That link gets me to a HostGator window that asks me to log in. Shouldn't the site have public access?

Some random obs:

I have seen many references to Bitfunder and Intersango as two notable scams.

Bitfunder and other ventures by @Ukyo were connectes to the Neo&Bee collapse.  On thread about them: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=640717.0

An Intersango thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=323682.20  I think there was another one, can't find it now.

The SheepMarketplace coins were tracked through tumblers etc. by volunteers for some time, but apparently they got tired so now the coins seem to be "lost in the crowd".

There is a thread about LKETC, manufacturers of mining equipment, with claims that the controlling software that comes with the machines steals 10% of the mined coins: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=640717.0

Well, I don't know if it was him, but the invention of WWW was a bit more than that.  It looks trivial in retrospect, but it took years to be invented.  like using \n to separate lines in files, instead of fixed-length records; or many other great inventions.  You know the story of the egg of Columbus?

I used the internet for 10-12 years before WWW.  It was basically FTP, Telnet (remote lohin), SMTP (email) and USENET (a big set of forums).  You used FTP to download a text file, read it using you favorite editor (emacs, 'more', 'cat', whatever); if it referenced another remote file you entered its location and name into FTP, manually, and repeated.  

I used briefly Hypercard on Macintosh, a rudimentary hyperlink system; but links were limited to "stacks of cards" (Hypercard files) on the same machine.  And they were unportable outsdie the Macs.  

When WWW came out, it had several things that worked together, that made it revolutionary and an instant succes: the (then-)standardized and (then-)simple and (then-)efficient platform-independent HTML document format (at the time, not even text files were easily ported between Unix, Mac and Windows);  "logical" markup, instead of "physical", that would allow the same document to be read in any machine, with any screen resolution and size, and any font of any size; easily embedded images;  hyperlinks and the HTTP protocol to fetch a file automatically by clicking on the link;  and the concept of WWW files being served to absolutely any requesting machines, without need for registration or login and without setting up a "session".  (Public FTP servers were available at some sites but they still required a formal login as "guest").  And the concept of a "WWW browser" that would display HTML and fetch HTTP links without the users having to learn any commands.  And a FREE serviceable borwser -- not Andreessen's Netscape, which came out years later, but a thing caled Mosaic that had been written by the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA), which IIRC was the browser used at CERN.

Netscape was an improved and expanded version of Mosaic and a commercial or semi-comercial product, but I don't recall it having contributed any notable innovations.  Perhaps Javascript, and/or WYSIWYG editing of HTML files, and/or secure HTTP?  (But the public-key crypto protocols that made secure HTTP possible were not Netscape's invention.)

I don't know if Andreessen's made much money with Netscape; IIRC he made his millions later, as manager or something of eBay.  Or did I get it backwards?
[/quote]

I don't know much about the W3C, but it seems to be respected by everybody EXCEPT Microsoft, who has always ignored standards.

I had better leave that unexplained. It is a caricature anyway. 

Perhaps. I hav never been able to see that pink unicorn either.

Or perhaps I just have a rather crooked eye:

Nein, was ist das?

Should "english" be capitalized when speaking English, or only when writing it?

Wasn't it said of Don Quixote, that his great fortune was to die wise, and live insane?

I did not mention names; but, as they say down here, if the hood fits...


Your Honor, I rest my case.  

But, can "maybe" be a question?

You mean to be or not to be, is that the question?

If they really did believe that, they would be buying every coin in sight, and the price would be at least 1800$ now.

Every fund owner like Lewis of course wants other people to believe in 2000$ coins, so that they will buy shares of his fund so that he can collect fees.  Every bitcoin hoarder like Ver wants others to believe it, so that they will buy bitcoins and raise the price so that he can sell at bigger profit.

I don t see smart money investing in bitcoin directly. Most if not all the VC investment in "bitcoin infrastructure" is actually going to ventures that will take money from ordinary bitcoin users and private investors as they move their bitcoins around -- exchanges, payment systems, funds, mining, software, etc -- and thus will make a profit whatever happens to the price.

By the way: looking at the charts, I can correlate most of the major price movements to specific events, like the Chinese "bans" and Mark's announcement of a "bug in the protocol .  Only this mini-bubble that started on May 20, about 02:00 UTC does not seem to have such a correlation.  The bubble seems to have been created by 10--20 concentrated episodes of heavy buying that pushed up the price, sometimes by tens of dollars in the space of one hour.  Opposite events (sudden dumps) were rare and mostly in the past few weeks.  Between those pumps the price drifted rather randomly, often with a downward bias.

I wonder what caused those positive spurts.  One guess is that they are due to individual OKCoin clients saving money offline and depositing large sums all at once; their broker system seems too cumbersome for small deposits.  Another guess is that the fund owners are trying to keep the price more or less stable in order to increase the chances of approval of their funds by the SEC.

Did I tell you that once, while only slightly drunk, I posted to the Brazilian Computer Society forum a call for the dismantling or the Brazilian Computer Society; and that, to this day, I am only slightly ashamed of it?

People use the most bizarre means to preserve their self-image while doing for greed something that goes against the moral values of their upbringing, such as being employees of a criminal organization. Some convince themselves that the victims deserve it.  Some turn their moral subsystems off entirely and become bureaucratic machines that care only about  whether  forms are correctly filled and protocols are followed.  Others choose to become cynical clowns: since the actions of clowns are not to be taken seriously, they hope that their their guilt will be forgiven as well.

Did you get lost?

I read their bylaws a while ago.  IIRC they gave the board of directors total power, including changing the bylaws without even telling the ordinary members.  Perhaps I misread, you'd better check. (But one is not a true bitcoiner if one does not give one's bitcoins to a bitcoin outfit before reading the contract, ain't that so?  )

You may perhaps consider this good news:

Wow! Any link?

Is that a question?