The $1K was just an application fee.  You are asking to create an entire new TLD and the requirements and costs are significant.

Nope just was some alternate TLD system used by essentially nobody.  So you do own .bitcoin on a system nobody uses (and almost certainly nobody will use in the future).

It is the first one I am aware of.  I am sure trades occurred between individuals on an adhoc basis prior to that but NLS was the first (very crude) attempt to quantity the current exchange rate.

The site is no longer up (you might be able to find copies in internet archive)
http://newlibertystandard.wetpaint.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate

First reported exchange rate was $1 = 1,309.03 BTC on 05 OCT 2009.

Those early exchanges were more like a trade listing (like some altcoins now do with spreadsheets) than an automated exchange which users deposit funds to.  I doubt anyone kept detailed trade logs and volume records because honestly nobody knew for sure Bitcoin was even going to be worth $1 much less $1,000.

Title should be changed to PMC community "discovers" bug already known (with potential fix) in 2012.

Every single transaction?

Start at block zero.  Get a list of all transaction hashes for the block.  goto the next block and repeat.  Continue until you reach the current block.
I have no idea why you would want to do that though.  Maybe this is an xy problem?

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem

Then why make the thread to begin with?  Don't bother I won't be able to see it.  Life it too short.

Well that is an unproven assumption.  MtGox has provided no clarity.  We have no idea how many coins were stolen.  MtGox has never explicitly articulated how many coins were stolen, by how many people and over how long of a time period.

As for "controlling" the exchange rate.  So they dump it, ok now they don't have the coins anymore and the exchange rate will recover.   Bitcoin rewards the "smart" thing to do.  If an attacker had 800K BTC they could sell it off slowly and be rich for the rest of their lives, or they could dump it all, very likely never be able to cash it out due to AML/KYC type requirements, and cause a short term drop in the exchange rate.  Are you always afraid of every shadow?  There is no evidence that a single attacker has all the coins, and if they do there is no evidence they would be downright idoitic with them.  

I mean do you really believe that Bitcoin can be completely annihilated by a single entity acquiring 800,000 BTC and selling them?  If so why are you here?  If Bitcoin can be destroyed by one person selling too many of them too quickly then it was worthless from the first day.  Even if no thief current has that many, at current exchange rates buying a million coins wouldn't be beyond the abilities of a well funded malicious entity.  It would be a tiny fraction of the cost of a 51% attack and your claim is that short of a network killing fork there is nothing that can stop them from destroying Bitcoin by just clicking the sell button.

Some of us believe Bitcoin will do just fine, and the biggest risk is rushing to implementing some dubious "fixes" based on little more than "we have to do something".

It isn't a "fear" (your proposal was DOA before you wrote it) but you are talking about wilfully double spending wealth (let me use simpler words STEALING) from existing users in order to "undo" a mistake which has nothing to do with Bitcoin itself and everything to do with the actions of a private party and the people who mistakenly trusted them.

That is your solution?  The solution is a thousand times worse than the problem and the problem has nothing to do with Bitcoin and everything to do with a private party that people voluntarily chose to use.

Saying the network has been forked before that is a strawman.  Orphans are short lived and are known in advance to miners as a cost of mining.   Patches to the network normally do not produce long running forks and have been used to CORRECT FLAWS IN THE NETWORK NOT COMPENSATE THE LOSS OF A NEGLIGENT OR CORRUPT PRIVATE PARTY (i.e. NOT A BAILOUT).   The one notable exception was the berkeley db bug which caused a long run split in the network.   Miners did decide to switch to the shorter fork however it is important to note that the abandoned fork was only 78 blocks long which means the coins were immature and couldn't be spent.  No user could have received coins from miners and then had those coins erased by the miners as a result.   Making the fork before block 100 was a big factor in the decision to move when quickly.  If the major fork had gone longer than 100 blocks it is very likely the other (older) fork would have been abandoned instead.

You are talking about STEALING FUNDS from innocent third parties by undoing 3000+ blocks of transaction data.  "Fixing" the losses from MtGox, by cluster fucking the entire network.  Merchants, users, and exchanges who did nothing wrong and had no connection to MtGox would suddenly see coins vanish and you think that will be ok?   You think that will make people trust Bitcoin?   You think that anyone would use a currency where a user can do everything right, wait 3,000 confirmations and still have wealth erased by a third party through no fault of their own?  Are you insane?  Would you use that system? Would anyone who is informed of the risks?

