The logic for that is that you don't want a key added to your wallet without your explicit permission.

Nope, you are starting a discussion about speculation.


Ooohhh, me next!

I can say for sure the exchange rate for Bitcoin is going to double perhaps even triple in the next 12 months.

Of course, I can't really say that as I have no idea which way the Bitcoin exchange rate will head.  Just as you have no idea for silver.

What we do agree on is that fiat is going to be the loser over the long run.  It always has.

As far as bullion, what I would like to see is something like the DYM issue on Ripple become commonplace:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149533.0

Technically it will work.

The main problem in keeping your funds with a hosted (shared) E-Wallet (like how most pool accounts and exchange accounts operate as) is that when you request a withdraw, you are at that service's mercy.   If they have an empty hot wallet and need to transfer more funds from their cold wallet, you have no options other than to wait.

Instead, if you have the funds in your own wallet -- your transaction goes out immediately.

Additionally, let's say you were withdrawing to an address someone else gave you.  If that other person happens to use the same E-Wallet service, then that transaction may not get broadcast to the network (i.e., is handled internally within the wallet as an account-to-account transfer).   So you wouldn't have the blockchain as proof that you had sent payment.

So generally, you don't want to get in the habit of using your pool's withdraw feature as the method for sending bitcoins to other people.

There are three more names for the individual seat:

Individual Candidate: Joerg Platzer 
Individual Candidate: Ryan Deming 
Individual Candidate: Pedro Fernandes 

That's probably the closest thing Bill Gates has said (to-date) that can be deemed as being in favor of Bitcoin [Edit: digital currency]:


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130828134129-251749025-we-need-our-brightest-people-working-on-our-biggest-problems

[Update: He could be among those who consider any electronic transaction to be a "digital currency" transaction, it isn't evident from this.]

ICBit had it at one time.
 - https://icbit.se/CLG3

There were few contracts traded so after expiration no new contract issue was offered.   The spread was regularly pretty wide but due to volatility there were times when using that contract as a hedge against crude was affordable.

There is some 2FA approach for use with P2SH as Gavin describes: https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5616606, but that's is likely way overkill to make it work with a micropayments subscription type of of application.   

Coinbase's subscriptions service probably could provide greater ease-of-use, and since it is already offered today by Coinbase that could be implemented more easily.   But the problem with Coinbase's subscriptions is that the customer is pre-authorizing the "merchant" to withdraw.  With the Open MediaWallet concept as I understand it, the content creators would each be merchants and thus that Coinbase subscription model doesn't work.  If there was a single Coinbase account for all MediaWallet content creators, about the only protection from abuse (e.g., payment drawn without approval by a scammer acting as content creator) comes from the amount being limited (i.e., $X per-week limit).

Rather than subscriptions, the micropayments channel (which  BitcoinJ has now implemented) would be a better fit:
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party

That's likely due to the situation when mining was for GPUs and the Bitcoin revenues dropped to where they barely matched the increase in the electricity bill.    There was a high level of whinging (e.g., October and November 2011) by those who felt they "got suckered" into buying hardware (which is kind of true, since much press from May, June and July 2011 touted how miners were making huge bank.  These were not crypto-currency enthusiasts, they were techies who saw their friends getting "free hardware" and they jumped in -- oftentimes maxing out the credit card to do so.   So many of them truly were selling most every coin they mined and used the proceeds for paying off the purchase of the hardware and for the electric bill.  So then, of course, when difficulty rose it took more and more bitcoins, which collectively pushed the exchange rate lower ... incenting further spending, and spiraling on and on further down it went.

The miners who bought ASICs had to pay the cost up front so there's little additional cost to operating ASIC hardware yet (relative to BTCs earned), and thus more miners are today saving their coins than when comparing to 2011 when that sell-everything-you-earn behavior was prevalent.

Charities accept cash and Bitcoin should actually be more desirable as it is a payment method that offers a form of triple entry accounting.  Triple entry is the most transparent method for bookeeping that other ledger systems for charities should emulate!

 - http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html

Further development with this case.

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT
 - http://ia600904.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.txed.146063/gov.uscourts.txed.146063.25.0.pdf
 - http://bit.ly/141B1Mp <-- Browser friendly (PDF Viewer)

I suppose this conversation wouldn't be complete without mention of the "replace by fee" patch, which essentially allows double spending of an unconfirmed transaction.   While the replace by fee patch is real and exists today, there are few (if any) miners using it so the chances of successfully double spending to recover the funds for your own unconfirmed transaction are very low.

