Indeed— and though Bitcoin certainly has it's own limitations, it's free of quite a few of the classical ones that plague existing and past currencies— it's thoroughly forgery proof, for example— so the cost of preventing and detecting forgeries and the cost of investigations, trials, and imprisonment of forgers is gone.  Bitcoin value can be cheaply protected with cryptography an multi-signature control in a way more robust than any safe or armed guard and while we do depend on energy to secure Bitcoin the energy put in by honest contributors protects everyone's coins rather than protecting just a single vault. ... and not to mention inflation.

But heck even if they don't agree with Bitcoin's advantages, don't see it's applications, and view every flaw as fatal— even if I ignore that they don't offer their own alternative to any of it, and that they seem to miss that all other digital 'cash' like systems have been dead on arrival or rapidly failed— the thing that bothers me isn't that they don't like Bitcoin: there are plenty of reasons not to.  ... it's that they repeat the claim that Bitcoin is technically sound after demonstrating conclusively that they haven't the foggiest clue how it works.   I find that sad and— considering it comes from people who supposedly celebrate rationality— kinda scary.

It makes me kinda sad.

It says stuff like "The mathematics is robust"  but then says things like "Bitcoin 'mining' was designed to bribe early users with exponentially better rewards" and "spent producing nothing of actual value" which demonstrates that they don't have any clue— in a rather deep and complete way— how it actually works, and thus really have no business saying the mathematics is robust.

And?  The moon is not made of cheese.

As an aside, — the failure is not quite deterministic. It's possible that there will be some large blocks that trigger the failure in some nodes and not others. (This was one of the reasons that sticking with the 0.7 behavior was not acceptable, and also why the 0.8.1 temporary protective rule had to be so low).  Not that it matters for this thread, but later you may find yourself confused if you hear mixed reports and don't know this.

Next person to talk to dwolla, ask them for a case number. It should be listed on the top of the seizure warrant. If for some reason they can't/won't provide that, try to get the name of the certifying judge that signed it.

I'd call them myself but I'm not a dwolla customer.

I can find nothing showing in pacer on the docket for this.

If you're not running Bitcoin-qt or Bitcoind, do nothing.

If you're running Bitcoin-qt or Bitcoind version v0.8 or later (0.8.0 or 0.8.1), do nothing.

If you're running Bitcoin-qt or Bitcoind prior to v0.8 (0.7.2, 0.6.1, 0.3.24, etc), upgrade to 0.8.1 (or if you feel adventurous the 0.8.2 RC)

If you're running Bitcoin-qt or Bitcoind, apply the workaround on the may 15 page or use a backport.

If your hair is on fire: Call 911. This isn't the right place for getting help with actual emergencies.

Sorry, this is confused. The rule enforcement behavior is a pure function of the chain and only governs the acceptability of blocks in the self-same chain.  A nodes time is utterly irrelevant beyond determining what it will put in its own blocks.

It most certainly does not.

What version are you running? Only old and ~no longer supported versions using a blkindex.dat.

Yes, the party you are transacting with can make a reasonable guess about change— though multiple destinations in a single transaction is something regular users use. But one person knowing about your change is still much better than the whole world knowing.

They are not reused in correctly written software.

Indeed, but thats not sufficient to produce a collision with any existing MD5 attacks.

You don't mention what "service" you intend on providing, so it's hard to say.  Generally it's not advisable to use bitcoind directly as your sole accounting system because there is no synchronous replication of metadata and internal transactions (e.g. "move"s).

It doesn't relative to past versions: change under 0.0005 BTC was already generally converted into fees (because any output >0.01 forced the transaction to have a fee of at least 0.0005 BTC/kb, so any change less than 0.0005 was converted to fee in order to avoid an even larger fee)

In addition to the point Gavin made— there is no reason for the POW and the rest of the protocol has to be using the same hash function.  We don't have the same security requirements in the POW as we do elsewhere. So its also perfectly conceivable to me that if there were concerns about the sha2 family everything else could change while the POW stayed SHA2-256.

Uh. No. That is entirely untrue. The database and blockchain engine was completely rewritten and, in fact, we had considered releasing 0.8.0 as "not for use by miners". Several severe chain splitting bugs had been introduced in the coarse of 0.8's development and corrected prior to release.   Obviously it wasn't know that there were outstanding ways of trigger inconsistency, but it was certainly known that there were higher risk changes. Please don't rewrite history just to create a forum quip.

Of course, its not possible to be certain that something is bug free: Surprising things happen. But thats why I answered that there were no known high risk changes, rather than responding that there was no risk.

Addr.dat has nothing to do with bitcoin addresses. It was a file the older versions of Bitcoin used to keep track of peers. The name refers to IP network addresses. The functionality was replaced by peers.dat several versions ago and current software doesn't read addr.dat at all, so your results there are completely expected.

The forum isn't a scam prevention service.  Don't take anythings continued existence here to be a sign of support for it.

0.8.2 does not obviously have any high consensus-consistency risk changes.

Please keep the DOS attack crud out of this thread and out of the mining subforums. (I'm not going to delete the posts simply because I don't think that hiding people's misconduct does the forum a community service, at least when it's not the Nth repetition of it and otherwise redundant)

Hm? It should be using the blockchain in the same location.  Are you perhaps mistaking the conversion for a redownload?