The PubKeyHash is the pubkeyhash of the receiver.  You don't need to know or care about if they used a compressed or uncompressed pubkey because you aren't "sending" coins to the PubKey you are sending it to the PubKeyHash.  The output of the transaction will contain the receiver's pubkeyhash, you don't need to know more than that.

As for the question of if your PubKey(s) for a particular transactions are compressed or uncompressed, that depends on the wallet which originally created them and which form it used.  The wallet should store the PubKey in the correct format.  When importing a private key you create the correct PubKey format depending on the flag in the private key.  The WIF for private keys has a "flag" to allow you to identify if the PubKey should be compressed or uncompressed.  If they key was originally a compressed PubKey then you will recreate a compressed PubKey and if it was originally an uncompressed one, you will recreate an uncompressed one.

As pointed out above originally uncompressed pubkeys were used.  There is absolutely no reason that was done other than Satoshi probably was not aware of compressed pubkeys.  There is no advantage to Uncompressed PubKeys and they make the wallet, transactions, blocks, and logs larger for no benefit.  Today any competent wallet designer should make all NEW keypairs compressed.  A competent wallet designer however needs to consider that a user may important EXISTING key and that key may use an uncompressed PubKey so it needs to handle both formats.  Any wallet today creating new uncompressed pubkeys has a developer who is either uninformed or lazy.

All of this is far below the level of an end users.  Unless you are designing a wallet/client you should never need to make this determination.  If you are designing a wallet your line of questions would indicate you need to stop NOW and do more research.

There wasn't $300M worth of assets actively trading on MtGox the day it shutdown.  If the only people who had funds on MtGox were those actively trading or those in the process of making a conversion MtGox would still have failed but the size and scope of the loss would have been magnitudes smaller.   The negligence or malfesence by MtGox was amplified because you had people using it was a wallet and even a form of long term storage.  Lots of reports of people who had coins marked there for months, not trading, not withdrawing just sitting there like some (very insecure) safety deposit box for Bitcoins.

You do understand you will never convince miners to erase 3,000 blocks of the blockchain however if you did, then Bitcoin is done.  Remember over those 3,000 blocks, newly mined coins have been involved in transactions and this action would double spend all of those.  The coins originally minted would never exist and thus the coins spent wouldn't.  Merchants, other users, exchanges would all see the downstream transactions (which have 6 ro 3,000+ confirmations) suddenly go unconfirmed and invalid.

While this in theory could be done at any time it is generally accepted to be impossible.  If miners by decree can double spend transaction not 1 or 2 confirmations into the blockchain but 3,000 blocks deep then no receiver can ever be sure that the transaction is irreversible.  There is a certain level of faith in all currencies that create the perception of value, and Bitcoin is no exception.  Among those faiths, Bitcoin users believe that while it is possible in theory to 51% the network and undo transactions thousands of blocks deep, that it would have such an economic cost that it infeasible.  All users accept this faith or they wouldn't be using bitcoin (or would require 10,000+ confirmations before concluding the transaction).  Your proposed action (although I think it has no chance) if successful would break that faith.  Without faith in the irreversibility of transactions, there is no value or utility to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin would be dead.  I am not talking the exchange rate goes down a bit and recovers, I mean completely abandoned as a worthless experiment and development moves on to future systems which don't have the vulnerability (likely some floating checkpoint system which acts as a check to the proof of work).

How do you use a currency that at any time could simply be "undone" and erased from your wallet by the actions of a third party?  Would you use that currency?  I know I wouldn't.  I genuinely feel sorry for those who lost significant amounts of money by misplacing their trust in MtGox but this is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease.

Bitcoin does work without the need for a trusted third party.   That being said you can't by technology prohibit people from using a third party.  Satoshi never outlined a system which would prohibit voluntary association.  Sadly many people opts out of the trusted third party model by using MtGox.  Not just using them as a temporary exchange service (and yes even in a model which has no trusted third party there is a level of trust needed between consumer and merchant/service provider), but using them as a long term storage of coins.  In essence using them as a bank without insurance or oversight.   

