amish

IE will lose at least another 10-15% market share this year BECAUSE of the fact that they decide not to support WebRTC.

I think the future is in this TYPE of currency, but I think the premise that bitcoin is using to "generate" through mining is the wrong approach.

I've had in the back of my mind an idea for a long time that will take alot of ingenuity to implement, but I'm fairly confident it will be the kind of electronic currency that will sustain itself well after bitcoin.

The concept is based on the idea that there is no centralized or distributed mechanism for determining who has "mined" the currency. Each individual just creates an account, and over the lifetime of that account sustains itself based on comparisons with others whom they've transacted with. The algorithm would need to adapt to attempts to defraud it, but think about this.

If I am transacting with someone who has been spending the currency like a mad man, their currency can be seen as less valuable to the overall population (since they may be a statistical outlier in usage of the currency). When someone has spent too little, this can also be a negative, since new and unestablished accounts mean the person may be less trustworthy, etc.

I think the key to this may be in the ability to tie an account to a person's real identity somehow.

The concept around it really puts everyone on even footing when the currency first hits the market. None of this madness. Sure you can probably make money for a while with Bitcoin, but I'm not willing to bet too much on the long-term sustainability of it, just because it will be like most currencies in the past. Some will start with alot, and some will be left out to dry with none. It's simply not as appealing as a self-regulating currency.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. Not centuries. 1.2239x10e60 millennia.

Some basic calculations (based on creating 30000 bitcoin keys per second) tell me it would take you approximately 1.2239x10e60 centuries just to get through 1% of all possible addresses.

Math is fun.

Java's demise was ensured when Oracle bought it.

Ruby is not web scale. Period.

Does anyone else read this and wonder whether anyone competent is handling this project? Even the commentators from this article don't seem to understand how to scale a website.

ruby fan boys couldn't be happy that their programming language is at the core of a huge scalability nightmare that is happening before our eyes.

I totally get the argument. But in my experience it's rarely the first idea that you end up running with, or that will work on the market. It's generally significantly different project in the end if you're able to get to where the market is telling you to go.

This leads to the idea that unless the code is conceived well up front it's highly unlikely you're going to be able to learn from the market and adapt to what it's telling you if you're working with a bunch of ill conceived code from the get go.