You are asking to buy 250 x 1,100 or about $275,000 worth of Bitcoins.

Is that correct?

If so, how do you want to pay?  Cash?  Bank transfer?

There are people who can help you here if you are serious.

Not quite sure I understand what you wrote there.  I am going to assume English is not your native language and translate it for you:

It is not risky to give this guy 0.02 BTC - there is no risk in charity.

PLEASE, for the love of god, PLEASE search for this and do not start another thread on this subject (address collision) there are at least 1,000 threads on this subject already.

Oh, I see:  anyone who would buy such a list, as opposed to just downloading a free one = too stupid to know how to use it.  Got it.

Still kind of wondering why you think you will or why you think there is any BTC left there.

Oh, maybe you think there is BTC left there just because your account shows a number of BTC?

But, in fact, all the BTC are gone.  Your BTC are gone.

Don't understand your comment.  It sounds very easy:

1) Buy or get a list of the one million most common pass phrases and passwords.
2) Generate the one million private keys by doing PrivateKey = SHA(password)
3) Generate the one million Bitcoin addresses from the one million private keys
4) Set up to sweep all coins sent to any of these one million Bitcoin addresses into your personal wallet
5) Wait for some sucker to use one of those password/phrases and profit!

Or better yet do this with two million password/phrases.

Sure it would take a few hours to do but "almost impossible"?

But...  inputs.io is closed.  We all have already made our claims and all the BTC that was left after the hack has been distributed.  Right?

Off topic but it looks like one of the only alt coins that is not a simple fork or clone of Bitcoin:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220530.0

They claim using a tree structure rather than a chain allows them to fix the zero confirmation double spend issue.  However, I have not studied it yet.  I barely have enough time to study Bitcoin.  I have been involved with Bitcoin for almost three years now and I still learn new things about it on a weekly basis.

A bit more on this.  How can a vendor accept BTC and ship you the product instantly and still be somewhat protected?  This is not a trivial issue and actually is a topic of a lot technical discussion by the developers.

We actually need this if BTC are to be accepted at for example Starbuck's.  You want the customer to be able to pay for their coffee and then get the coffee without having to wait for the first confirmation.  Also note that 10 minutes for a confirmation is an average time.  It can be anywhere from a few seconds to hours before the transation is placed into a block in the blockchain.

One proposal is:

Wait to see the broadcast of the transaction to the network (almost instant).
Wait about 15 seconds or so to make sure that another spend of the same coins does not happen from anywere else on the planet.  That is about how much time it takes a broadcast transaction to propagate through the world wide network.

Can this still be gamed?  Yes.  In fact the customer can get their coffee, sit down at their computer and spend that same coin somewhere else on the internet.  However by waiting the 15 seconds Starbuck's is confident that their transaction will be first in line at all the miners in the world.

There is one serious hole in this method.  If the Starbuck's transaction has a miners fee of say 0.0001 and the second transaction has a larger fee of say 0.0002 then some of the miners may pick the second transaction to include in their block and drop the first one.  If they do that and they win the block race then Starbuck's is out the money for that transaction.

This is totally untrue.  You are mixing up two totally different topics.  Please do not do that as you will just confuse yourself and everyone else.

Topic one:  a 0 confirmation double spend
Topic two:  a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network

Since this thread is about confirmations and not about network attacks I will not address a 51% attack here except to fix your comment and say it does not belong in this thread:

Now, fixing the rest of your comment:

A double/multiple spend is very simple if you have two or more vendors that accept your BTC with zero confirmation and instantly ship you the product.  Here is how you do it:

You have an unspent output of 1 BTC
You send it to the first vendor's address, they accept the coin with 0 confirmations and ship you the product.
Now you have about 10 minute before the transaction is put in a block and gets the first confirmation
So, you simply log into the second vendor site and send the same coin to them, they also accept the coin with no confirmation and send you the product.
See?  You can spend that same coin as many times as you want.

Eventually one of the spends will get confirmed and all the other spends of the same coin will get dropped.

One vendor will get paid, all the rest are screwed because they have shipped the product and got nothing for it.

I think that just about wraps this up then.

There is one that uses a block tree instead of a chain but still a public record of all transactions.

Well in summary I think we can all agree:

Anyone can create an alternate coin with any properties they want (constant reward, variable reward, growing reward, shorter block times, longer block times, etc.)

They can create this new alternate coin with or without the current Bitcoin history.

A cartel, government or individual can create and market any alt coin they want to.  Theoretically they could do a better marketing job than Bitcoin and even become more popular than Bitcoin.

A miner can choose which transactions to include and which transactions to not include in their blocks.  If they systematically refuse certain transactions over others then the transactions that get refuse can be delayed.  Miners are not even required to put any transactions in their blocks if they do not want to.

Anyone that thinks that Bitcoin is fatally flawed is welcome to sell all their BTC and create and market their own coins.

Bitcoin is a pretty successful experiment so far.

AnonyMint is very convinced of his position and he is not going to change it.

A lot of us are not convinced by any of his points to date.

Time will tell who is actually right - and we won't have to wait that long to find out:

I asked you to tell me if there was anything more to this attack vector.  You have not added anything except the fact that the cartel can help secure the B chain by hashing for them.

So far the bottom line is that there would be two chains and two coins and the market would decide how to value and use each of them.  After this attack Bitcoin remains and there is simply another alt coin - there is nothing more to say unless I have not captured your concern.

If I have not then please let me know exactly what additional assumption would need to be added to the OP.

The more confirmations you get the safer it is to assume the Bitcoins have in deed been transferred to you.  Normally after 6 confirmations you can be certain that the coins are yours.

Also, you can always prove you did send coins to an address because anyone can look at the address and see whether the coins are there or not.

Did that answer your questions?

Maybe you have a more specific instance?  Did this happen?  Did someone claim they never got the coins?  If so all you have to do is post the transaction ID here and all the world will be able to see the address(es) the coins came from and the address(es) they went to.  There is no ambiguity.  If someone asks you to send coins to their address and they give you a valid address then it is a matter of public record as to whether they were sent or not.

If the A chain cartel/attacker uses any of their hashing power to produce valid blocks for the B chain then, by definition, it is not an attack at all.  Any miner, not just the A chain cartel miners, can include whatever valid BTCB transactions they see fit into their valid B chain blocks.  This includes the option to not include any transactions at all in their blocks.

You cannot seriously consider the use of hashing power to create valid B chain blocks by the A chain cartel an attack.

Also we have shown up thread that a split in the blockchain cannot really be considered an attack.  It is simply the creation of an alternate coin.  Once the BTCC coins are exhausted you are just left with the BTCA and BTCB coins.  BTCA is just another in a growing number of alternatives to the original Bitcoins.

This is a point I tried to make in another thread, everyone that has C coins can spend them on both networks.  Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this work:

Take 1 BTCA, 1 BTCB and 100 BTCC.  Now create the two transacions:

Inputs:  1 BTCA + 100 BTCC; Outputs: 101 BTCA is valid on the A network, dropped on the B network

Inputs:  1 BTCB + 100 BTCC; Outputs: 101 BTCB is valid on the B network, dropped on the A network

So I started with 102 coins and ended up with 202 coins.

Great point and the reason I started this thread!  So eventually all the BTCC will get used up and you would end up with only BTCA and BTCB coins.