Yeah, well, most boards don't have "lifetime memberships" either. Maybe that's a pretty horrible idea?

Most boards work hand-in-glove with members at smaller, budgetable paces. They donate yearly or quarterly for their seat on the board. They sever ties by severing business propositions.

Do you realize how ridiculous it would be to say "OK, I'm going to provide my [utility service] to you at a discount forever, but I get to steer your organization for eternity as well" and PAY UP FRONT? Silly.

So being "on message" is not being truthful and transparent? Cool story. Maybe that's your problem?

Adopting unpopular and controverial positions on some issues is why people loathe / don't give a shit about Bitcoin Foundation in the first place.


What propaganda is this? Stating something but meaning something else and separating messaging from mission = shitty foundation with alterior motives.

It isn't difficult. State your mission and then your roles within the organization is to exemplify the mission via action or clarify the mission to explain action.

There shouldn't be a disconnect with what you are stating and what you are doing.

This is completely false. Building a computer via parts is as easy as adding everything to a cart, purchasing it and snapping/screwing it all together when it arrives.

That is totally irrelevant to if, say, you're aware that newegg shipped your motherboard to the NSA and they had fun with your bios.

 

convenience is an advanced feature.

you're blaming tools (2FA, strong pw, conf email) when none of that has anything to do with you being compromised.

Your level of being compromised would render basically any computer system vulnerable, it has nothing to do with bitcoin and everything to do with your being hacked via bad software OR the issue of trusting a 3rd party with a "promise."


for example, confirmation emails with a static confirm link only work if your email isn't compromised. they should link you to a page on the site that requires you to use a specific IP address, redundant 2FA and possibly another password for a secure login. That would be "more secure" but "less convenient."

Few hours? The problem happened days ago, and it is still unclear how the attack is getting reconciled. We've heard anywhere from 50 to 150 bitcoins were lost.

Since nothing has been said, I don't really think anyone speculating is wrong, just worthless. It is up to the site owner to have proper customer support and PR, and not spend time adding more shitcoins instead of drafting a note saying how the exploit to counterparty is being handled.

So while "scammer" is not the term i'd immediately use, I'd say that not addressing any details about the missing coins, who it did/didn't effect and why, and how it is being handled rather than dropping arbitrary, crippling fees on XCP on the exchange is not a good thing.

If the issue was a double spend of XCP to take bitcoins, the site is in bitcoin deficit, and if everyone were to try and remove their bitcoins (making a bank run) at some point it would simply fail.

So much stinks about the "official story" the portion of people trying to withdraw BTC and it happening slowly is a bit of a joke compared to those who outwardly lost a lot. So that's why you're being met with scorn, it isn't unwarranted on either side of the argument.

Can anyone point to the proof of a doublespend in the bitcoin blockchain, since it should permanently be visible there, yes?

It is just being styled to uppercase by CSS

code:

Donation Address: 14Tf35AovvRVURzd623q5i9kry2EW8WzyL

relevant css:

media="all"
div.title-name h2 {
text-transform: uppercase;
}

What's this we shit?

First of all, that already could happen. It doesn't undermine anything regarding the protocol past the point that the protocol is ALPHA and changes / reestablishing the burn amount is part of CHANGING THE PROTOCOL TO MAKE IT BETTER.

Pretty simple. So no, it doesn't "create" any more or less possibility of unlimited inflation than there already is. Stating "the burn is final" is as rigid a rule as saying "we will only burn in alpha when doublespend vulnerabilities are found to have been implemented" or as stating "haha we'll burn whenever we feel like it."



It creates minor inflation up front in response to a critical bug that was only revealed by people having enough invested in it to make it worthwhile to abuse.

Congrats. Hope the grey hat hacker gets enough bounty to make giving up more coin worthwhile. Laff.

How about just consider the plunder the bounty? Oh that would be too obvious, eh

What a coincidence, your post is the most retarded thing I have read today! It clearly isn't a bailout, it is more aligned with FDIC when after a bank gets robbed the accounts are replenished.

Bottomline is that without it being that worthy of a target the vulnerability would likely remain so until that lucrative. You're also setting a pattern (I've read a lot of negative precedent setting issues in this thread) that it's fine to just wait until something catastrophic occurs and fuck you to the people who were required to invest / interact collectively to squeak out the issue.


Finally, it is rather convenient that this "benevolent hacker" proved their issue in such an amazingly robust manner. why not benevolently doublespend the minimum amount?

The unbelievable aspect - and why many doubted the initial reports - were 100% due to the scope and scale of the issue and how non-publicized it was. You're going to not directly contact the public / the devs to reveal the issue? But someone running an exchange when their involvement is rather tangential? LOL.

The idea that most people don't give a shit and shouldn't be "punished" for equality due to early adopters building the interest to the point that it is a worthy target deserves the slowest clap from the smallest animated gif

Who cares because everything's working as intended, and disclaimer text means tough shit, right?

No it doesn't. Burning again doesn't defeat the purpose of burning, it just reestablishes value.







Yeah, it is an alpha and written in red in the first post. One of the things that would happen is you might lose value in your holdings. So why are you complaining about it happening to you when it is an easy fix that would prove the quality of the community? You said yourself, it is OK to lose them due to a bug in the alpha.


 

If bitcoin is just a replacement for existing processes, we're already enslaved.


Also, who said bitcoin wasn't confiscatable? If someone jumps out at you right after you've unencrypted, reinstalled and logged in to an account and incapacitates you, now they're logged in to the account.

Physical value has the problem that it can be confiscated on sight and physically moved. Digital has that benefit of requiring authentication. Pretty simple.

