Check it out buddy: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another  Plain and simple.  You can't use someone's name or 'likeness' to promote your shit.  I guess that only leaves the question: Is 'Taylor Swift" like "Taylor Shift".  I'd say these are confusingly similar.  Well, what do you know!  The test for trademark infringement is actually called: 'confusingly similar'!  Ruh-Roh!

Who cares?!  Not me.  If Shift likes pushing the edge with other people's intellectual property - it doesn't affect how good the card works.  So let them play with fire.  It's just that Taylor Swift loves suing people - even her fans.  So, they sure picked a dumb fight.  If you ask me.

In a very recent case with far less 'likeness', the cheater lost $5 million dollars.  http://www.spottsfain.com/publications/322-recent-court-cases-offer-caution-use-celebrity-likenesses-advertising

Yes, this is a remarkable new feature.  Prepaid is ridiculous.  I like to hold the bitcoin - until I spend it.  Once the charges come in, then exchange bitcoin from the account.  This is really great.  Finally, someone understands how it should work.  It's about time, I feel we've needed this for a long time.

I read cash limit was $750 at ATM plus $750 more at POS with $10,000 single day purchases limit.  Quite generous if you ask me.  I don't spend more than $10,000 most days.

On that day, you can say 'too many fees'.  Then cut up your card.  But for now, NO transaction fee.  Pretty good eh?

No fees.  It is free.  Zero.  Per transaction fee = $0.00.  Can't get closer to zero than that.  

However, it might be argued they are getting somewhat cheeky with intellectual property.  Don't you think this is a little too close to "Taylor Swift"s card?  I wonder if she really endorses Bitcoin? - the implication is there.

I understand their dislike of censorship, but will you stick with bitcointalk - or go to the new forum?  https://forum.bitcoin.com/  Do you think they can get critical mass there?

The patent office loves patents - or else they would go out of business.  They are going to love Bitcoin!

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Coinbase&FIELD1=AS&co1=OR&TERM2=Cite+Brian+Cohen+or+CoinTelegraph+%28Esquivalience%29&FIELD2=DRTX%2CDETD&d=PG01

Just look at this!!!!  Coinbase claims a "Tip Button"!

This is crazy!  Is this the new Bitcoin battle royal?  The patent office?

To get a patent, it doesn't have to be so extraordinary.  just new and not obvious.  So extraordinary is for a Nobel prize.


The Supreme court said: "all inventions are made up of wheels, gears, cogs - all of which are very well known and ordinary.  It is when you put them together in a certain combination that they yield a special output or result, that makes them together a new invention."

You have done this combination today.  But did you put all these elements together prior to the BofA filing?  Even if someone performed a transfer as described before that date, it wasn't all put together as a unitary system - until BofA described it in their patent.  I think they will be awarded the patent for wire transfers done on cryptocurrency rails.  

Funny enough, there are more than 100 patents on the process of squeezing lemons.  So, you clearly have little or no understanding of the patent system. "it is what I do everyday".  Were you doing what BofA described everyday on Mar 17, 2014?  Because you'd have to prove that in writing as of the BofA filing date.  I highly doubt you were making wire transfers from one currency, through an exchange, via bitcoin, through a second exchange and into a second fiat - everyday more than 18 months ago.  But if you can prove you were, you can blow up their patent!!!

How did you make a determination that this is not novel?  Your matrix for determining novelty seems to be quite a bit different than the one used by the patent office. 

In a novelty determination, you must cite: a SINGLE reference, which predates the filing date, which does EXACTLY the same thing.  If there are ANY differences - you must do an obviousness test - not novelty.  So- please provide a reference where this is done - EXACTLY as BofA describes. 

What do you expect them to attribute to you?  That you were first to see a patent and tweet?  lolololol.  If you say something interesting, maybe they'll reprint it and cite you.  Simply find an interesting patent and tweeting about it doesn't mean Coindesk owes you a brownie. 

1) They don't try to claim 'blockchain tech' by itself, so your first sentence is silly. 

2) simple because you write 'is not patentable' - doesn't make something not patentable.  Why do you think that is not patentable?  BofA's patent lawyers don't share your conclusion.

3) also, you declare 'this is not novel' - but provide no novelty analysis.  Merely declaring it not novel, and not patentable isn't very persuasive.

Well, I guess we no longer need to speculate whether or not Bank of America takes crypto seriously!!!  This just in: MAJOR patent: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20150262173.pdf

Basically, Bank Of America wants to own all wire transfers done on blockchain rails.  Wow!

Bank of America is clearly: in it to win it!!  I would not have guessed this.

This is not some obscure patent which barely references Bitcoin like the JP Morgan bullshit - this is a very broad patent squarely directed to a primary function of the Bitcoin system.

You can't deny Gavin has warmed up to these G men guys before.  If you think the NSA is not good at doing operations undetected, then you don't understand their work. I think XT = NSA

Do you think the NSA had a little say via Gavin in preparing the new code being introduced as XT?  Maybe this is their way of getting the core devs who can't be 'turned' out of the way.  Mike has been in favor of 'blacklisting' - another tool popular with NSA.  I suspect there is a little sneaky bit of code slipped into the XT package that doesn't raise red flags.  Maybe that is what this blocksize thing is really about.

The guys who built Lightning Network want to hit the 1MB limit so their project becomes needed.  Then, they will let everyone come in for free for a few years.  Then, they will start to charge for their 'services'.  

We don't need a complex technical solution (side chains) controlled by private parties - to make Bitcoin work.  Bitcoin works on its own - with larger blocks.  Why put in place an unnecessary limit (1MB) just so some guys have a reason to built their sidechain projects?  I call bullshit.  

Bitcoin XT is Bitcoin.  From the beginning, Satoshi imagined blocks which could handle more than 7 tx per second.  1MB limit was introduced with the intention of it being later removed.  

Sidechains to increase transaction rate will lead to crazy complexities.  Everyone needs to keep the original Bitcoin strong and avoid creating need for complex add-on systems like sidechains and Lightning Network.

There is simply no explanation at all why the 1MB should remain.  

I 've been mining on Eligius with over 50Thash.  I think Luke Jr. is a dick - but didn't care as it was an easy pool to set up.  So I just stayed there.  Now, we have a real issue.  I support XT.  I want to switch my mining to an XT pool. 

Which pool is presently on XT?  I know AntPool is planning on going to XT, but I want to go to XT now.  Should I switch from Eligius and who do I switch too for easy pool mining?

Awesome effort.  Thanks very much.  I really appreciate the inputs.  But unfortunately I still don't know what the structure of a N of M multisig transaction looks like.  

I understand that those inputs are invalid and a bunch of other crap has been changed.  But I am really just trying to understand the structure of MultiSig by way of example.  How do those outputs look?  

For example, which part of an output tells the stack this is a 1 of 5, or 3 of 4, MultiSig?

How do you write your transactions?