bling bling

raQ97kSVKUgpkjV8MKpiCFkGnXe4r6NSZb

Same, i also have open unpaid rewards.

I see that three pools are stickied in the mining pool section, slush, db and btcg. What is the reasoning behind this apart from the fact that they are the three biggest pools? Given the way the system works, should there not be a drive to diversify the pool usage instead of push the big dogs, who either have a fee or really really ask you to "donate?

What is the policy on which pools are taken and, given the real profits pool operators make, is there any financial sponsorship involved?

I think there should be a strict policy in regard to sticky posts in "business related" areas that do not promote products but only free and unpolitical elements and if anything should be stickied there, it should be the "proven to be reliable 0% fee pools" and not the big racketeering pools.

Keep proving the world that you are a bitter troll with no clue about computer security. A wallet.dat encryption is a false security feature, go troll somewhere else.

These numbers alone should tell any potential investor that theres some loss in the system. Usual triple 5850 roi + mh/w champions are at over 1gh/s hence there should be easily between 9.4 and 10gh from 9 machines. Its a very bad investment.

its not a math issue its a conceptual issue. also lol³ at your "thousand keys per second" analogy for a system that by definition wants to be around 2033.

Since you dont understand the system, let me repeat slowly:

a) zero can only be reached if there is no longer sufficient divisibility to allow supply and demand simply take care of that by in a sense DEFLATION. as long as divisibility is assured the practical use of bitcoin will not be affected at all
b) if a trend can, in the far future, be anticipated that there might be a looming issue on the horizon, a fix to that issue, however that fix may be, can be introduced to the mainline client. if that is a "vote on branching" or something different does not matter, the tools to fix it are already there
c) why does every random person who seems to be in the "explore bitcoin phase" set his first and foremost task at solving longterm issues for bitcoin before even grasping basic concepts or the currency

Very simple: go to a random pornpage and go to their support suite, explain them that you would like to purchase their premium product but since your wife is controlling the cc and is nosey about every single payment on there that she can not relate something to you would like to buy that subscription using the bitcoin system.

Das glaubst du wirklich ja? Auch wenn sich der Weg dir nicht erschliessen wird, es ist durchaus problemfrei möglich obige passwörter zu nutzen OHNE dabei die passwörter auf "seinem" Rechner oder "der cloud" zu speichern.

I think this is inherently a bad idea, especially coming from one of the core developers of bitcoin.
Throwing away part of the network just to appeal to random nerdery is a horrible idea to implement when in the end, the core developers should really worry about using the resources of the system as efficiently as possible, after all the infrastructural components of the system are the basis of everything.
People thought  ipv4 was sufficient once, people thought 512kb ram were sufficient, etc. Being wasteful with a core resource in IT, given its short but rich history, is just wrong on so many fronts, i wouldnt even know where to start.

No, the root of the problem that you are trying to find and cure would be divisibility. Your initial posting is full of "i dont know" and in that regard very valid. You fail to actually identify a problem yet want to make a connection mandatory, however long the duration might be. Bitcoins will be valued at supply and demand related rates. This is possible as long as divisibility is sufficient, hence the problem you are trying to cure is not there. You try to solve a problem that doesnt exist by introducing a system that gives alot of people with offline savings a maintenance overhead that is neither desireable workload wise nor smart in the pseudo anonymous context. But of course, you wouldnt know about that.

If in the very long term bitcoin is still around, the system can be branched to adress that issue without changing the rules, if 50+% of the network agrees to it. You would know that if you would take time to understand a system before suggesting LOOONG term solutions for LOOONG term issues that may or may not be there.

Es gibt 2011 keinen Grund mehr manuell erstellte und kurze Passwörter zu nutzen. Wenn ein anständig starkes Passwort verwendet wurde dann hat MTGOX in allen mir bekannten Fällen bei korrektem Claiming den Account den entsprechenden Nutzern freigeschaltet.
Mit anständigem Passwort meine ich so ungefähr die Richtung hier:

Ich finde lustig wie "vollnoobs" hier Wind machen. Keine Ahnung vom System, wahrscheinlich sogar ein händisches, kurzes 20 Zeichen PW genommen und PFUIPFUI MTGOX jammern.

P.S.
Bei mir ging alles reibungslos.

You assume that bitcoin has a problem with availability or granularity. Both is horribly false in the forseeable long term future.
The price of a bitcoin unit of a certain deciaml within the p2p accounting system is set via supply and demand and zero via regulation, which is a key selling point of bitcoin.
You are trying to add an automated regulation mechanism to solve a problem that doesnt exist, a very uncompelling case.



You have been around for a week, maybe some humility would help?

Its a good representation of the "get rich quick have no clue" internet trash that seems to be common these days. Moderation is not popular around here hence you get a shitload of the bitcoin equivalent of farmvilles.

QFT.

Kevin, cry me a river and troll elsewhere.

The best part of this whole charade:

The guy who previously had virus/trojan alerts on his bitcoin wallet machine, the one that happens to be the same guy that supposedly lost 3.6 or so BTC from his Mt.Gox account 12 hours before his wallet was looted clean, the guy who didnt move his funds out of his wallet after his Mt.Gox was compromised.... is posting back and forth on security concepts related to bitcoin and suggesting improvements.

You were a tragic case, you turned into a troll, now it is just a sad blind person debating on colors and not letting it slide.

I call BS on the whole affair.

Generally i think the practice by people in the long run will have to involve a checking and a savings wallet, where best practice should be leaving no more than 500$ worth in the checking wallet.
That way, a wallet with more usability can be held, for mobile devices, "simple" password security and such. On the other side, due to the nature of bitcoin, a secure savings wallet should be promoted, using physically external security features such as a mobile auth app or a smartcard.
Once the development for such a second tier of defense is there, usage of such should be heavily promoted by bitcoin.org, after all users need to be protected from their own stupidity.

the whole point of bitcoin is to create a system of unregulated, irreversible, pseudo anonymous transactions on the internet. you should have reflected that before putting what seems to be more than you can swallow into bitcoin.
the behaviour you are displaying in the days since you were supposedly hacked is the most self centered, egocentric behaviour i have seen anywhere in an online community for a long time.
initially it was tragic to read that you have lost something, the more you post, the more sympathy i feel with the people who supposedly screwed you over.

p.s.

i still dont believe your story.