, or whatever 5% of your company is worth. If your company looses realworld value compared to BTC, then it needs for those bitcoins (held by the shareholders) to drop in value accordingly.

How can your company demand that somebody elses bitcoin not be used just as bitcoin instead of company shares? How can you demand that the value of those bitcoin rise and fall acording to the value of the company? How would anybody even evaluate the value of your company, if you have fixed the number of fixed value shares and use bitcoin to represent them? Doesn't that mean you have pegged the value of your company, to the value of bitcoin? If the value of bitcoin goes up inordinately, while your company is making bad manegment decisions, then surely you can't expect it to ride the coat tails of the currency. That's not a level playing field. That's like floating a company, by saying that you'll release 10,000 $10 bills, recording all of their serial numbers, so they can be 'earmarked' as belonging to your company. All you have to do is pay for them with unmarked/unfixed (independantly valued) $10 bills. The $10 bills will still be worth what they are worth at face value. There's nothing legitimate you can do to them, that requires anybody to regard them as belonging to your company. Nor is there anything legitemate you can do to your company that bestows upon it the right to decalre one of it's shares as being worth $10. That's something for the market to decide.

How then can something that used to be a $10 note, now become an Acme inc. share, unless you are taking $10 notes out of circulation and using them as recipts for what was initialy floated as $10 worth of equity in Acme inc.? If you expect the face value to remain fixed, ie: $10 worth of Acme inc shares, then obviously the number or amount (and therefore the percentage of them represented by the recipt) must be alowed to float. That would be an unusual way to trade shares. The value could be fixed but the quantity or percentage would need to be a floating quantity, determined by the market. I'll have to think about that one. Wink That's what you seem to be saying with this scheem. Not only 'This ($10) is what my shares will be worth' but that is what they will remain. Otherwise you're hijacking the face value of the currency OR you must implement a system by which the face value of the unit of currency and the value of a share is pegged, while the market is allowed to determine how many total shares of Acme inc. exist at any time.

This distribution of currency for shares BTW, is not a good finance strategy, because your company must already have $100,000 worth of $10 notes to 'earmark' for shares. If you sell $100,000 worth of notes for $100,000, how does this generate finance. If I have a business worth an estimated $100,000 and, say I'm a plumber who wants to turn my lucrative enterprise into a franchise, then I may only have $5,000 in working capital between the business bank account and my petty cash jar. I might decide to float some shares in my buisness and offer the future proffits to potential shareholders. They will want to see evidence for what I am claiming as being worth $100,000, including the legitimate legal documentation, that demonstrates the profitability of my business model. It's going to be a bit futile, if I have to find $100,000 to buy $10 bills so that I can sell them as shares. I already HAVE an investment worth $100,000 I am looking for capital that dosnt already belong to me to exchange for shares in future profit. If I sell half my buisiness in shares I should be able to raise $50,000, but I dont need to find $50,000 extra dollars in order to sell shares in existing equity. Besides, as I said, I only HAVE $5,000 of working capital. The $50,000 is tied up mostly in company assets and goodwill etc.

The purpouse of selling shares, is to raise some finance for expansion. If I already had $50,000 for the planed growth, then I wouldn't need to sell $50,000 worth of equity. Besides which, my company would then actually be worth $150,000. The idea is to exchange money for shares, not money for money. Sorry,  Undecided but I just dont see how this using money to piggyback existing share equity could work. In any financial transaction, the money is supposed to go one way and the equity in what is being traded for it, is supposed to go in the opposite direction.

What we have with the existing bitcoin network/protocol, is a store of value in a singular commodity of exchange and a means by which financial transactions can be represented electronically and ubiquitously varified for their uniqueness. It's a free floating store of value and a transparent public record of transactions within it. What we dont yet have, is a digital counterpart network/protocol, to provide a similar public record of the various comodities/stocks/shares etc. all free floating with their own independant values, that can move in the opposite direction and be traded for bitcoin. The bitcoin network/protocol/blockchain, is a single ledger accounting for a single comodity. The next generation should rightly implement a double entry system of accountancy, for multiple comodities/budgetary categories, wherein evey transaction taken  from one comodity, is matched by an oppsite defficit in another. The current bitcoin blockchainm, represents a floating realworld value in a shared comodity called bitcoins.

