If you have mod_auth for Apache then I have pretty much nailed it - PM for details.

It seems you didn't answer my question - is there anything wrong with the OpenID URL I am using (I trust that your knowledge of the system means that I don't *need* to go and read a bunch of new docs or am I wrong)?

Just wondering is this different from using https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id or is it the same thing (I support OpenID but not Google)?

This I have discussed in detail before and it *can* be done (although I think it got so technical that no-one was interested in the details so I left it a long time ago).

If you are interested take a look at this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61359.0

In short though - don't waste your time - no-one is actually really interested in this at all (I wasted about a month contributing to such threads). People on this forum love to "talk the talk" but rarely if ever "walk the walk".

Sure - the proposals I was referring to (and was involved in a number of threads about) were about using the blockchain to try and achieve this - but even without using Bitcoin the same problem is still there.

The problem (which has been discussed numerous times) is just how do you limit 1 person to 1 vote (i.e. I can just create as many votes as I like if I have enough funds to do so).

AFAIA no-one has really found any successful method to do so (if they did we'd already have seen it - and yes I've read various *papers* about such ideas but have seen *zero* implementations).

Whenever someone tries to involve a central authority to *identify* people to limit their ownership to 1 vote then the libertarians scream *decentralise* but whenever they are asked *okay - how?* silence or vague *papers* are the response (i.e. they simply do not have any solution at all).

Another approach to consider would be to print out a private key as a QR code then slice it into two (or more) pieces.

You can then have them held separately by family member(s) to be combined when needed.

...QOE?

Damn - I could swear that your avatar just started laughing at me!

..SST?

Yeah - guessed it wouldn't be that easy.

I looked at the idea of a repeating pattern so simply divided AKMNR into AKMN R and tried to repeat the AKMN pattern starting a R (wrapping around from Z back to A).

...BDEI?

There has been no bitcoin *hard fork* (perhaps you are getting confused with a Github fork which is a different thing altogether).

A *hard fork* is when the one blockchain splits into two (or more) chains due to having different rules being run by the blockchain users (especially miners).

Solidcoin and all other *alt* coins were different blockchains altogether so they are not *hard forks* of Bitcoin at all (although their source code most likely would have been forked from Github from the main Bitcoin project).

Unfortunately as of now there is not much you can do (apart from attempt a double-spend which I have found from personal experience is *extremely* difficult to do).

You'll probably find that in a day it will have been processed and until there is a way to *add a fee* to an existing tx the lesson is to *include* a fee if you want your tx to be mined in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes - this is exactly what I think too (so changing the software to allow increased #s of tx's isn't as important to me as keeping the system as decentralised as possible and keeping the 21M limit in place).

Bitcoin *needs* transactions to survive - but does it really need to compete with Paypal or the like?

Understood (although I think gold is an important metal in creating a lot of quality equipment) - I just think that if the *main* point of Bitcoin was just tx's then the *main reason* to be a miner would be to earn fees (and quite likely that will be how things come to pass down the track) so if we are going to wish for more and more tx's to be processed then I would not surprised to see the fees becoming >= Paypal's (in which case Bitcoin is *dead*).

No worries - I think we are actually reading from the same page.

Sure - but how is it *worse* than gold right now (I think that gold is still considered about the best store of value and it is not at all an easy medium of exchange compared to Bitcoin as of today)?

Am not sure who you are addressing with this as I was not advocating *changing* anything at all (the promises are surely what the source code *is* at the moment and nothing more).

Whilst I do agree that tx's are important (without it the hashing power protecting the network would eventually disappear) I don't think it is really so easy to store precious metals in your own home (and I don't trust anyone else to store them for me).

Also I have seen various *fake gold bars* in recent press releases that came from extremely reputable sellers (whereas I know I can *trust* the value of a Bitcoin).