You'd have a point if somehow the government could externally seize my bitcoin wallet without being in the same room as me or using my credentials, like they can with any bank account.

I'll just add that the original automobile accident fatality in the UK involved a car moving 4 miles per hour.

There were laws that all motorized carriages required a man walking in front waving a red flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws


A lot of the posts in this thread are asserting that we need the red flag laws. Others assert that 'people fucking up' *are* the red flags...

The decentralized nature of bitcoin means there is no robust, centralized effort to educate and babyproof the experience for people. Even if you write a nice guide, make a nice video, etc... you will still end up with people using brainwallet the way this person did because it requires someone to 'look up the info.'

Being smart isn't a static quality, it is indicative of a process of gathering information. In other words, being smart is the propensity to educate yourself. Some people simply don't possess that nature and require trust and assume simplicity protects them from their intentions. That is ignorant - even insane - but those assumptions carry through to everything that person would encounter in life.

Even if you shout redfaced at every moment about:
~ waterproofing paper wallets
~ making cold storage backups
~ being as redundant as possible while maintaining security
~ don't visit weird sites assuming the best instead of the worst
~ encryption and encrypting the encrypted, and so on ...
~ understanding the ramifications of using any 3rd party / cottage industry
~ lawful use / taxation responsibilities


you're still going to see
~ soggy ruined paper wallets
~ i threw my only harddrive with btc on it / reinstalled windows and forgot about my coins
~ made 10,000 copies of my private key on a cloud website and somehow my coins are gone
~ i was hacked even with 2FA
~ password123 encryption
~ hey where'd the online wallet go that looked like every other twitter bootstrap site
~ i got a letter in the mail from my bank that my funds are frozen after running a kewl exchange site

due to people who do not have that propensity, or even those that do but miss a detail while trying to absorb myriad other details...


etc... bitcoin is smart, that will slow adoption. people are stupid with other currencies, investments, security... bitcoin is simultaneously more alluring and more complex. it isn't really any less secure, but i would say it is vastly more prone to simple, fatal errors in the user experience.

As others have voiced, it needs to mature past the "well if you make a mistake you get kicked in the balls repeatedly for the rest of your life" experience. That's not on bitcoin, that's on the industry around it to make a nice product. Trust, however, of that product... well, in the unregulated world that is an issue.

https://blockchain.info/tx/a2d1e19331f4ea274079c94382560bbb4f32165ed647a33adad651a604e7caa2

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1syu3h/i_lost_all_my_bitcoins_in_an_erroneous/

 

The best way of doing this is dropping this "bounty" system and just hiring developers?

Is it really that mysterious?


Never mind that it seems grossly inefficient and a waste of resources to have "competition jobs" where people are developing in parallel, racing for the bounty prize.


Also, you might want to discuss this with developers to find out the timeframe and compensation for developing what you're talking about.


I get it that you have a budget, we all do, but realize that your budget dictates the quality, speed and interest you'll find in developing these products. In my estimate what you're looking for versus how much you're willing to pay for it is wildly off base. For reference, I've been a part of small HTML websites that were more expensive than what you're offering.

Someone stated "Devs are hard to find" in the thread. This is absurd. Devs that are willing to work under customer dictated terms that attempt to bypass the marketplace norms, maybe. I don't know too many development houses that would think these terms are fair.

Feel free to seek it out, of course, but all of this nonsense regarding how to find devs and how to make them feel like they'll get the bounty are easily solvable via contracts and directly hiring firms that develop software. The institution I work for never has a shortage of vendors who are willing to accept our money in return for software.

Are you seeing that #1 would have a lot of people choosing exactly which pools they want to be a part of, and that #2 would still require full support in the database to payout, etc.

#2 and #1 could essentially be the same thing if you allow people to select coins. #2 is just a matter of having the database for whatever new coins pop up or someone wants to mine. That means creating new pools, database entries, controls, etc.


I too would like every coin to be supported and to be able to choose each coin I mine, I don't know how feasible that is to configure or support.

Why stop there. What if there were multiple pool settings, for example I want to mine from the experimental pool 30% of the time and the main pool 70% of the time. In the main pool setting I choose the most profitable from 10 coins I pick, in the experimental I have 3 of those 10 coins but then 4 other coins, and I rotate those not based on profit but based on even time share. Etc.

cudaminer does a 560Ti at 120-140kHs because its for nvidia. I have a 560Ti and get 125 with 0 tweaking on cudaminer:

http://i.imgur.com/yEHY74f.jpg

It is also safe to assume that 100% of the impression you get regarding how incompetent or not the CIA/NSA is or isn't is completely controlled by them. Including "leaks" and "news." Just like it's safe to assume 52% or 0.000001% is. How could you ever know that?

Unless you know that.

And if you do know that, how could you ever convince anyone you do? Because they can't.


As soon as you admit that there is 1 project or involvement that you cannot know, you can assume many, many more. As soon as its proven that truth is obfuscated, you should assume all truths are potentially obfuscated.

Etc.


People declaring they've "unraveled the puzzle" by using google searches and mainstream media reports (or dipshit blogs) ... yeah, yeah yeah yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh

we've not seen govs really intervene.

it makes sense btc will be tied in a high profile way to 'terrorism' ... false flag or not, it could be used that way.


they tried to link bittorrent "piracy funds terror" in the same way ... unfortunately that was a few steps removed ... this can have immediate 'hey look at what these people did only because bitcoin let them.' aka silkroad + violence

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/us-attorney-general-piracy-funds-terror/

 

bitcoin not same algo as doge

doge uses --scrypt switch for CGMiner

estimates are $30 each but we're still in dogescovery phase so its clearly going to be millions

Join a pool! Use GPU! GET DOGE