Relatively weak and easy to crack assuming someone got your encrypted wallet.dat file and could set it up in a dedicated machine to brute force it.  Can you think of how anyone might have gotten your wallet.dat file?

(I use 32 character random passwords generated by LastPass).

Quoted.  You are welcome.

Don't try to tell me what to do.  You are kind of bossy.  If I want to spend $10 on one million BTC I will and you cannot stop me.

Did you have it password protected?

If so was it a long, random password or a short common one?

That is probably unrealistic based on energy consumption alone.  More like 2030.  Unless the value of the USD drops a lot, then, of course it is totally possible.

So I will be able to buy  100,000 BTC for a $1?  1,000,000 BTC for a $10?  Sweet.

What wallet were you using?

A price of $252,000 in era 0 (50 BTC/block) would have caused the Bitcoin network to attempt to consume about 30% of all the electrical power produced on the planet.

A price of $252,000 in this era, era 1 (25 BTC/block) would cause the Bitcoin network to attempt to consume about 15% of all the electrical power produced on the planet.

So, in order to keep the Bitcoin network from attempting to consume more than 1% of all the power produced we should all hope that the price does not reach that level until at least era 5 - about 2029 or so.

Of course all of these numbers are rough "back of the envelope" estimates:

That is fine with me.  I was only opposed to using "Bitcoin 2.0" to describe any alt that is not Bitcoin.  "Next Generation" is as good a marketing term as any for those coins that believe they are.

I still contend that any "next generation" coin, no mater how cool or how feature rich, that does not include the current Bitcoin user base through Peter's proposal or something similar is destined to failure because it can be duplicated by a coin that does.

Let's take Ethereum as an example.  Assume you have Ethereum which does not include the current Bitcoin users and AEthereum which does and all other features are identical.  As a Bitcoin holder I would be curious to try out AEthereum since I already own them but I have no desire and would have to be sold hard on the idea of even trying Ethereum or even caring enough to find out what it is.

Now that we are back on the same page, we agree that engines that convert energy to motion will get better and more clever, microwaves, quantum foam, etc.  They will all use input energy to create motion.  The real long term issue is not the engines themselves, it is the power source.

The first issue is that we need to store a lot of energy in as little mass as possible.  This is called the energy density.  Check out this table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

A few highlights with respect to future space craft (numbers in MJ/kg):


This all assumes you are already off the planet because getting off the planet has a further issue, namely the power density issue.  

Also note with respect to current electric cars and their energy density issue:


This is the area where we could really use some breakthroughs.

Why does the opinion of some random guy on the Internet (me) upset you so?  

I think you doth protest way too much.

Do you happen to have a lot invested in one of these "Bitcoin 2.0" bolt ons to the Bitcoin protocol?

Are they all still sealed in the boxes and shrink wrap and security sticker (MIP)?

Happy ending?

Evidently anything that can be bolted on to the Bitcoin protocol is to be called "Bitcoin 2.0" so any wild idea of something that can be added on is your list of features.

Easy, when it is a new and improved version of the actual Bitcoin protocol - as anyone and everyone would expect it to mean.  We are using the first version of the Bitcoin protocol (1.0) when the next version of the protocol is released that would be called "Bitcoin 2.0"

I wanted to add something here:

It will be Bitcoin 2.0 when it is an improved version of the Bitcoin 1.0 protocol and my Bitcoin 1.0 BTC can be seamlessly and effortlessly converted (or duplicated) into the new version 2.0 BTC in a fair and transparent way (see Peter's proposal).

The new section would be empty.

There are alt coins which are not Bitcoin (litecoin, NXT, dogecoin, etc. too many to list or count).

There are extensions and enhancements to the Bitcoin protocol.  Things that are build on top of or use the Bitcoin protocol like colored coins and Mastercoin, etc.  These are not "Bitcoin 2.0" either.

There is nothing that can properly be called "Bitcoin 2.0", yet.  Nothing.

Dump all your alt coins as quickly and quietly as you can and buy BTC then wait for or create new alt coins based on the distribution model proposed by Peter.  This includes all the latest "darlings" of the alt coin cess pool.

Unless they implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

(which they do not) they will all be wiped out by the first alt that does.

Unless they implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

then don't bother since it will not last.  If they do implement it then by owning BTC you are already in on the ground floor!  Just buy and hold more BTC and you will be able to be in on the ground floor of every coin that implements the suggested initial distribution method.

They will be wiped out by the first true "Bitcoin 2.0" alt coins, coins that implement this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

None of the current alt coins will ever "take btc slot" because they will all be wiped out by the first real "Bitcoin 2.0" coins.

There is no n.  The xpub key desribes a starting point on the eliptic curve and how to get to the next point from any point.  So you start by sending a payment to point P₀, the starting point, and then you can calculate P₁ as a function of P₀.  Once you send to P₁ you calculate P₂ as a function of P₁ and so on "forever".  An xpub key describes an endless (for all practical puposes) sequence of public keys.

The two parties involved just have the agreement that the sender will use each key only once and use them in sequence.  Therefore the receiver just looks through the sequence of keys until they find the last one that has gotten used and then the next one in the sequence is the one the sender will be using next.  All this will be done automatically by your client and the client will just keep all the previously used private keys just in case someone accidently sends BTC to one of the previously used addresses.

I hope that clarifies things.

This is all covered in one of the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) I just don't recall off the top of my head which one.  BIPs are listed here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

I think it is probably described somewhere in #32, if I get a chance I will dig it up for you.

None of the alts in the alt trash can, including those alts, deserve to be called "Bitcoin 2.0"

They will all be totally wiped out by the first coin to implement Peter R's great idea in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

The first coin to implement the initial coin distribution idea described in that thread will be the first coin that might deserve the designation "Bitcoin 2.0", but only if it is actually better than Bitcoin 1.0 in a market defining way.

Until then let's keep all the alts in their own cess pool sub forum so they are easy to ignore.

OK you have hit on a pet issue of mine so sorry in advance for the long post.

My position is that every periodic payment should be done using deterministic key pair generation.  Of course this includes all mining payouts.  The way this would work is that instead of generating a normal private/public key pair and giving the Bitcoin address of the public key to your mining pool for payout you would generate an extended private/public key pair and give the extended public key to the mining pool.

An extended public key contains within it the first public key and information on how to generate an entire sequence of public keys that correspond to the same key pair sequence that is generated by the extended private key.  So the mining pool would send your first payment to the first public key, your second payment to your second public key, your third payment to your third public key, etc.

Meanwhile your client can generate the first private key that corresponds to the first public key, the second private key that corresponds to the second public key, etc. so you can claim/spend the BTC when you are ready.

This way every single periodic payment can be sent to a unique public address.  Cool, right?

However, I do not know of a single pool that supports this payment mechanism.  I do not keep up with all the various mining pools having given up mining at the end of the GPU mining era myself.  So, if there is a pool that supports this please let me know.

All miners should demand this from every pool they use and only use pools that support this mechanism.

In the mean time, while waiting for this to be implemented system wide, the next best thing you can do is create an address that you only use for your mining income and nothing else.  Never spend these coins directly.  Instead always send them through a mixer before you use them or at least send them through a few rounds of coinjoin transactions (called shared send on the blockchain.info wallet) before you use them.