Out of nowhere? I attribute the October '13 runup to increased confidence after the SR bust.

Maybe we should bust SR2?

Just out of curiosity: how excactly would you audit the airdrop?

I think you're jumping to conclusions, see my previous post.

The service can't scam you if you do it right: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=240779.msg2564277#msg2564277

If you're too lazy to wrap your head around this simple concept, then shut up, stop throwing around scam accusations and explain how the service would go about scamming people who don't send their complete wallet, just the keys with no money on them.

I've tried it... once. ebay and paypal suck for sellers. Got an ok price, but the fees and regulations ruined the fun.


good idea

I think price has only dropped in BTC terms, not USD terms. Correct?

I recall BTC 6 about a year ago. Bitcoin was at $180 or so back then. So price in fiat has risen, in fact.

The "numismatic markup" doesn't scale with BTCUSD rate.

Have you talked to nite96 (or was it nite69?). Afaik he (they?) ported bitcoinj already for use in the schildbach android AUR wallet, no?

EDIT: this maybe: https://github.com/Nite69/bitcoinj-scrypt.git

I don't understand that reasoning.

Offline trades don't move the markets we look at (at least not directly), so the rally can't be "due to offline whales".

And also: what do you mean by "not enough volume to support the rally"?

Thanks for anyones explanation.

you clearly need to think about doing something else. Cause this looks painful!

In awe we stare at the monster we created.

How is this bullish? At least in the long run, the respective longs have to be closed, resulting in a sell.

thanks for your answer.

let me comment on the items in your list while thinking of RFC6979 compliance testing (assuming it's possible and done by at least some):


RFC6979 non-compliance can be detected with any single transaction above 10 BTC (there are going to be many of these, because "change")  


RFC6979 compliance test will result in: FAIL (or am I wrong here? not sure)


even if they only leak the seed in a low percentage of transactions, there is risk of detection by RFC6979 compliance test. Once detected, shit hits fan and it's over for them. Risk too high for reward (at least compared to when using random k)


Since all of above are weak approaches, this one is also weak.


In my opinion it's not. True random k cannot be checked for at all. It's easy to slowly leak the seed (bit by bit if need be, or completely in one go XORed with or encrypted to attacker secret) in the "random" numbers without anyone being able to prove it. (just noticed XOR would be a bad idea since it would enable "freeloaders")

Storage is part of "Bitcoin" in the broader sense.

Oh... here's a suggestion for banks pissed of by NIRP (negative interest rate policy) of the ECB ;-): Arb XBT-markets.

It's a matter of trading-fees, though. 2 * 0.5% fee is about $6.50 at these prices.

I wouldn't shoot all my arbitrage powder on 0.4% profit when there's considerable hope of the gap widening more.

Vollidioten!

Someone should tell them.

If you don't have much to long/short, you can borrow. I don't recommend that.

Hehe. Don't be sad, even buying some back then doesn't necessarily make you rich: I bought quite a few, but guess what: they're all gone except one. I gave them away or sold them to friends for around €7 or €14 a piece (don't remember exactly).

Yes, and that's why I thanked you for your suggestion .

I had noticed that the potential attack I was talking about was misunderstood by some. Sorry for repeating myself and reordering your answers.

BTW: Don't you need some sleep? You've been up until at least 3 last night and going at it again already? Well, good morning