MtGox is dead.  Bitcoin still functions.  I made transactions all week long and none of them failed or were delayed because of MtGox.  Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology and for many concepts like


until now have seemed like quaint phrases.  Many people will never see the risk until after the catastrophic event.   It has now happened.  Hopefully people (collectively) will learn from this and use Bitcoin as Satoshi intended.  Keep control of your own wealth and don't hand that responsibility over to an untrusted third party.

The QT client uses the OS level random number generator to generate private keys.  If values of PRNG could be recomputed, then anyone could recompute any other persons private keys.  Bitcoin would fail and so would essentially all other crypto.  PRNG while not truly random are designed to make such recomputation infeasible.  They don't just use a timestamp, they pull data from an entropy pool which is filled with sources like # of disk I/O failures in last x seconds,  random noise from sound card DAC, temperature of processor, the timing (in milliseconds) between keystrokes on the keyboard, the mouse movement data, the latency recorded on IDE calls.

To recompute a PRNG value would require not just the timestamp of the value but recreating the system in the exact same configuration as it was at the time the random value was requested.  This is nearly impossible unless there is some flaw in the PRNG and even then you would need some extensive cryptanalysis and a lot of computing power (i.e may take quadrillions of attempts to recompute the target value).

Of course it is also possible to generate private keys using a true hardware random number generator (quantum random number generator is one example).  For those there is no method, not even theoretical to recompute the generated number.

This I agree on.  MtGox alleges they don't have 800K BTC that they "should have".  There are about a half dozen credible theories as to why that is the case.  MtGox has been totally silent and opaque on the issue.  Mark's comments to date have been either false or vague to the point of being useless.

Until MtGox provides some clarity on EXACTLY how they ended up short 800K BTC, it is all academic speculation.

Anyone who did, probably reacted like this

This shouldn't be in press subforum.

So MtGox is too big to fail and there should be "super users" who have the ability to generate hundreds of thousands of new coins by decree?  You have just reinvented the existing banking system.  Bitcoin was suppose to be digital gold.  If a ship carrying 750,000 ounces of gold for a depository sunk in irrecoverably deep water and the depository was uninsured you couldn't just magic up another 750,000 ounces of gold.

Any hard fork or alteration of the core bitcoin rules essentially has no chance of consensus and if it did it would undermine all the touted benefits of Bitcoin.  What is different about "Gavin" (as if he had the power) minting 750,000 BTC by decree, compared to the federal reserve printing a sum of USD from nothing?

Yeah I read it an it is utter nonsense written by someone who doesn't understand that private keys are random and addresses are derived from those private keys.  

Private key a is a random 256 bit number.  Using ECDSA and priv_key a produces pubkey A which is hashed and cheksumed to form address AA.  A proper wallet would record "a" and "AA".  If MtGox's custom wallet was broken such that after randomly generating "a" instead of producing address "AA" it produced address "BB" then contrary to the linked post, there is no way to find private key "b" from address "BB".  The coins are now at "BB" which has an unknown key and they were never sent to "AA" which is the address for the key MtGox has.

The linked post is just a theory and if right (MtGox doesn't have the private keys from the addresses containing 800,000 BTC) then those coins are "gone" forever*.  If you could "recover" those coins then it wouldn't really matter because Bitcoin is completely broken and worthless.

Furthermore I would add nobody even knows if this is the case.  Mark (and his lawyers) have been very vague on the exact status of the "lost/stolen/missing/unavailable" coins and the reason for that status.   


* Well at least until the cryptographic primitives are weakened by cryptanalysis to make a brute force attack possible which could be 0 to infinite years from now.

There is no such thing as "fixing private keys".   Private keys are simply random 256 bit numbers.  You either have them or you don't.

If MtGox either
a) doesn't have the private keys for the coins in their wallet
or
b) they have the private keys but the coins have been moved (given to attackers, stolen years ago in prior hacks, embezzled)

there is nothing short of a hard fork to mint new coins for MtGox that anyone can do.

I wouldn't read too much into it.  Most companies seek reorganization instead of liquidation (that would be Ch 11 vs Ch 7 in the US).  However the overwhelming majority of companies that enter bankruptcy protection never leave it.  MtGox has a massive hole in its finances, its CEO hasn't been forthcoming with information.  Any company buying MtGox out would become liable for MtGox's liabilities even those not fully disclosed by the CEO.

No infusion of capital = failed reorganization = company liquidated.