This sounds pretty good.  I might use a variant on that at one point.

To address the criticism that using one passphrase means the whole wallet is lost once the passphrase is gained, there's no reason you can't have multiple passphrases.  It seems to me that any deterministic wallet generation scheme is vulnerable if the seed is compromised.

Is there a tool that can be used offline that generates a public key from a sha256?  Preferably in javascript or shell script?

What about writing down the secret (with archival quality materials) and storing it in a safe deposit box?

Thank you very much.

Thanks, and sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

Is there a way to turn it on by default?

My outbox for pms always shows up as empty, so I have no way to double check if my messages were sent or not.  Can anything be done about this?

So, dollar cost averaging is the way to go I guess.  Should I do it by day, by week, by month, or does it matter?

@Stephen Gornick- I can give you some of the details of this situation by pm if you like.

In this hypothetical scenario, it's not practical for me to withdraw directly through any means this exchange provides, so I need to convert it all to bitcoin.

What would be the best strategy?

Dollar cost averaging over a couple of months?

Just make a large bid for current market value?

Something else?

What would you do?

Now granted I've been away from the country and haven't been following the news from back home, but this struck me as an unnecessary law.

If you claim to be a veteran so that people will think you're a hero, what more suitable punishment if you're caught could there be than the punishment you'll get without government intervention?  What could be more fitting than the punishment of having those same people think you're a pathetic fool?

Ok, thanks again, and good night.

Well, thanks everyone.  I think I have a clearer picture now.

The right to vote could in theory be decided by something other than geography.  Service to the country, for example.

I know there's a danger that those who gain the right to vote could give themselves power over and oppress those who haven't, but isn't that what happens now?

Hm, I guess this would be a form of citizenship, actually.

You mean the right to enter and seek employment in a given country?  I'm not talking about taking away those rights, I'm talking about extending them to everyone.

Ok, I guess we need a new term for the system wherein the legal privileges of an individual are increased or decreased on the basis of the spatial position of one's mother when she gave birth to said individual.  

Maybe "serfdom" is the word for it after all.

In what sense are we overpopulated and/or starving to death, and what does it matter how much land is used for agriculture?  Most overpopulated countries I know of are more concerned about land for housing, industry, and commercial purposes.

I know this has its flaws (feel free to point them out), but I would like it if there was no such thing as citizenship.  The only tax would be a land tax, and anyone regardless of national origin could be a landowner.  People would be free to come and go as they please, to work, visit, or live.  Of course, this means that social programs that couldn't be redesigned to adapt would have to be abolished.

As it is, I don't like the idea that I, like the serfs of yore, belong to a certain piece of land.

What I had more in mind was that you are incapable of communicating the danger to him.  Perhaps he doesn't understand your language, or is too far away to hear you.  In addition, perhaps he believes it will do something good.  I suppose it comes down to how much he's responsible for the damage?

Another question I would ask everyone in this thread:  Does it change your position if the one person you have to kill to save everyone is yourself?

Interesting, so what distinguishes him from the random person that you wouldn't kill?  He is the cause of death, but he may as well have been randomly selected to be the cause of death.

Hypothetically, would that change if he didn't know that pushing the button would kill everyone, and couldn't be convinced?


As to the topic, I really can't say I have one rule that I'd follow in every situation.  I guess that means my morals are weak, but my decision wouldn't be perfectly logical.

Well, that may improve bitcoins appeal as a payment service, but any affect on the price of a single BTC would be indirect.  The price will probably go up as bitcoin is more widely adopted, but it seems like it's based on speculation, hoarding, and demand.  All of these things would likely increase if bitcoin became more widely accepted, if only because it would be more visible.

I'm trying to figure out what, if any, effect the businesses themselves have on the price.  Whenever the price of BTC spikes due to media attention, people say it's a bubble, but what else is there to give BTC value besides attention?

I've only made a limited study in economics, so I'm a little confused here.  I'm hoping someone with a better understanding can clear this up for me.

Until recently, like many here apparently do, I assumed that as more businesses started offering goods and services in exchange for bitcoin the value would rise.  After all, the value in any currency is in what you can buy with it, and therefore increasing the size of the economy should increase the value of the currency.

Recently, though, it occurred to me that you can already buy pretty much anything with bitcoin.  How?  By exchanging it for fiat.

After all, isn't this what many companies will do anyway?  They may accept bitcoin as a payment option, but some time after you give it to them, they'll exchange it.

So, are bitcoin businesses really that important to giving value to bitcoin?  If not, then what does give it value?  Like I said, I hope someone can clear this up for me.  Thanks.

My apologies for leaving this thread unanswered for so long.  I'm in the process of sending PMs now.