Sorry, yeah, I know it, and am still in the process of catching up on it (had a Chrome tab opened to it for the last few months) but wasn't sure what you were asking for. DeathandTaxes beat me to posting the link tough (I was busy at work and/or driving home)

Hi. I'll be going to London in a few weeks, arriving on the 28th of December. Would anyone be willing to exchange my BTC for £ cash in person? I need about £300 worth. I would prefer this to going through my bank and paying the hefty fees. Please pm

Thanks.

I would also very much like to see this happen.

Yes yes yes yes yes please?

You mean the website it's from?

Also, do you mean you'd like to know the source?

Only issue is no 0's or O's allowed. Only o's. I still don't now if Phinnaeus will be able to get a charity, let alone one a month.

I'm curious about what Tahoe-LAFS is, too. The website description is still rather vague about actual implementations.

I'm find with Strongcoin. I see it as just an online version of a regular Bitcoin wallet. Once I have the private/public key pair, it's fairly easy to import that into both strongcoin and a local wallet. I personally see no reason to use it, since I can keep the backups and such myself, but having it accessible remotely just in case would still be a benefit.

I do have an address that starts with 1BTC1oo, but after it's a bunch of letters, and looks weird. I'm trying to generate something like 1BTC1oo1nYghe... with a 1 separating the rest of the characters. Shouldn't take more than a few hours if I'm lucky. It's not needed, but I think having something like that to easilly identify it as a Bitcoin100 charity address will be nice.

Looking at strongcoin.com

Benefits:
online, access anywhere, can import vanity addresses, can export private keys

Drawbacks:
1% fee on withdrawals, (both people remembering the same password?)

? ? ?:
Can two people with two separate accounts import the same private key to have access to the same coins?
What's the benefit of this online versus offline?

I have a vanity address. I'd prefer a slightly better looking one, so I'm letting my mining rig crank out some more today.
Once I get the address, I'll import and test it to make sure it works (with my own money), then encrypt the public/private key pair and send that off to whoever else decides they want to help out. They can then encrypt the plaintext version with their own password, or print it out on paper. That is likely much more reliable than just sending out a password protected wallet.dat file. I can even snailmail a printout of the key to the other person's address with my own proof of address. Btw, MemoryDealers has a really good reputation, and more at stake to lose and gain, so I would trust him more than anyone else on here, honestly. All of this isn't that complicated or urgent though (is there even a charity in mind yet?)

Some questions:
How will we make decisions as to which charity to contribute to?
What if only half of the pledges contribute, or some contribute more than others? Will they have fewer/more votes?
Who will be in charge of soliciting charities to accept this?

Daaaaaaaaaaamn, that looks impressive! Good job!

Generating a 1BTC1oo address (can't use 0's). Can also do 1BitC1oo. 1Bitcoin100 will take a few years.
Let me know if you still want this in a private wallet or an online one.

I'll look into strongcoin (Bruno should too). I don't know how reliable an online wallet is. I've always keps all my BTC on my own wallets, backed up to my NAS, cloud, and USB stick in a fire proof safe, with backups updated every other week.

Good point on the originating address. There's no way that I know of differentiating personal wallets from exchange ones. Maybe the policy could be that anonymouonors agree to have money returned to sending address, or they can speak up (even through a pseudonym) and say all money from this address should be returned to that one. From what I remember, exchanges asign you your own private address permanently.

I'll get it set up tonight (I have class until 2am GMT). Since I am being put in charge of the money, I need to make sure I know which address donated what, so I can send the money back to that address if needed. It's not my money, and I refuse to keep it if it doesn't belong to me. I would also VERY much prefer to have another person have access to the funds in case I become "involuntarily unavailable." (i.e. car accident or whatever) Once I create a wallet, I can send a copy of it, along with a password, to whomever else you deem trustworthy, unless you have better ideas.

Um, sure. Would put an extra burden on me to run more backups if I end up storing this locally, but I can manage.

Put me down for up to 5 (for now)

It's still up. I just browse it for curiocity sometimes. Haven't looked in weeks though.

Alpha, I suggest you find a CVS somewhere nearby (or Wal-Mart if they have one) and use their blood pressure machine. Get a base reading. If you continue this experiment, check it again in a few days to make sure you're not putting your body under too much stress. Even if you feel fine, that may give you a warning before your body gives you a more serious one by itself.

Heh, yeah, I was pretty certain I misspelled it, but was too lazy to check. Not a word I often use, since we usually call it "furry" (but I couldn't call a corporation that).


Good idea, especially on the no upper limit and white collar = street criminals point. We still need to improve the fucos on whom to actually hold accountable. When you fine a corporation, all you're essentially doing is punishing old folks and employees with 401ks for making a bad investment decision. If laws were changed to hold some actual people in charge (preferably board of directors as much as the CEOs if not more), that may be more effective, but at the same time many will argue that it will stifle growth due to those people being afraid to take risks, and eventually they may just end up hiring people for the sole job of being a scapegoat. That is if those laws even had a chance of passing.
This whole issue is crazy complicated and quite stuck IMHO. I honestly don't see it going anywhere other than in two ways: A. continuing screwups with less and less effective regulation, with regulatory laws being used as "legal" ways to get away with things, or B. people getting pissed off at corp-government relationships to the point of starting a full-on revolution. I think option B is a horrible one, since America's revolution ending up good is a/MAJOR exception to the rule when it comes to revolutions based on historical trends.

This whole project is quite fascinating for me, because I hit snooze for an hour each morning, and sleep for about 12 hours on weekends. I like to sleep too much.

Giving in is what has been happening and will continue to happen, as long as senators can be bought, and as long as they keep voting to allow others to give them money. How do you propose to change that?
Also, corporations have a special account where they set aside money for future fines to pay out. Most of those fines have no effect on them, and aren't much of punishment. People also tend to anthropomorfise (personify?) corporations too much, thinking it's a single person or entity. It's just a whole bunch of stock holders (mostly mutual funds of people saving for retirement), who elect a group of board members to make business decisions. Responcibility is spread around so much that no one is really responsible. If a corporation does something bad, they just move money from one account to another to pay the fine. Shareholders may get upset, but most of then don't know or care about what's going on. My point is that regulations with fines is a pretty weak and shitty way to keep them in line.
A way more effective method may be for the regulators to just keep a list of corporations that are within regulations, outside of them, and who recently screwed people over, and then relentlessly advertise about the bad ones so people can avoid shopping there. $5mil worth of advertising targeted at the world to hurt their bottom line is WAY more effective than a $5mil fine.
(Granted government advertising about bad corporations is very easily abused, too)