It isn't "security through obscurity".  It's "zero knowledge proof".  There's a difference in concept.

In a zero-knowledge proof you know in advance that there is only *ONE* way for someone to do something (or to reliably do something), and that is with knowledge of a certain secret.  You observe someone does that thing (or is able to do that thing reliably), and you accept it as proof that a person knows that secret.  And you can accept this proof even though it provides no way at all for you to learn that secret.

In "security through obscurity" you know that because no one else has a particular secret known to you, no one else can do a particular thing which you can do.  First it isn't as useful.  You learn nothing by noting that no one else is doing something.  You cannot prove that the secret is unknown to them; only that they haven't used it while you've been watching.  And if you can't perform a zero-knowledge proof of your secret, you can't demonstrate to anyone else that you have the secret yourself without running the risk that they learn the secret. 

I can cheerfully post my wallet.dat file, confident that no one else has my password to decrypt it, and that's security by obscurity.  Nobody else can prove that I have the keys, and nobody can prove that I'm the only person with the keys.  Nobody learns a thing.  Now if someone sends that wallet a new coin, and I demonstrate my ability to access the new coin's private key from the wallet, that can be accepted as a ZK proof that I know the wallet passphrase.  It still can't be accepted as any kind of proof that no one else does.

I think it's currently on a bubble that will see it rise within a matter of only a few weeks to about US$1000, then crash.  But when it crashes I don't think it's going to come down to as low as it is now.  I'm thinking maybe ... US$500?  If I were more sure of that I'd be selling at around $950 then buying back in around $550, but I know darn well that I can't tell for sure when and how it's going to break; I can only guess, so I think I'll just ride the crash out then take a buying opportunity and ride the recovery.

By the way if anyone interprets this as investment advice, I will giggle at that person a lot because they are an idiot. 

I'm seeing it as a bubble, but I don't think that the bubble mentality can last long enough to bring it up to what I think its eventual fair price will be, so, I figure it's a bubble-crash-and-recovery pattern.  I think that I'll have some more money to invest by the time the crash brings down the price. 

It is a structure built on four barges (last time I saw it; there may be more in the final design).  I believe that it's a data center built to be powered by wave action and cooled by seawater.  But, more importantly, it's a boat with a 'zero-point' wave energy engine.

To explain: there is a lot of energy going under a boat all the time in the form of waves.  We have spent much of our effort in marine engineering learning to withstand this energy, the way a bridge withstands buffetting wind.  But it is also possible to take advantage of this energy, first by capturing wave power to operate something onboard (in this case computers) and second, if we are selective about what wave energy we capture with vertical movements of the barges and what wave energy we allow to push us around, we can both derive energy from it (like a windmill) and use it to move boats around in a purposeful steered way (like sails). 

I anticipate that when it is built they will keep it in the bay for tests for several weeks to months, and then move it out into the 'potato patch' (a section of notoriously rough waves right outside San Francisco Bay) for harsher testing and possible deployment.

If I were to speculate about *why* Google is building such a thing, I would note that right now the appropriate database to 'autodrive' cars is starting to exist but the appropriate database to 'autodrive' boats is still out there bound up in thousands and thousands of charts, of various sources and ages, from different companies, and that many of the available charts are just plain wrong.  So I would guess that this is a prototype of the 'Google maps' vehicle for bays, estuaries, lakes, harbors and coastlines, as distinct from the 'Google maps' vehicle for roads. 

Talk to your lawyer.  Print out your wallets and keys on archive grade paper.  Seal them in an envelope, put the envelope in a safe deposit box, add a letter explaining what they are and how to use them, and ensure that your heirs get the keys to the safe deposit box.

Actually, you can perform a zero-knowledge proof of a whole lot of things without any recourse to cryptography at all.

Harry Houdini provided a whole lot of zero-knowledge proofs that various makes and models of locks and handcuffs and shackles were insecure.  Nobody saw exactly how he got out, but the fact remains that when the curtains were lifted he had them all off. 

Let's say I claim that I'm able to teleport.  But I won't actually allow anyone to *see* me teleporting.  I can perform a zero-knowledge proof for you by climbing into one box and out of another. 

