For those of you that are aware of the digital currency Bitcoin: There has been a discovery of a exploit that utilizes the worlds first Quantum computer. This exploit is not illegal as no Governent controls the bitcoin network, nor backs it. The Bitcoin network runs a series of algorythms at extremely fast speeds, in comparison to classical computers, which the network runs on. This happens for BOTH receiver and sender to certain bitcoin rcv address programmed into the algorythm.

In other words while the payment is in idle circulation it can be spent twice, (this is the time it takes for the Bitcoin network to catch up, quantum computing can run at full speed for only so long.)

Do NOT try to spend more then twice with same addresses, I will not process orders and I will send the Bitcoins back because Bitcoin Network will catch on.


This is working as of January 04 2013 its no telling when this exploit may be fixed.
I take 50% of profits off double payments, so really your receiving 150% of your payment. for example 10 bitcoins = you get 15 back.
I paid over 117,000$ for the D-Wave F600 don't complain about my fee's. I am looking for many users in a short period to make most profit before exploit is found. If you like the service please tell as many people as you can.

HOW TO USE:
You need to make two addresses. You can go to the website http://blockchain.info/ and make multiple addresses. After you have made two addresses send email with the address to BitcoinDoubleSpender@yahoo.com and send the bitcoins to --> 1KU3LK7eTYJkc2Er5t91krGUGKmgK1QXud<--
The algorithm will only work with WHOLE numbers at this point . So the minimum amount you can double is: 1 bitcoin (not .1 or .01) You can send 1 or 10 or 32 but NOT 1.23 or 10.50!! So ONLY whole amounts -- no cents.
You can use as many times as you wish for any whole amount. I have experienced one issue with a client using a wallet version 0.51, so make sure your wallet is updated. This will not be a problem if Blockchain.info is used.
Payment will on average be doubled within 5-20 minutes, and will never take longer then 1 hour after order. Understand that each order has to be processed manually do NOT complain if it takes longer then 20 minutes. Each time you double spend you must use two new addresses, a new sender and receiver address. This is so Bitcoin network does not catch on. Also, I predict once this exploit is found and used by others with access to quantum computing the price will plumit to an all time low. Bitcoin as a monetary system is doomed to fail. SELL YOUR BITCOINS AS SOON AS YOU CAN.

CONTACT ME:
Only contact me with relevant questions to

BitcoinDoubleSpender@yahoo.com

and if you want you can give me a call at

(266) 567-2931.

Cheers, spread the word!
This is D-Wave quantum computing website http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html
Heres pictures of my setup
http://imgur.com/eL9Fw,6snDd
http://imgur.com/eL9Fw,6snDd#1

Hello all, my name is Noah! I was wondering if anyone wanted to loan me a bitcoin or 2 so i can start seeing how this bitcoin thing really works... I would pay you back what you loan me +50%... I just havent had the time to stop by CVS and process my bitinstant stub... Any loan under 2 btc would be returned +50% because thats all I can afford.

I haven't noticed any. is there an exact page you have errors on?

Thanks in advance

If you look at the https://multibit.org/releases.html you can see there is a test version of MultiBit with them in already.
(it's the 0.5.7beta version)

There is some more work in finishing them off before it goes on release to everybody.
You can download it from https://multibit.org/releases/multibit-0.5.7beta to try it out.

This is a non sequitur. You said quoted above "You didn't pay the contract. Matthew did. And you're refusing to transfer your end of the contract." From this you state I am claiming that the transfer of debt requires me to accept the transfer of performance, which I denied. In other words, when it is convenient for you to make an argument that the transfer of debt alone requires the agreement of the obligee you make it; when it was shown this was accepted by TECSHARE you not only shifted your argument to state that the transfer of debt requires the transfer of performance, but you stated that it was myself who was claiming so (above, emphasis mine).

If this was so, then you would not have been able to claim that the transfer of debt requires the permission of the obligee as was your original contention. And I would have no need to correct you.

In short, you've been caught lying.

