Does the Bitcoin Foundation even have a business plan they could present?

I'd rather see some projects like GLBSE (yes, it went down ugly...) applying there, as they actually are using Bitcoin to create unique new services, not just providing them for people to play with (and buy/sell of course).

Please release a forked chain of Bitcoin in this case and don't just speculate (I think there are a lot of people here who might disagree with you, me amongst them). All the tools for that are readily available as is the code.

Again, please prove us wrong, don't just talk - do!

Mal schaun was deren Kontogebühren dann sind bzw. wieviel KYC die betreiben müssen (und wie sie genau EUR <--> BTC umrechnen wollen?).

Generell aber schon mal ne sehr coole Sache das Ganze!

Zu allen deinen Fragen:
1. Bitte kein Leerziechen vor Satzzeichen.
2. Das ist im Paper von Satoshi beschrieben (insbes. Punkt 6), wenn auch nur sehr kurz.
3. Gebührenfrei ist ein Märchen und stimmt nicht - man sollte das auch nicht weiterverbreiten. Meist extrem niedrige Gebühren, ja. Keine Gebühren, nein.

I'd like to give you 30 EUR for 100 BTC...

...but seriously I don't understand your post at all. As far as I got from your other posts, you propose to have country specific blockchains to make price discovery easier (and survive netsplits) and use IP addresses to enforce this.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really hard to get an IP address in nearly any country in this world. IPv6 won't change that. The idea seems interesting but maybe a bit ahead of it's time right now (even the "international bitcoin" is not widely adopted at all).

The idea is quite old (I think I saw even a quote of satoshi himself proposing this somewhere) - still noone has actually DONE it!
Please code this, don't just propose.

Geht eig. noch was vor Weltuntergang oder müssen wir schon hoffen, dass die Mayas lügen (aka. wann ist ca. das nächste Treffen angesetzt)?

Bad example:

The difference is like giving you a cheque that you can cash and teaching you how to forge my signature to sign one single transaction that I know about.

I know you want this functionality because of your coins and whatnot, but seriously I'd rather have sweeping private keys/wallets as a web service than within the client.
There needs to be a better way to keep bitcoins "portable" (= not under my control anymore but anyone else can redeem them to any address) than to give away private keys.

About vanity addresses, as far as I saw one can already combine a private key to such an address made up of 2 parts (so people can mine for them without knowing the private key), so that could be built in in some point of time. As you still need to have the 2nd part unique (and to your own) that doesn't solve the "physical bitcoin coin" issue though that anyone should be able to redeem.

I would narrow the statement down to "don't let him talk in public/in front of a big audience about bitcoin until he has more experience in that".

Public speaking skills are something you're rarely born with and depending on personality don't come easily. I bet though that any student will agree with me that when put under pressure you come up with stupid stuff that you wouldn't believe afterwards that you were capable of saying. As far as I've seen, Genjix/Amir has write quite a bit of code of Bitcoin clients, so he probably has some more insights into the system than the audience. Not being able to communicate that is bad, but not as bad as you make it look.

Could you please record a video of you explaining Bitcoin (or MPEX?) to a big crowd? TedX Events are also big in Romania and I bet they would love to hear about alternative currencies or even a romanian stock exchange based on internet funny money!

I believe on the contrary that private keys should be kept private as much as possible and never exposed to users to "redeem" or "swipe" in the first place. Importing private keys for anything else than constantly monitoring their addresses and swiping them is dangerous at best and leads to a lot of coins lost at worst.

I'd rather have people come up with a way to create signed transactions that can go to any address and trade these around than exposing private keys and thinking about how to swipe them again and who else might have seen them.

If private keys are being sweeped, should the client still store these keys and sweep any further payments to these addresses too?

I think yes.

Most of these are because of bad marketing.

Nearly every source also mentions mining as one of the main sources of Bitcoins and often goes far more into detail with that instead of focussing on the actual use cases of Bitcoin itself.

Also very often the "NO FEES, FREE MICROTRANSACTIONS, F*CK PAYPAL" attitude comes along additionally - this is not true now in some cases and will never be true in the future (when block rewards go down further and further).

Synchronisation will be sped up by the use of bootstrap.dat soon(tm) and I don't know if 0.8 does some additional magic with that. I also further looked into Metalinks and it seems one can even PGP-sign them - so if you trust the main bitcoin devs to compile the client for you, you could also trust them to give you a fairly recent copy of the blockchain along with it.

