Holy shit, I did miss that.  Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm not going to go read the thread again, but I don't recall any mention of an attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the matter prior to initiating the rota process.

My first thought was that sending cookies coded in the amount field was silly, and that mpex should stop that yesterday.  But it does allow full transparency.  Anyone that wants to can look at that address and see exactly how much money has come in.  The value of such transparency is quite considerable, and I understand why mpex would want to keep it.

I think the judges made a mistake here.  And I can understand why that mistake would signal the failure of the idea.  Having a good reputation for completing trades in OTC is not the same thing as having a good reputation as a fair judge.  Only by judging cases fairly can you develop that reputation, and who would want to put themselves at risk to provide that experience?

Not exactly inspiring confidence here dude. 

PM me with a BTC price for one unit drop-shipped or re-shipped to an address in the US and an address to send it to.

Sure.  Are you in the WOT system?

Bump.

Still no takers?

Try -salvagewallet first.

The usefulness of your backup depends on your keypoolsize (default: 100) and how many keys you've used since the backup.  Every time you ask for a new address, you use one key from the pool.  Every time you send and get change, you use one key from the pool.  If your wallet isn't busy, a backup from a few months ago may still be fine.  Try -salvagewallet first anyway.

The "not enough space" message probably doesn't mean what you think it means.  Check your db.log file for clues.

The stop RPC command can also take an optional argument to force (or prevent) a full database detach.

ASICMINER 10 shares @ 0.4 BTC each

The tricky part is passing the cookies back and forth.  The challenge cookie and the signature string both need to be somewhat long, longer than you'd want to type.

For a smart phone, you'd need some form of communication other than keyboards.  You could do it with QR codes, or NFC or something.  But I'm not aware of any systems commonly in place that could handle it.

The gribble IRC bot uses secure bitcoin authentication.  When you register, you provide a bitcoin address.  When you want to authenticate, the bot generates a random cookie and you have to sign it using the key associated with the registration address.  You send back the sigature, and it makes sure that it was signed with the right key.

It is the most secure system that I can think of.

ASICMINER 10 shares @ 0.3 BTC each

That is a QFN package.  There may or may not be a chip inside it, and that chip may or may not be an ASIC, and that ASIC may or may not be useful for mining.  The long plastic tubes are pretty standard for shipping such things.

Seeing the picture is very reassuring, but it shouldn't be, because if you don't think they can deliver, then you shouldn't trust the picture.  And if you do think they can deliver, you shouldn't need the picture.

ASICMINER 10 shares @ 0.22 BTC each

Try the -salvagewallet startup option.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1895

The GPG messages, I don't usually bother validating.  I've done enough of those that I know that I can, given a little fiddling around.  Unless it is a dramatic revelation, or important to me personally (like my mpex STATs), I just assume that someone will point out if it doesn't work.

That bitcoin signed message from Wences, on the other hand, I got nothing.  I don't know where it starts, I don't know where it stops, I don't know if the linebreaks are real or not, nor what character they are.  If anyone managed to validate that signature, my hat is off to them.  I gave up after trying about a dozen combinations.

We seriously need to standardize an armor format for bitcoin signed messages.

I've been kicking the idea around.  DeaDTerra seems pretty busy.  I doubt that he'd like to be the conduit for such a thing.

What really makes me pause is that trades on MPEX are absolute and final.  I don't trust any other exchange enough to be willing to tie up much capital or effort in an arbitrage bot, because I have a feeling that I'd get hung out to dry in a rollback sooner or later.  That said, if some exchange is willing to start GPG-signing account listings or trade notifications, and they demonstrate a lasting commitment to them, I'll do it.

This thread need a bump.

ASICMINER 10 shares @ 0.2 BTC each

In the philosophical sense, we don't really know why some problems are harder than others.  It is an open question, and widely considered to be the most important questions in the field of computer science.

I screwed up my answer a bit.  It really isn't (uint256_max-target).

The output of sha256 is a 256 bit integer, in the range from zero to uint256_max, and it has many properties similar to random numbers.  Now we define a number smaller than uint256_max that is our target.  If a hash is less than or equal to target, that block is valid.  If it is greater than target, we keep trying.

The target is (roughly) 2²⁵⁶-(difficulty*2³²).  That second term is the work value.  Target, difficulty and work are all different aspects of the same thing, they are ways to look at the amount of luck a given hash has to have to be valid.  Target is the highest acceptable value, work is the number of impossible values between target and uint256_max, difficulty is the work scaled down such that the first blocks have a difficulty of 1.

Does that help?