Agreed. It looks like (for now) Bitcoin is following the markets - perhaps a surprising thing, but it's been doing so lately. Futures are on the rise today also. Relation?

What's driving this rally?

http://www.fxkeys.com/doji-candlestick-doji-star-how-to-trade-using-doji-candlestick-and-bollinger-bands/

Confirmed!

Glad you got it working!  I find that -i (to drop you into the interpreter after execution) particularly helpful when debugging python programs.

Satoshis always apprecated (profile address works fine), symbolic or otherwise

Let me know if you're still stuck.

I assume you can figure out how to convert your number into 256bit hex? 

If so, the following works fine for me:


^^^ That's python, but you could use another language if you want.  In the above, key_hex is a string.  Here's an example of me using it.:

import bitcoin

>>> k="1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"
>>> privateKeyToWif(k)
'5HwoXVkHoRM8sL2KmNRS217n1g8mPPBomrY7yehCuXC1115WWsh'
>>> privateKeyToWif(k, compressed=True)
'KwntMbt59tTsj8xqpqYqRRWufyjGunvhSyeMo3NTYpFYzZbXJ5Hp'

>>> privateKeyToWif(k)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'privateKeyToWif' is not defined

BTC price has never seen this stability EVER - so hold on to your butts, we're in for a brutal ride one way or the other.

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

You seem to be assuming that there is specific reason to believe the
message is unauthentic.  This is not the case.

Contrary to other poster's claims, if the message had been PGP signed
that might, in fact, have arguably been weak evidence that it was
unauthentic: no message from the system's creator that I (or
apparently anyone) was aware of was ever signed with that key.

The headers on the message check out.  The mail server in question is
also not an open relay.  At the moment the only reason I have to doubt
the authenticity of it is merely the fact that it exists after so much
air silence, but that isn't especially strong.

In the presence of doubt, it's better to take it just for its content.
And on that front it is more on-topic, civil, and productively
directed than a substantial fraction of new messages on the list.  I
certainly do not see a reason to hide it.

A focus on the content is especially relevant because one of the core
messages in the content is a request to eschew arguments from
authority; which is perhaps the greatest challenge here: How can the
founder of a system speak up to ask people to reject that kind of
argument without implicitly endorsing that approach through their own
act?

This whole tangest is a waste of time.  If you believe the message is
unauthentic or not the best response is the same as if it is
authentic. Focus on the content. If its worth responding to, do. If
it's not don't. Then move on with life.

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.

The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that.  Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.

There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.

It is equally important to recognize the actual utility value of Bitcoin. I wouldn't blame anyone on foregoing transactional use of Bitcoin seeing its very real shortcomings as a payment system. Let us be honest with ourselves this system is absolutely not ready for mainstream consumer acceptance and we shouldn't be concerned about consumers looking the other way.

Give it some time and the necessary infrastructure and tools to abstract the highly technical and generally confusing nature of Bitcoin will be built. We should also admit that these mainstream users looking for an efficient payment system do not care at all about the decentralization or security of the thing. Let's be real here regular joes just want something that works, centralized or not.

The people pouring big money into Bitcoin (I'm talking about buying bitcoins) couldn't care about its transaction capacity at the moment. Most rational investors are in it for the long haul and a majority of the coins are kept in cold storage and paper wallets where they haven't and won't move for years.

There shouldn't be any urgency to cater to a userbase which is inexistent as it stands. Technology will evolve over the next few years and will provide the necessary tools for proper, actual scaling of the system. No amount of block size increase will allow us to serve a mainstream consumer base doing hundreds of thousands of transactions per seconds. Bitcoin is not designed to handle this load while staying secure & decentralized.

Physical? Hard to calculate. Every jeweler, coin shop, pawnshop, futures settlement, paper gold redemption, dentist, mint, speaker wire purchase and bottle of Goldschläger would have to be included. I'm certain it's orders of magnitude over 7 tps.

That's true...except for capacity.  There is no limit to the number of gold transactions/second.