Sorry, but bitcoin is a 0 trust system. You need to make people aware of whom they are trusting and what is important to keep private/to themselves in each case.

With blockchain.info, you trust that their website is malware free and that they don't snoop on you themselves.
I haven't looked into Multibit, but it seems like a "lite" client, so you trust someone else who has the full blockchain to not lie to you I guess.
With Bitcoin-QT all you have to care about is that only you have access to the wallet.dat file (which is hidden in a place that is VERY inconvenient for new users btw. - I recently read about someone who installed Bitcoin to the desktop, then backed up this folder and reinstalled Windows, thus loosing his whole BTC, even though he backed up the Bitcoin folder that he explicitly put in a prominent location to remind him to keep it!). The downside is that you have to download quite a few blocks (currently all, in the future probably all since the last hardcoded checkpoint) before the software even lets you get going.

I'd rather have a link to an even more recent "bootstrap.dat" file on various P2P networks + HTTP locations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalink) and a button inside Bitcoin-QT to verify from genesis for the paranoid instead of advertising solutions that require far more trust in some operators of webservices.

Also a hard spec for wallet files (how to store private keys for Bitcoin) should be discussed and maybe written as a BIP so different clients have a standard format to export/import wallets.

Und, wie war's? Leider wird im Wiki ja nicht viel mitdokumentiert und heute Abend war ich verhindert - hoffentlich geht sich's das nächste Mal aus.

Well, besides Bots:
What about OpenSource games?

Implement a tournament mode for example where you have to pay an entry fee and then get rewarded per kill or buy ammunition with BTC or something along these lines?

There are OpenSource remakes of a lot of popular games out there and forking these for example to implement a Bitcoin module is allowed and might even (if the developers there like it) be included upstream. Also it might be a nice playground for some of these proposed Bitcoin Microtransaction schemes, where you jsut hand out a transaction that gets constantly updated while playing and then broadcated later on.

gepaart mit einem 1-Post Account dürfte wohl dazu führen, dass nur wenig Interesse besteht...

Nur mal so als Hinweis.

An interesting project might be writing a Bitcoin client tailored to the needs of miners, setting custom fee schemes etc. might be something that could really benefit them. You could also think of some things that they might immediately like e.g. payout transactions that are signed and transmitted from other pools get included in blocks for free.

Edit:
A big part of Armory is also written in Python.

In this case however a lot of people in this thread are demanding something from Wikipedia - to accept donations in a currency they explicitly don't support in receiving.

As I said - just donating anything is like for example donating fridges on the north pole. A nice gesture maybe, but neither useful nor needed. I also work at an NGO that might like to get Bitcoin donations, but currently it looks like it's impossible to pull off, for example because payment providers like BitPay don't send SEPA transfers to my country (which is in the SEPA zone...) and holding Bitcoins (even donated ones) is a certain risk and takes more work than the potential benefits.

Wikipedia also doesn't allow me to send them Plutonium or Gold or any other precious metal by mail! I cannot give them stock certificates I own, I can't donate Litecoins and I can't send them the Picasso in my living room...

https://bitpay.com/terms


Edit:
Sounds very much like an US point of view. Ever been travelling in Europe before the Euro (or in a lot of countries still without Euro)? You will quickly learn that small amounts of money in any obscure currency but your own is useless - which is why e.g. services like Paypal exist that take a lot of smaller payments to convert them to whatever they need to. If you go to the US and try to buy a burger with a 2€ coin, good luck with that. I still have about the equivalent of a few EUR in foreign currencies lying around at home (I think USD as well) that are completely useless, as I can't exchange them or buy anything with them (even mailing them to that country would cost more than the money's worth).

Having useless stuff lying around actually has opportunity costs and as this beggar can't expect to ever use the 5$ bill, he's better off not taking it at all than having to store it somewhere and maybe even getting into trouble with his colleagues or anything else. Same with Wikipedia - if they don't accept BTC, accept that! Even if you put up 1 BTC in escrow that has to be claimed by them, there's probably too much hassle or overhead to get it converted to something they can use. Since services like BitPay offer to pay in USD instead, just do that or stop demanding to pay someone with something that's not usable to this person/entity.

If I decide to donate to you 5000 litres of milk (which are also worth something) you'd also try to sell it (which might be in some cases as hard as selling Bitcoins) and have BTC or USD or EUR or whatever and have great trouble with that instead of enjoying the great gift of fresh milk you've gotten.

Also if you wanted to do this yourself (register a merchant account and offer a button to donate to something you consider worth donating to) you would act against BitPay's TOS...