I would tend to fall on the presumption of believing these coins were not stolen by an outside hacker, as a more typical scenario in these cases is an inside job and than a manufactured story of guilt which is an old grifter ruse.

At this stage in the game their should be 2 rules with mining hardware.

1) Only use multi-sig escrow with a trusted arbitrator
or
2) Do not preorder equipment and pay with a credit card or use option 1 if its an untrusted company

Dear Bitcoin Developers,

We would like to propose a feature in Bitcoin protocol in order to reduce the number of Bitcoin thefts.

Real world scenario: attacker installs a trojan into your computer, downloads the Bitcoin wallet and keylogs your computer to get the password. The attacker can and will spend all your money and there's nothing you can do about it.

So, we would like to propose this feature to be added to Bitcoin protocol:

A "Time Lock" command for Bitcoin addresses.

    This will function in the same way as a safe does: The owner of the address will announce the network that he/she wishes to lock this address and will require X amount of minutes/days to be unlocked.
     This would mean that the Bitcoin network will require the user to issue the unlock command and wait for the timer to expire before allowing him/her to spend the money from that address. The GUI client must announce the owner that his address has been unlocked and display a countdown timer so he has a chance to take action.

     There's a problem with the above scenario: as the hacker has access to the keys, the owner still cannot stop spending because he/she can lock the money again but the attacker can unlock them, triggering a race that leads only to a draw (permanent lock of the funds) or the attacker to win (as the hackers are dedicated to make software that will trigger their transaction faster or will spend higher commissions to get the transaction processed quicker etc).

Here is the solution to this problem:

    Lock command will also require an emergency backup address. A 2nd lock command issued will not allow to change the emergency backup address. If the attacker triggers the unlock command and the real owner wants the money back, he/she can issue an emergency recover command and the network will send the money to the emergency address (that was set-up when the first lock command was issued).  It is important that transfer will be completed only after the lock timeout expires and the new address will be locked again for the original timeout. This is required in order to give a chance to the real owner to issue the last and final command (if the hacker had managed to get access to the 2nd address as well).
    The last and final command that can be issued by the real owner of the new address will be to destroy the funds. The funds will be destroyed, not sent to the miners. This is important in order to deter the hackers to develop any other techniques to steal the money (for example few days ago I read that they hacked 6 ISPs and redirected the whole hashing power towards themselves). If we do not destroy the funds, we are inviting them to hack our hashing power.


To summarize:

   lock(address, delay, emergency address)
      note: a new lock command, issued while the lock is active, will not accept to change the emergency address or the delay.
   unlock(address, where_to_spend);
      note: a new unlock command will refresh the timer to the original lock command. If a previous unlock command was issued with no address to spend, there will not be accepted any new addresses
   issue_emergency(address);
       will cancel any unlock commands and send the money to the emergency address set with original lock(). emergency address will be locked for the same amount of time as issued by original lock(). No further unlock commands are accepted.
   destroy(emergency_address);
       can be issued only on emergency addresses that are locked. it is important that this transaction to be signed by emergency_address only as we do not want the hacker that has access to our original address to be able to destroy our saved funds.

   

Regards!

How can we get involved with this?  I am continuously in contact with black arrow and all they do is lie.  Everday they update respond to my email with lies and nonsense.  I'd like to know where I can start if anyone is currently involved with pursuing legal action in any country regarding this matter.

I get what you're saying, but PoW isn't just bad for supporting Bitcoin(51% attack scare recently where Ghash.io had 40% of hashpower), but it's bad for the world as well, imagine in a few years if Bitcoin does take off, then the power it's gonna be consuming will be immense.

nope

the doube strikethrough is bitcoin, the single strikethrough is the thai baht... trust me you dont want to mess with the thai government..

but feel free to design something thats not already used,. after all coming soon people will start measuring bitcoins in such small amounts (atleast 500 out of 700 votes to name it 'bits' to represent 100 satoshi's) so it might be worth you concentrating on designing the symbol for 'bits'

þ   Þ  β   Ъ  ъ  Б  Ѣ  ᵬ  ҍ

I believe the only thing that's retraining Bitcoin, is it's PoW system.

If it was say, PoS or a varient of PoS without the flaws(n-a-s attack, and more), then it would be much more welcoming,open and friendly to newcomers wishing to get into the Bitcoin mining space.

As it stands, bitcoin's PoW is what's making it's price get lower.
It's Sha256- PoW algo, really needs changing....

It could start with being anonymous because it is not.

What do you think the price will be like the low number amount that will ultimately mean its doom?  Like if it goes below xxx.xx it will never be able to recover....

LOL LOL

Not happening, I have come to terms with the 12k I got stolen from them...

They aren't even deleting my comments that are clearly grounds for banning cause they don't care... they are making off with the money as we speak and the moment they have it all cleared somewhere else like in "Romania" or "Russia" they will shut down the site and everything with it and disappear!