Today, the whole bitcoin network, is worth a finite amount, in terms of any other currency or comodity. That can be used to represent only ONE thing. THE TOTAL VALUE OF ALL BITCOINS. If you want to have multiple comodities/assets, with floating values. that can move in the opposite direction, reflecting both sides of a complete transaction of bitcoin for any other comodity/asset, then you need seperate blockchains each allowed to increase or decline in value seperately. It would almost go without saying, that there nededs to be one universal currency against which all of them are traded, so there will always be a universal common denominator. There needs to be a singular currency or store of universal value, that always moves in the oppisite direction when equity in any other comodity/asset is being exchanged. Needless to say I vote for bitcoin to represent that universal standard of exchange. It's not just the first, but it's the coolest and already most accepted digital P2P curency. Cool

I expect a multi-blockchain client/network/protocol, will eventually be implemented to provide for the digital exchange of a plethora of comodities/shares/assets and bitcoin, will be the unit of universal value that goes in the oppisite direction of every other comodity/asset, to independantly represent payment for an arbitrary myriad of other units of value being exchanged. That will be tantamount to replicting a double entry system of accountancy, but one that is implemented over a P2P network.
Karmicads
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 185



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 06:51:57 AM
 #24

I still don't like the idea of diluting one's shares. It isn't a question of value, but rather of vote power. Even if my share are worth the same on the market, if my vote is only a tenth of what it was before, I've lost something.

You haven't lost the power to influence any descisions in proportion to equity of your holdings. It's a percentage-wise game. The other share holders who bought in to the company at the same time as you are also reduced in their voting power against (or with) you. Meanwhile, the shareholders who are coming on-board in the more recent offering, are entitled to their share of the vote, as they have paid good money towards the equity of the whole company (including your share), and increased the net value with their own hard earned dollars. Do you think it would be a fair system, if companies could sell shares (of an equal value to the ones you have), without giving the new shareholders a proportional vote? They put their money in and that is spent on growing the earning capacity of the company, but you want to retain a disproportionate share in voting rights? Sorry but the value of your company and it's shares, suddenly looks quite unattractive to me. I would preffer to buy into a company which gives me voting rights in proportion to my share in the net equity I hold. Sorry, but it's just a little thing I have with the idea that my share of the influence needing to be proportionate to my investment. Dont you realise you are shooting yourself in the foot by expecting anything else? The other investors in your company are not your competitors, they are people who have come on board to invest in the profitability and general prosperity of the same company you are invested in. They are litteraly in the same boat as you. They are likely to try hard and vote in the best mutual intrest that you each share. The greater the share the greater the vested intrest to help the company prosper.

Quote
Imagine you are 50% owner of a building with a friend. If he sells 40% of the entire property (not only his part, but yours too) to buy new furniture, new paint, renovate the bathroom, I would consider you have been screwed -even if your share is worth the same thing on the market.

Well that would not be possible by any legitimate legal ownership arrangement that I know of in the real world... would it?  Huh

for starters as a 50/50 partner he would have to run these plans to renovate past me and seek my approval, otherwise I'd have to disagree that it was a good idea. Secondly, "40% of the entire property" is still only 40% of the property (there's nothing entire about 40% of something) and by selling that 40% he then forgoes 40% of the decision making power. He now only retains 10% of the ownership and likewise only has 10% of the rights to say how the combined equity is managed. He cant just take the money he gained by selling 40% of his equity and use it to renovate the building. WHY NOT? A better question would be why would he want to? He would then be spending his own money on renovations that are not aproved by either YOU or the new 40% shareholders. You, they and he, would still share a vested intrest in ensuring the whole enterprise was as profitable as possible and nobody would have any vested itrest in doing something so completly stupid (especialy with their own money) as to undermine the whole venture. This is a ridiculously contrived scenario. Can you give me an example from the real world, where such a thing was ever played out? If this happened I would then sue him for overstepping the bounds of his authority and usurping the collective rights of the combined investors. Better still, I'd like to think I'm smart enough that I wouldn't be in business in the first place, with sombody so 'generously stupid' as to sell a fith of his equity and spend it on a total fuck up. When you sell your share of equity, you also give up your share of the decision making power. What's so hard about this concept that you dont comprehend that equity and influence are maintained in equal proportion.

Quote
Unfortunately (for me), a new Master Bitcoin could be declared. It's up to the owners and the public to decide if they accept it. It was a personal taste declaration.

I have no idea what this so called "Master Bitcoin" is supposed to represent. For starters, the blockchain doesn't represent or record any particular discrete values of bitcoin ownership. If you decide to send some bitcoin, the amount is arbitrary, but it's divisible down to the base unit (the satoshi) that is 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the whole bitcoin. What the blockchain records is not specific 'values' of bitcoin, but transactions of ANY value IN bitcoin. So it records who has done the trasaction and what the value of that trasaction is. How then are you going to 'anchor' the value of this "Master Bitcoin" to a particular share value, or to the total equity value of the company you want to have floating (presumeably with it's own value) in the free market?

Quote
There is in many country (not everywhere- this is the internet) laws against insider tradings.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the fact of acting on information others might not have. I do it everyday. My whole career is based on the fact that I have knowledge others don't (engineering).

Presumably what you call 'knowledge' is a free market asset (although I fail to see how). Nevertheless it doesn't give you the power to literly 'cheat' in any system where that asset of any salable value.  In an idealised free market, your 'knowledge' for want of a better expresion should give you no better advantage than anybody vested with the same opportunities to gain that knowledge or use their own alternative knowledge. Such a market would be agnostic (as far as possible) to the special intrests of those who have particular knowledge of any economic entity. There are huge efforts and sums of money expended towards regulating markets, so as to attempt to maintain some semblence (read pretense) of free market nutrality. Now obviously this is idealistic, but nevertheless it's an ideal worth striving towards. The best measures IMHO are those that are built-in, that make inequity unfeasable fron the start and nip the problem in the bud. That becomes a matter for systems with inbuilt transparancy and standards of equanimity. What can your knowledge of engeneering do to give you an 'unfair' advantage in trading on an idealisticly level playing field?

Quote
So even if some of you don't like the idea of insider trading, I won't use my precious time to try to find a solution to what I consider is a non-problem.  Wink
Of course, you are welcome to think about solutions if you want to.

And I'm sure many will. They (like Satoshi, Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman), are likely to be far smarter and much more honest that those who atempt to use knowledge purely for personal gain. Again that's just IMHO.

Quote
I will add that trying to prove someone acted because of a precise knowledge is way- waaaaaay harder than simply proving someone acted. It's in part why I think insider tradings laws are shenanigans.

I tend to agree with this, but only because conventional models of regulation act on cleaning up the mess rather than fixing the cause. The tendency to legislate and regulate, needs to be usurped by inteligent models, that take motives and methods into account and provide solutions to undermine the first cause of the problem.

Quote
Now, back to basics:
Yes, mining is necessary to the security of the network. He who controls mining controls history! Mining doesn't have to generate coins, but you'll have to find an incentive for the miners.

OK firstly a semantic quibble if I may: Let's dispense with the term mining then. That will be misleding, if the purpouse is not to 'mine' for and produce coins. Let's just call it hashing. You dont think it's possible to build a network/protocol wherin every node is required to contrinute some hashing power for the benifit of the network? That's disapointing then. Embarrassed Would that be a technical problem, or a sociological one? Why is it not possible to make a network wherin the conected nodes are assumed to be willing to contribute some hashing power to the collective benifit of the network? I note that several networks began (notably the 'SETI at home' project) on purely on a benevolent/charitable basis, just to offer up unused machine cycles for combined processing power to a deserving cause. Surely the owners of (hundreds of) thousands of machines wishing to be connected to a ubiquitous stock exchange, could be persuaded by the utility of the whole enterprise, to allow some fraction of their proccesing power to run a bakground process for hashing to ensure the security of the network that supports their cappacity for trading on the free market. Moreover, the incentive could be no more more less than the ability to participate, if you make it a condition of the connection and build that requirement into the network and it's protocol. You seem to be transfixed on the existing network and protocol, as if it were not an arbitary construct and as if that's the only mechanism that exists or that could be used.

Quote
This is where I don't follow you. Sure, a protocol made only for a specific usage could have more interesting functions, but I don't see how it could take off.

It could take off by 'being useful and fulfilling a real need' just like bitcoin has by 'being useful and fulfilling a need'.

Quote
Alternatively, the Bitcoin's blockchain is already here, already secure, and ours to use!  Grin

And thats great. But it already HAS a use. That is to support transactions of a particular virtual currency over the internet. NOT for the transacting of many seperate shares (of many companies) that are in themseves arbitrary values of a seperte comodity, all with independant freemarket value. You need seperate repoitories of value to represent seperate comodities of trade. Bitcoin is just ONE such repository. It's our flagship and proves the principal works. It's will probbly always be the alpha of all digital P2P currencies, but every comoditiy needs freedom to float and if they are to be represented as seperate repositories of value, then you cant use the existing blockchain at least not as far as I understand. Needless to say correct me if I am laboring under some misaprehention. I will gladly stand corrected if I've got something ass backwards. Wink
Shortline
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123


View Profile
August 16, 2011, 07:15:29 AM
 #25

Pardon me if this has been addressed because I just skimmed through this thread.

Wouldn't this just be an ideal avenue for state actors to mess with each other?

What I mean is, the blockchain is probably not worth messing with if it's just a few hundreds of millions or a few billion dollars. It is worth messing with if you're going to use it as a lever in international relations. For example, If CNOOC wasn't being traded through the blockchain and Petrobras was, when China and Brazil go to war (don't ask my why that would happen, it's late and I'm tired) then the Chinese cyber-warfare strategy is to overtly or covertly overwhelm and try to fork the blockchain, thus sowing confusion and fear in the Brazilian marketplace. Economic chaos, strategic victory.

Unless everyone agrees to play and you have a mutually assured destruction scenario if the blockchain is attacked.
Frozenlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 11:47:33 PM
 #26

Shortline: how would not using the blockchain be more secure in case of a cyber-war?

Karmicads: Can't you explain yourself... in less words?

Yes, the share is at the same time valued as the Bitcoin on which it stands.
Today, if a company loose too much money, the paper on which the share is printed can also be worth more.

It is, of course, in the advantage of the issuer to use a small number of Bitcoins, just as it is to not print on thin gold leaf. 

Quote
Quote
I still don't like the idea of diluting one's shares. It isn't a question of value, but rather of vote power. Even if my share are worth the same on the market, if my vote is only a tenth of what it was before, I've lost something.

You haven't lost the power to influence any descisions in proportion to equity of your holdings. It's a percentage-wise game.
I never said I lost proportion wise, I lost in absolute!
I have a dish with a kg of fish.
Later someone comes along and says he replaced it with a proportion equal fish/dish size ratio, then gives me 1g of a fish. I don't care if the proportion is maintained, I'm hungry!

Quote
The other share holders who bought in to the company at the same time as you are also reduced in their voting power against (or with) you. Meanwhile, the shareholders who are coming on-board in the more recent offering, are entitled to their share of the vote, as they have paid good money towards the equity of the whole company (including your share), and increased the net value with their own hard earned dollars.
Sure, the total value has increased, but not the value of my share. I immediately loose vote power for a maybe more successful company later.