Then stop trying to claim that -- it's a very weak defense as I've already satisfied your request for proof. It makes you appear biased.


I don't care. I outlaid three acceptable responses. One of them is returning the money to Matthew, as you seem to suggest. Fine, whatever.


Don't waste my time with "probably". Wanna hear something? Several people have told me there is an organized campaign to defame me. That is a fact. Based on that, you probably were asked to come here and troll me. Now I say --> That probably makes you guilty of fraud.

But does it? No. It's mere speculation. Please do not spam the forums with useless speculation.

What TECSHARE, Matthew and myself have said is very clear. Stop posting here. Your input of speculation is not required and you have already voiced your opinion. Thank you for that.

Above you said the flaw in my argument was that TECSHARE did not contract Matthew as the assignee.

I then proved that he did in fact agree to such a transfer on multiple occasions.

Now, you state:


You seem to be under the impression that I must transfer all rights and obligations together but there is no requirement for me to do so. This isn't an uncommon case. For example sometimes a parent will pay for their children's education. This does not mean the student is not owed time in class.

Furthermore;


I now demand that the work be finished and given to me, and/or the money be returned, either to me or to Matthew. Any one of these three options is an acceptable settlement for me and I will speak for all CPA investors on that as the issuer.

This was posted on 12/28/2012:

http://brussels.fr.craigslist.org/fns/3505789483.html


Any takers? 

I'm still trying to clarify with Matthew whether that was a specific agreement.  Matthew's forum post outright states that he was going to tell Tecshare to complete the work and give it to usagi, which is what usagi is relying on here and he's not lying about that - the post still exists. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103045.msg1131616#msg1131616

I can confirm that the files were offered to Matthew.  Matthew's recollection is that he did not tell Tecshare what to do with the files but merely responded that he didn't need them (rather than telling Tecshare to give them to usagi, as his post indicated he would, or obtaining the files from Tecshare and giving them to usagi himself).

For what it's worth, I think that Matthew saying "I will be instructing Tecshare..." does imply that Matthew believed paying Tecshare entitled him to direct what happened to the files.  usagi certainly didn't object to that at the time.

Actually no. As I stated I refuse to transfer my right to the work I've been promised under contract. Matthew paid for it and TECSHARE agreed he paid for it. I want the work or the money returned. The money can be returned to me or to Matthew.

I have heard back from Matthew.  It's probably not what anyone wants to hear but it looks like both parties are telling the truth here.  Matthew did make a post saying that he would instruct Tecshare to finish the work and give it to usagi and that usagi should regard it as a gift.  From the information Matthew has shared with me it appears that he didn't actually do that when Tecshare contacted him about whether he (Matthew) wanted the files.

You're right but TECSHARE has stated that Matthew was the one that paid him. So he accepted that the transfer took place:

So you are saying I had no right to assign the debt to Matthew N. Wright, and therefore, you have not been paid?

http://contracts.uslegal.com/third-parties-and-assignments/

An assignment is a transfer of rights that a party has under a contract to another person, called an assignee.  The assigning party is called the assignor.  An assignee of a contract may generally sue directly on the contract rather than suing in the name of the assignor.  The other party to the original contract is called the obligor.  For example, suppose I sell my car to Larry for $10,000.00.  He does not have $10,000.00 in cash, but executes an agreement stating that he agrees to pay me $500.00 a month for 20 months.  I then assign this contract to Peggy.  Larry is the obligor, I am the assignor, and Peggy is the assignee.

Unless there is a statute that requires that certain language be used in an assignment or that the assignment be in writing, there are really no formal requirements for an assignment.  Any words which show the intent to transfer rights under a contract are sufficient to constitute an assignment.

I think Matthew's intention is pretty clear. What is it that you don't understand about this?

If the amount of bitcoins will stop at 21 million, when the system reaches that limit, won't the miners stop mining?
Miners are supposed to keep this whole thing running, right? Am I missing something here?

He has not been banned.  Just his many selling threads have been locked.

Go figure??