Let's say I claim to be able to swim ten miles in deep rough water.  Maybe I don't want to let anyone see me doing it, but I can perform a zero knowledge proof by delivering your letter to the lighthouse keeper on his doorstep in the middle of a storm, while you're elsewhere, on the only boat in the area.

Remember that kid in the 'Mystery Men' who could turn invisible, but only if nobody was looking?  His zero-knowledge proof involved walking past security cameras.

Let's say Mike claims to be able to predict the price of bitcoin a week in advance.  He doesn't have to let you know what the prediction is, but he can make a prediction, stick it into a safe, and let you guard it.  At the end of a week, he gives you the key to the safe and you can see what his prediction was. 

Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials! 

It rarely ever happens that two people who have absolutely equal assets marry.

If your bitcoin wealth gives you a material advantage over your beloved then she needs to know that you're serious about making her a full partner in this marriage.  And to that end I advise you to find a completely symmetric disposition for it.

Yours, mine, and ours.  However you manage it do not withhold for yourself more than your share.  This is what you're bringing for your kids who because they don't exist yet can contribute nothing to their own future.

Anyway a lot of the time it is most important to trust and to be seen to trust your partner to make the partnership work. Take a risk on love. Holding back poisons both your and her ability to make a full partnership.

For what it's worth, my wife and I got into bitcoin together. We both read the forum.  She chooses not to post because she thinks y'all are tiresome and tend to think in the very short term.

I'm a computer programmer and also ridiculously smart if those tests can be believed.  My wife is smarter than I am.  I am such a lucky bastard to have finally found a sweetheart I'll never be bored with.

Seriously, though,  why do any of you imagine the gender of the other bitcoin users might matter?

On most Unix systems, there is an /etc/shadow file that holds hashes of all the users' passwords.  Security auditing and security compromising programs often use this file as input and hash a bunch of password guesses to see if they can find passwords (preimages) to go with the hashes.

Now, for completely unrelated reasons, we've built hardware that does hashes four or five orders of magnitude faster than they were done before.  Have we created a password-guessing security threat that didn't exist previously?  Or are there good reasons why blockchain eruptors etc can't be used that way?

Satoshi whoever he/she/they are is rich -- I mean, *REALLY* rich -- estimates are 1 million to 1.2 million Bitcoin, which is not bad for the estimated couple of years spent writing the code.   And we sort of believe that with Bitcoin currently at $230 (on Gox) and headed higher, he, she, or they are getting richer by the day!

Was it a scam?    If so, it was a masterful one that deserves some praise, because it did that thing that very rarely happens with scams, creating something with a value even greater than what the scammer paid himself. Or herself.  Or themselves. 

I imagine Satoshi somewhere on a massive yacht in the Aegean sea, laughing at us all and romancing curvy Greek babes - or handsome Greek blokes, as the case may be - enjoying champagne and caviar and drinking wine from a lover's navel every night. 

And when I imagine that, I smile.  'Cos Satoshi's scam is enriching us *ALL*. 

Unlike this guy who looks so disgustingly pleased with himself that I'm surprised no one has lynched him yet.

All of that is true.  Now, did you have a point?

Good luck explaining to Joe and Jane end-user that the fee for transferring a given amount is going to be different every time and will depend on things they can't even see.  They will tell you that's stupid, without even wanting to learn why you think the fees should be different.

I'm having a fight with git. 

Here's what I want to do. 

I want to throw away all local changes, including those committed to the local git repository, and make my project directories look exactly like the ones that were most recently checked into the remote master, from a different git repository. 

That is, with NO attempt to "merge" local changes, NO local files hanging around that aren't in the upstream, NO version garbage inserted into files ... Just plain abandon this branch and go back to trunk development. 

In every other revision control system I've ever encountered, that is a simple command.  But either I am too stupid to know how the hell to ask  Git to do this, or Git is too stupid to get it done.

"Git revert" doesn't even destroy local files that aren't part of the version you're reverting to!  What the hell is wrong here?