Quote
Well that would not be possible by any legitimate legal ownership arrangement that I know of in the real world... would it?
That's exactly my point. Thanks for bringing it to the front scene.

Quote
Quote
Imagine you are 50% owner of a building with a friend. If he sells 40% of the entire property (not only his part, but yours too) to buy new furniture, new paint, renovate the bathroom, I would consider you have been screwed -even if your share is worth the same thing on the market.
(...)Secondly, "40% of the entire property" is still only 40% of the property (there's nothing entire about 40% of something)
Er... I don't even know where to begin.
I said: 40% of the entire property. You replied: there's nothing entire about 40% of something.
Well no... that's why I wrote "of"!

Quote
(...)and by selling that 40% he then forgoes 40% of the decision making power. He now only retains 10% of the ownership
No no no, that's exactly why I specified 40% of the entire property. He sells "new share" in your ownership and reduce your absolute proportion.

Quote
I have no idea what this so called "Master Bitcoin" is supposed to represent. For starters, the blockchain doesn't represent or record any particular discrete values of bitcoin ownership. If you decide to send some bitcoin, the amount is arbitrary, but it's divisible down to the base unit (the satoshi) that is 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the whole bitcoin. What the blockchain records is not specific 'values' of bitcoin, but transactions of ANY value IN bitcoin. So it records who has done the trasaction and what the value of that trasaction is. How then are you going to 'anchor' the value of this "Master Bitcoin" to a particular share value, or to the total equity value of the company you want to have floating (presumeably with it's own value) in the free market?
Every transaction is recorded in the blockchain. To check if someone has a part of a particular bitcoin (previous transaction), simply look at the blockchain.

Quote
Quote
There is in many country (not everywhere- this is the internet) laws against insider tradings.
Nevertheless, I don't see anything wrong with the fact of acting on information others might not have. I do it everyday. My whole career is based on the fact that I have knowledge others don't (engineering).

Presumably what you call 'knowledge' is a free market asset (although I fail to see how). Nevertheless it doesn't give you the power to literly 'cheat' in any system where that asset of any salable value.
It's not an asset, what I know is part of who I am.
I don't "cheat" if I act on what I know. It's called life.

Quote
In an idealised free market, your 'knowledge' for want of a better expresion should give you no better advantage than anybody vested with the same opportunities to gain that knowledge or use their own alternative knowledge.
Well if they have the same "opportunity", why bother? If it's exactly the same knowledge, we both gain equally. If they don't grab the opportunity, what's the problem?

Quote
(..)What can your knowledge of engeneering do to give you an 'unfair' advantage in trading on an idealisticly level playing field?
Why do you say unfair? What is the "playing field"?
I can do what I do while others don't, because they don't have the same knowledge as I do.

If someone works in a company and learn something, why would it be unjust for him to act on this information?





Frozenlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
August 16, 2011, 11:53:50 PM
 #27

Quote
How then is the value of your company allowed to float in the market as a free market entity? Unless I have something horribly screwed up, it seems that your shares are not independent units of value representing a share in the net equity of your company, but rather they are linked to the fluctuating market value of bitcoin. (...) (...) (.................)

You can buy a Bitcoin with other Bitcoins, with USD, or with gold if you want.

You could want to buy 0.001 Master Bitcoin of Acme for 1000 BTC, because this 0.001 gives you the opportunity to vote, but also a claim on the company's assets.
Frozenlock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
August 26, 2011, 10:33:32 PM
 #28

Shameless bump

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
August 27, 2011, 02:55:14 PM
 #29

Shameless bump




I just read this entire thread from start to bump. I truly enjoyed the read. It's a shame the conversation ended last week. Thanks for the bump, Frozenlock. For a reward, I won't eat frog legs tonight.





Bitcon: An Idea Worth Spending
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!