Mark my words.

Seemingly out of nowhere, a technology appears that changes the way people think about an established industry. Vested interests see it as a threat and become determined to ensure it does not undercut existing profit structures.

Sounds like the synopsis of the story about bitcoin up to this point? Well, yes, but digital currency isn’t the first technology to meet the resistance of incumbent parties.

The music industry, for example, faced a signifcant threat from peer-to-peer technology in the late 1990s. In fact, 15 years ago, controversial file-sharing service Napster was one of the biggest stories around.

The company’s peer-to-peer technology enabled users to connect to vast music libraries stored on hard drives around the globe, and then download those files with the click of a mouse. More than a decade later, the music industry hasn’t been the same since.

Of course, even at its peak, there was widespread agreement among market observers that Napster had changed the face of music. But, besieged by lawsuits, Napster today survives only as a shadow of its former self. Instead, business interests took advantage of its legal troubles, legitimized the technology and profited from it.

The result could provide an interesting history lesson for bitcoin, illustrating what happens to incumbents when rivals look for ways to innovate a novel idea out of existence.

The streaming model

While Napster provided a revolutionary way for people to use peer-to-peer connections to download music, the problem was that it essentially freed published works from record label control.

Napster allowed anyone to obtain music – that others previously had to pay for – absolutely free. It’s demise ultimately helped Apple dominate the music downloading industry, and later gave rise to streaming music platforms like Pandora and Spotify in what has become an increasingly important model for the sector.

READ FULL "http://www.coindesk.com/will-bitcoin-meet-napsters-fate/"

Soon all these miners will exit! NOBODY said mining would be profitable

A lot of people are glad that BFL is "in trouble" right now. They believe it is and was a scam, and that everyone who ordered through them is getting what they deserved. I'd like to share my experiences with BFL.

I purchased my first mining rig through BFL in March of 2013, with the expectation that it would deliver in September. It finally arrived in October, and from my original purchase of $1300, I managed to mine about 5 BTC over the next ~6 months. Even with the delays in shipping, the BTC I mined were worth significantly more than the $1300 I paid for the unit, and even now had I not sold earlier, would still have resulted in a net gain of over 50% in 11 months.

It was for this reason, as well as the fact that I truly believed that the second time around BFL would have resolved their production issues, that I ordered some Monarchs. And I did so fully understanding and accepting that it was a preorder and that their dates were not guaranteed, like any adult who is responsible for their actions and has done their due diligence should. When production delays were announced the first time, it was understandable, but frustrating, but I had experienced them before and it was made clear at the time I placed my order that the dates given were estimates but may not be met.

However, as production delays continued, I admit was getting worried. In Bitcoin, after all, most people are aware that your money can just vanish at any moment. The day that Josh announced his final offer and they opened up refunds to all customers (pretty sure that was August 19), I requested an immediate refund for all of my orders. By the time they would have arrived, with the lack of performance they had promised, it was no longer worth it to own the monarchs. Many others must have felt the same. My request was handled virtually immediately, and I had a resolution promised within a few days.

I was quoted a refund time frame of 30-45 days, and on September 16 (less than 30 days) I received a full refund for the order I paid for with BTC. It turned out to be more BTC than I paid originally because of the USD price falling. The remaining orders I had paid via wire transfer, and should have been refunded in the next 2 weeks based on the 45 day timeframe. Now, their production may not be stellar, but every interaction I've had with their customer service team has ended positively for me.

Enter the FTC. Now, assuming the hearing on the 29th goes against BFL (and let's face it, it probably will), I may never get my money refunded. Not because of BFL, but because of the FTC and the actions of a few upset individuals. There was no indication that my money would not be refunded, and while I am disappointed at the production time of BFL, at no point have they acted in a manner of someone running a scam. I never would have received the first refund if that had been the case; it would have been easier to continually delay me. As far as I'm concerned there would not have been a problem unless I had not received a refund by October 3, which has yet to pass. I guess we'll never know how that would play out.

I would guess that most of the complaints filed were done so by impatient people who were upset that their orders didn't ship by the original estimated dates, and had BFL not been raided, their orders would likely have shipped over the coming weeks, just as they did with the gen 1 miners in 2013. From my view, the impatience of others has potentially injured all parties currently waiting for their products to deliver or their refunds to clear.


Let's put this in perspective. According to the FTC, there were over 2 million complaints filed in 2013 (http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/02/ftc-announces-top-national-consumer-complaints-2013). Assuming the same number are filed this year (likely to be higher due to massive credit card breaches at target, home depot, etc.), the 300 complaints filed against BFL represent around 1/100th of 1% of the total claims filed (.00015). And these complaints were filed over at least the last 2 years, not just this year. Yet this is sufficient to shut down a business that by all indications was acting on terms that customers agreed to at the time of sale? This is alarming and disturbing, and is setting a very dangerous precedent. