Sorry but I don't get this bit - the party we are talking about has not paid *any* fee to move his 300 BTC around hundreds (or is it thousands) of times.

EDIT: The amount is now only 220 BTC - strangely enough this bot seems to every now and again like to play SD.

I'm not sure if that would address this specific problem (the responsible party would appear to be using a bot that issues raw txs so changing bitcoin-qt wouldn't have any effect at least in a direct fashion).

This problem (if it really is one) would appear to be more about accepting UTXOs (well in this case just the one) that have not been aged (at all) just because the amount in the tx is large enough.

I think what people are not liking is that it is *just because* it is 300 BTC (although maybe the same thing could be done with less) that he can put this tx into every single block without paying a fee whatsoever.

I must admit I don't know that much about ETF's so if what you say is true then perhaps there is more of a downside to this than I had envisaged (perhaps some others with more knowledge about this could comment).

I believe that Xenland is going to use Qt for the UI so a Windows version shouldn't be a big problem.

BTW - the project is listed on CIYAM Open (http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20121222131254938000&ident=M100V137&chksum=24be696c) so if anyone wants to contribute then 14NqZ1w7x9gFFzt65Mxy38EPFrbrnR11is is the relevant address (that address is under Xenland's control - please confirm that with him if at all concerned).

Are you sure that will work - my experience is that once a tx has been seen any attempt to double spend will be ignored by the node that *has* that tx in its memory pool (i.e. you'd need to post it to a node that hasn't yet seen it AFAIA)?

Your post was more than a touch patronising (to any native English speaker I think) and if you *care to read my post history* then you'll see I have rarely wasted my time posting replies to spammers (and I have never posted for the sake of posting even before the new rating system was introduced).

I did acknowledge to TradeFortress my mistake with the one particular post (I tend to assume that most posts are legit but of course every now and then I can make a mistake as we all do from time to time I would think) - so I think you can just *trust* me to do the right thing rather than give me a lecture thanks all the same.

Also whether I reply or not to a "spam" post for the sake of sending PMs doesn't stop the person from sending PMs (and if their post is reported and removed then they will not be able to send PMs regardless of their post being quoted so I am in no way helping them).

Of course this post is totally OT - so perhaps we could get back to discussing the OP or maybe this topic has run its course (I think I am about ready for the "unwatch" click).

Actually "bi" is the term for female genitalia so that is perhaps a more polite translation of the actual meaning (but yes - not to be used in front of strangers if you are in China).

I can see the attraction of using "stupid bitch" though (as it makes more sense to a westerner being SB and is probably the more equivalent expression used in the west).

Indeed - if they did this it wouldn't last very long at all (so I very much doubt they would put in the time, money and effort to do this).

If they get it right then I don't think it would be anything other than good for Bitcoin so I think the potential upside outweighs the risk that it is somehow going to be a scam (especially as their reputations would be in tatters if that is what it turned out to be).

That is up to the "firstbits" algo - and for the sample you gave "1btc" (firstbits are case-insensitive) is not surprisingly already taken (by 1BtCpSAJ14d64ZHTqc6uqaLMVXoovTsSXr back in 2009 by a miner and it still has 50 BTC).

To test whether a vanity address you have created is "already taken" (in regards to the "firstbits") then type in the relevant prefix (1btc in your example) into the Search in blockchain.info.

Note also that until you have sent BTC to your address (and it has been confirmed enough times) the "firstbits" are still "open" for anyone to take (first come, first served).

You instructions are duly noted and kindly don't refer to me as "dear" in the future (I am not now nor ever will be "your dear" ).

OP - I think the "security breach" part of your topic title should be changed (a poor password that was cracked is hardly a security breach IMO) although it has been a good reminder for people that brainwallets are a dangerous thing (and should not be recommended to people without some specific education about how to go about creating a secure enough password).

I don't see that at all - you can buy gold an silver at major banks in China - is that not already an admission of failure in the infrastructure of the fiat system?

You can also have accounts in different currencies and you can link into stock trading via internet banking so it really isn't such a stretch to be able to have a BTC account (my prediction is that unless there is some sort of all out *attack* on Bitcoin we will see banks letting you set up BTC accounts within the next ten years).

In which case you would have to charge "fees" for usage (as presumably this bank would not loan) - I think it would still be rather hard to run this business next to a bank that will offer you a BTC account with no fees.

And if you're thinking banks would never do this then please come and visit China where you will see that most banks let you buy precious metals to help protect your savings against inflation.

Also if you are expecting that people will only go into this "bank" once per month to make a withdrawal then you'd have to charge some pretty hefty fees to even pay the rent little own the salaries for the wonderful people you want to have to serve them.

Okay - connection fixed - so it's not anonymous but it's not *actually* a bank.

The first thing you are going to need to do is become a licensed money transmitter everywhere that matters (in the USA that is basically in every state). According to what has been published about this it will cost more than a million dollars to do this (and a lot of time).

You'll also need to employ people for doing all sorts of AML and KYC stuff (as Mt. Gox does) and finally you'll probably need to invest millions in advertising to attract people to your "pseudo bank" when the "real bank" right next door decides to let people have BTC accounts (which will cost them next to nothing to implement).

The problem is *trust*.

Simple as that - any anonymous site that wants me to *trust* them is a *scam* as far as I am concerned.

Maybe I don't *like* my bank (due to fees or other annoyances) but at least I don't worry that they would just *run* with my savings.

Any Bitcoin bank that wants to be anonymous should be trusted about as much as you would trust a complete stranger.

He is not paying fees - otherwise the topic would not even be here.

So in summary (perhaps) if you have 300 BTC you can "spam the blockchain" with such small tx's no worries.

I guess that as not so many people have 300 BTC to do so (or to risk on a bot that may malfunction) then this is not really a pressing issue (just an interesting observation thanks to the OP having noticed it).

I am guessing so (shouldn't have bothered replying should I).

If everyone did this then the blockchain would end up 1000s of times bigger than it is - and how is it totally normal to send your BTC to one address and back to the original address every single block?