Initial replace-by-fee implementation is now available on testnet
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199947.0

This is the seizure from Mt. Gox (Mutum Sigillum LLC)'s Wells Fargo account.  Additionally, funds from an account under the name of Mt. Gox's CEO were seized from another account.
In addition to the funds seized

The PDFs in that article require a plugin.  Here are the PDFs:

 - http://www.coinuploads.com/downloads/a799cdbc-8d0d-44ee-8c64-7b8c4e073677/uST4yGHuJkUgeHeThOiScCYO (Affidavit In Support Of Seizure Warrant)
 - http://www.coinuploads.com/downloads/e36a1bca-8a56-4ca8-9ff2-dd2ad2ac6321/tM98fCFtQdLFYFTbhINqNEKA (Seizure Warrant)

(The PDFs available at CoinUploads require bitcoins to read.  Those earn commission but I left the payout address blank which means the payout goes to Bitcoin Foundation.    If someone else has a file hosting with free access PM me with the link after and I'll replace the URLs where I used CoinUploads above.)

Additional $2.1M Seized from Mt. Gox Accounts – Now Over $5M Total
By Greg Schvey

 - http://thegenesisblock.com/warrant-for-mt-gox-wells-fargo-accounts-shows-additional-2-1m-seized

And here's the other shoe that we knew had been dropped.

$2.1 million from the Wells Fargo account, seized in June frm both a Mt. Gox (Mutum Sigillum LLC) account as well as an account in Mark Karpeles' own name.

U.S. District Court (District of Maryland) Case Number: 13-1085SAG

Additional $2.1M Seized from Mt. Gox Accounts – Now Over $5M Total

 - http://thegenesisblock.com/warrant-for-mt-gox-wells-fargo-accounts-shows-additional-2-1m-seized/
 - http://ge.tt/49PqWcq/v/0?c (Affidavit In Support Of Seizure Warrant)
 - http://ge.tt/5H5GXcq/v/0?c (Seizure Warrant)

Five surprising facts about Bitcoin
by Timothy B. Lee (@BinaryBits)

• Bitcoin isn’t exactly anonymous
• Bitcoin regulations are as clear as mud
• Bitcoin is big in Argentina
• Volatility isn’t necessarily a big deal for Bitcoin
• International Bitcoin transfers could be a big business

 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/21/five-surprising-facts-about-bitcoin-2/

One year chart.
 - http://bitcoinity.org/charts/gold
 

When I provided a monthly update I needed this data so I published the spreadsheet here:
 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHJuUE1mUkFxa3A0eHBDQkxZLVVFZmc#gid=0

With chart:
 - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHJuUE1mUkFxa3A0eHBDQkxZLVVFZmc#gid=3

But I've not updated that in over half a year.

At the bottom it lists the data sources.  For gold:
 - http://www.ofdp.org/continuous_contracts/data?exchange=CEC&symbol=GC&depth=1

So the non-automated process of pulling the data from that involved copying from the HTML page then massaging it in a spreadsheet to get just the daily price data.

Each client handles transactions that won't confirm differently.  Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind will continue to re-broadcast the transaction (sporadically, perhaps twice an hour) indefinitely.

Blockchain.info will restore the funds for a transaction that doesn't confirm after about a day.

Each of the other clients may have their own approach.

The behavior of your local client as far as letting you re-spend the funds is immaterial however if the original transaction is still hanging around in the memory pool of miners.   They might hold onto it for a full day or so even perhaps.

This is concerning.

The story is describing an investment in an online-only stock market that operates on the internet, under the radar of regulators.

These "stocks" traded probably could be named cyber-equities as they generally are for "assets" that are not necessarily legally-defined entities.  One of the "stocks" 796 offers (and the "IPO" that the story described) is for 796 itself (796Xchange-MRI).  

Any responsible reporting should caution the reader on the risks of such a market.

Either way, what is concerning is how the author of the article doesn't segregate the issues.  Bitcoin is like a commodity.  To date, no regulators have described Bitcoin as a security.    But these cyber-equities exchanges are not Bitcoin.   It's like describing how Germany's regulators described Bitcoin as being a legal private currency there and then extrapolating that into describing how that will legitimize purchases on Silk Road.  

Bitcoin and the ways it are used are completely different topics!

Bitcoin Spawns China Virtual IPOs as U.S. Scrutiny Grows
By Lulu Yilun Chen



 - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/bitcoin-spawns-china-virtual-ipos-as-u-s-scrutiny-grows.html

Exactly.  Unless the attacker created an ASIC or has had 50% of the orders in with the existing manufacturers there's simply no amount of money that will yield enough hardware to get 50% of the hashing capacity out there.   Perhaps a globally coordinated seizure of output from all the ASIC vendors might get the attacker that much hardware but then the chance of a "surprise" (necessary for executing a successful 51% for the purpose of double spending) drops to zero.