Nice quintuple post...

The bitcoin community is collecting donations for the man who was falsely accused of being the creator. He's an innocent old man whose life was turned upside down by greedy and careless journalism. Turns out he has health issues, so the community are collecting donations to say "sorry for the trouble" and help him out.

1200 people have donated 31 BTC so far, that's about $20,000 USD... In 8 hours.. 3 weeks left!

Donations are ranging from $0.50 to $100.. since there are no fees, because there is no middle man, it is easy and cheap to donate what you can afford. If someone were to 'run away with the money' or pay it to their church or something else that charities often to, it would be easily noticed and investigated.

https://blockchain.info/address/1Dor...Y2C1an6NJ4UrjX

Here's the reporter who ruined this guy's life... she is basically having an emotional meltdown and starts crying by the end

To say the reporter ruined the guy's life is a total exageration. The story will blow over shortly and he'll be 31+ bitcoins richer for the trouble.
Posted via RS Mobile

I didn't say his life was irreparably ruined. But from the time she started pestering him until the story dies down, his life is absolutely ruined. Plus there is real danger from potential people who have lost $400m that Gox lost... We know there are all types of people within that $400m including criminals. So posting his name, photos of him, his house and his car with the license plate clearly visible, potentially put him in direct danger of a mob hit or something.

And being 31+ bitcoin richer may not mean much in the end, considering he is dealing with prostate cancer and recently had a stroke. I'm sure the addition to having reporters bugging him non stop for days and literally chasing him isn't really helping much...

Ironically, it's Leah's life that will have more permanent consequences from this ordeal. But it is her own fault for being so reckless and irresponsible with her reporting, so whatever.

I'm sure it hasn't but the journalistic interest in his life is a part of being in the public eye. And, he's the one that put himself in the public eye through publishing the paper. He may not have expected the paper to garner such significant interest but it's one's own responsibility to recognize that they do not control the conversation surrounding that which they put in the public eye. I'm not lacking compassion towards any hardship he's going through. I just don't fault the journalists.
Posted via RS Mobile

Are you joking? What you are saying is crazy talk, and as much as it kills me not to hit that fail button I'll excuse it just because I guess you don't know any better ;). Satoshi Nakamoto, the entity who wrote the bitcoin paper, is not a real person.

The whole point of being a pseudonym is that they did NOT want to be in the public eye. The whole entire point is that it is about the SYSTEM of bitcoin, and NOT the person (or people) who created it... The whole reason for being anonymous was that there should be no accountability to one person or group. That is what bitcoin is all about - it is public code, that is 100% transparent. You trust in the math, and in the system, not some dude or company or government. By being anonymous, it eliminates any notion of "Who is this guy, and why should we trust him?" Because there is no "this guy" be it an old man with cancer or anyone else. It's the code that matters. Whoever created it put it out there, let it go, and now it exists as its own entity. If reporters want to find the creator(s), they can go ahead. It still doesn't really matter though.

Why he (or she, or they) chose the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I have no idea. But it is most certainly not because "That's his real name". If that was the case, it was incredibly dumb, but it wasn't the case, so...

I feel really sorry for Dorian, because he didn't ask to be put out there by some sleazy journalist because his birth name happens to be the same as the pseudonym chosen...

Well, that makes more sense. The articles that I read seemed to assert that the person in question is the author.
Posted via RS Mobile

The only article and person that insists Dorian is the author is Newsweek and Leah McGrath. Everyone else who did a modicum of research found that it would be nearly impossible for it to be him. Within hours of publication, /r/bitcoin had found several emails and amazon reviews written by the guy, and it is clear that, unless he's putting on an act, it's not him.

The paper is brilliantly written, and this guy barely speaks English.

Her "evidence" is that he double spaces after periods, and that he (in broken English) asserted that he "doesn't have anything to do with that anymore" (which she insists he was referring to bitcoin).

He has denied it every step of the way, to the point of calling the cops on her.

Watch her try to defend her point in this Bloomberg interview.. it's brutal

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/can-the-real-dorian-nakamoto-please-stand-up-vSiahPV4ReyViJX2_IJhZw.html

I did do a bit of research but nothing too extensive.

The articles seemed to support the NewsWeek assertions or take a neutral stance.

The more up to date articles are definitely more critical.

The one last thing I would say is that spoken and written English abilities don't correlate that strongly. A relatively basic ability to speak English doesn't preclude the ability to write a very good paper in English.

There are plenty of publicly available examples of Dorian's writing. From public emails to government bodies, to amazon reviews. His written english is just as bad (if not worse) than his spoken English.

So you're right that poor spoken doesn't mean poor written (in my experience, that is certainly the case). But in this case, it does.

Any journalist you found that backed up what Newsweek was saying, without using words like "allegedly" should be scrutinized more from now on, IMO. Because this was entirely baseless, and once more information was out, was completely implausible.

What a terrible piece of journalism. He should sue if he is not the founder. When or lose it will clear his name.

http://www. bloomberg.com/video/did-newsweek-uncover-the-wrong-nakamato-jQlEjzLuQ~6aEKN4NhDgow.html

We'll I can't really go to mcdonalds or some restaurant or go to wal mart and buy/order anything using bitcoin. I can't say pay my cell phone or pay my property tax with bitcoin...... It might work but I trust real cash in my pocket for now.

:seriously:

+1 :suspicious:

Not bitcoin related, but this was a very good article that I think some followers of this thread may find interesting.

I think I'm going to discontinue mining LTC. The difficulty has gone up to where I'm getting 0.4 LTC a day with 2x 7950, and a 7850. Less than a year ago, that was pulling in 3 LTC/day. Also, the contractor cheaped out and combined both bedrooms' power outlets to one circuit. So, with the addition of the Antminer, I'm tripping the breaker once a day.

