It means that blockchain.info, which is totally not "the blockchain", used a parser that assigned index numbers that have no relation to the sequence in the chain.

Can we get a stick at the top that "blockchain.info != blockchain != bitcoin" ?  I'm getting tired of these threads in here.

Or maybe you should google cloudflare.

I wish we had a "time out" room where we could stuff people that try to advertise their crappy blogs on these forums.

Ditto.  I paid full price for my batch #2 order, and I want my trade-ins to be more units at the discounted #2 dollar price.

But, it won't be a 50-50 split, at least not in terms that matter.  It won't even be close.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but the capital that has formed around bitcoin likes the current rules.  The economic power of the system is not going to move from a good system to a shitty one, no matter how many people want to go looting.

The whiny crybabies simply lack the ability to screw with the main chain, but the people staying with bitcoin will be able to utterly destroy the fake one.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?

There is no voting.  If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned.  Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings.  Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet.  This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).

Just out of curiosity, did you use sendtoaddress?

What new bullshit is this?

By this logic, inflation (the reality we all live in now) would lead to the destruction of every supplier of the business, the businesses on the other sides of those contracts.  After all, contract prices are fixed and absolute until the end of time and can nether be renegotiated  as needed nor written to compensate for changes in the value of money.

And yet, here we all are.  Derp?

My issue was always that I didn't like the idea of a hidden chain attack.  If someone has a bunch of hashing power (very unlikely) and generates a chain offline, then publishes it, overturning a huge number of blocks, we pretty much just have to sit and watch.  Of course, we can then intervene after the fact to put it back.

But it seems like a better way would be to devise a scheme where the attacker would be unable to keep their longer chain secret.  That is why I like the exponential difficulty method.  Under ordinary circumstances, and even honest chain forks, the network would operate as usual.  But a high powered attacker is fighting against the clock, and people can look at the number of blocks protecting their transaction, calculate the exponential, and evaluate the risk with something more closely approaching certainty.

The cost is, however, that the notion of correctness gets a little fuzzy.  I still think that it is better to protect the network as a whole, in exchange for individual nodes needing manual intervention during some attacks.  Gmaxwell gives the opposing view, which is widely shared.  It is a really critical part of bitcoin, and won't be tweaked lightly, if ever.

You are quite correct, if dA was predictable, it would be possible to break.  A lot of effort went into making sure that dA was not predictable.

As usual, the biggest problem in PKI is key management.

I do remember when the debate got around to which information you needed to give to a webserver so that it could generate public keys to hand out as addresses, and the consequences of the loss of such information.  I wasn't really paying attention by that point.

Heh.  It did seem like sarcasm to me.  No worries though, my post just clarified.

Businesses pass all of their costs on to their customers.  That's how business works.  At least they are nice enough to show you how much of your bill is going to the state.

Also, most (all?) states have use taxes.  If you buy something online, and the online store doesn't collect taxes for your state, you owe that tax, and are obligated to report and pay it.  In most states, the two are combined into a "sales and use tax" statute that makes it clear that it is the purchaser that is obligated to pay the tax, even if the vendor is kind enough to collect, report and pay it for you.

k is chosen randomly for each signing.

As for the private key, those are secret to begin with.  Also, careful implementations design their generation functions so that even if a few private keys leak, the sequence as a whole is not compromised.  There was extensive debate on the subject a while back that you can probably find with some searching.

Armory's implementation is very solid.  etotheipi is a bright guy to begin with, and he solicited input from the community, and paid attention to what he heard.  The BIP for deterministic wallets was done the same way.

If I recall correctly, the function is something along the lines of pubkey_i+1=sha256(G*pubkey_i*rootkey).  Using bitcoin means that you already trust that both sha256 and EC multiplication are irreversible, so you should feel pretty safe using the sequence generated from this.

You "do contracts all the time"?  That must be hard for a guy that apparently can't read.

There is no ownership.  That means that there was no "legally assign ownership" either.  Members are not owners.  You seem to have missed that in my previous post.  Is bold enough, or should I change the font size too?

At least you have stopped thinking that corporations are created by contract.  You may get your merit badge in internet lawyering yet.

U.S.  law has absolutely no concept of "founding members", nor of "members".  Corporations have owners (shareholders) *, directors (the board, typically elected by the owners) and officers (president, CEO, CFO, etc, typically appointed by the board).

In the US, corporations are typically formed as shells with generic bylaws by people that specialize in such things,   I have no idea if the foundation was filed that way, or directly.  Doesn't matter even a tiny little bit either way.

The foundation board is divided into classes for various reasons, for example, to ensure that the entire board isn't corporate members.  This is pretty common for nonprofit entities.

Being listed as a founding member means two things.  First, if he steps forward to claim his membership, he won't need to pay any dues.  Second, if he wishes to be on the board, it will be very easy for him to do so.

As usual, this is a pure troll thread, caused not by an evil conspiracy to control bitcoin, but by a too-tight tinfoil hat.

*  Nonprofits are an odd exception to this.  They don't have owners or shareholders, they have stakeholders.  Read that again.  No owners.  Or, owned by everyone, if you prefer to see it that way.  Since there are no owners, the bylaws indicate how the board is elected.

Miners can set their own policies, but the stock client builds blocks first by fee, and then by priority.  Priority is based on the sum of the product of the size and age of the inputs, divided by the size of the transaction.  It is calculated so that a reasonably simple transaction that redeems 1 BTC will be considered high priority about 1 day after the inputs were created, or a 0.5 BTC transaction after 2 days, etc.

You must have missed the part where they actually are a nonprofit.  You probably also don't realize that pretty most other entities recognized as nonprofit by the IRS are also corporations.

Obvious troll.  But I can't tell which side is getting trolled.