The Antminer is nice. Once it gets going, you just let it sit there and mine. I mention 'once it gets going'. That's because on some boot-ups, it'll produce some HW errors, or an FPGA would go offline. My Antminer is overclocked to 375mhz (from 350), and produces zero HW errors on a good boot. I tried 400mhz, and HW errors spilled out like mad. Various forum posts I've read believe that there's an acceptable amount of HW errors. The mining pool is reporting 191GH/s AVG for the last 24 hours.

If anyone wants to sell off a video card better than a 2GB 6950 they bought for mining let me know :)
Posted via RS Mobile

I'm looking to sell my 280x for around $370+shipping. Should be cheaper than buying it new+tax... PM me

The internet during the 90s didn't have Netflix, Facebook or even allow you to pay any bills online either. Not only that, the idea of any of those technology was basically unfathomable.

People keep bringing up the issue that Bitcoin doesn't have much support to be of any use right now. However, if you look at what's sprung up within the last 6 months alone, you'll see that it's growing exponentially. This technology has only been around for about 5 years and only in the last year that it's really gained traction. Saying it's useless just because you can't buy McDonald's with it today is being extremely short sighted. Instead, read the white paper and just allow yourself some imagination about what's possible with this paradigm changing technology.

facebook, netflix, or linkedin all sprung up leveraging the power of internet. bitcoin is a entirely new platform so it's natural for people to be skeptical especially when it is asking to exchange my hard-earned canadian dollar (real money) for something most people are not even sure what it is and what the advantage of it is. and that's really the pitfall of bitcoin because you always have to explain it.

a monetary transaction needs to simple and transparent and the all the major currencies in circulation achieve that. the news lately surrounding bitcoin have really put a big question mark regarding its existence.

This is exactly my point. These great consumer applications all sprung up leveraging the power of the internet, but it wasn't that long ago that the internet was also scrutinized as being nothing more than novelty. However, because the internet had value regardless of belief, it slowly grew to the behemoth it is today. This kind of mirrors what many people see in Bitcoin.

All new technologies need explanation. My 65 year old parents still don't understand how the internet works or the value it brings, but that's not stopping them from enjoying a streamed show.

If you're really marking ease of use and transparency as the indicator of currency success, nothing is easier or more transparent than Bitcoin. If you wanted to send a friend in Thailand $100 today, you would have to go to Western Union or some other remittance service, purchase $100 USD, send it to the remittance service in Thailand and your friend would have to trek all the way there to receive it. On top of that, Western Union will eat a big chunk of that $100. With Bitcoin, it's as easy as getting their Bitcoin address and sending the Bitcoin from my wallet to theirs. As for transparency, that's one of the biggest values behind Bitcoin -- there is no under the table type spending. There's a general ledger that is viewable and analyzable by anyone, anywhere, anytime. There's a website that makes all this information easily accessible as well: www.blockchain.info

A lot of the news that's come out lately provided a lot of misinformation. I have friends who think that Mt. Gox = Bitcoin and that it is now bankrupt and worthless. That's the message they got from "reputable" media. Bitcoin is having growing pains, but with each bad apple that gets wiped out (Gox, Silk Road), it will come back stronger. Unless there's something seriously wrong with the protocol itself (which is very unlikely), there really isn't much stopping it from slowing spreading.

What I find unfortunate about Bitcoin is some of the vocabulary that surrounds it. Because the words "digital currency" and "mining" gets heavily attributed to Bitcoin, everything is fixated towards that. Yes, Bitcoin is a currency, but that is only one layer of the potential this technology brings. Just like how the internet removed barriers and the middle-men for media and publishing, Bitcoin has the potential to do the same for money.

Mt Gox might be just one exchange but it definitely did exposed the institutional weakness with bitcoin and the communities around it. You said that I can send bitcoin from one country to another with relative ease. Okay I can understand that if you can cut out the middle man to keep it low cost. However the important part with bitcoin is the volatility. If I send my friend some US dollar, that friend can be assured that the value of the US dollar will not change very much at all day-to-day or week-to-week. The same thing can't be said for bitcoin because ultimately you still have to convert it back real currency to make purchases.

What is the future road map for bitcoin? Unless you have Google, Amazon, or someone who can throw their weight behind this, I can't see this thing take off in a major way. Currently, bitcoin is just a niche for the enthusiasts.

I think that's oversimplifying it a little bit, don't you think? If I wanted to send my friend some money, first I'd have to find a place/website that I trusted enough to create a wallet and deposit my money. Like others have mentioned, with Gox going down in the fashion it did, it really does make people (especially people that is not as in-tune with everything that's going on) wary of whom to trust with their money. I tried signing up for the largest Chinese bitcoin exchange the other day so that I can deposit some money and they required a ridiculous amount of personal information and identification documentation, not to mention the time that it would take in order for the application to process. The process alone turned me away from the whole thing. Does other exchanges require information from you in this fashion? On top of that, after I finished depositing that money, transfer it to him, buddy will need to convert it to fiat again in order to use it unless he's gonna use it on something obscure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure these exchanges charge you money for conversion and probably withdrawl of your money too, albeit probably lesser than western union. But my point is in it's current state the argument that sending money using BTC is somehow more convenient or faster than transferring money in a more traditional way isn't a good argument.... Buddy in Thailand might have to trek to western union but he's got cash on hand, ready to use. But if he has bitcoins, he's got to to convert, wait for convert, go to ATM and then withdrawl his fiat...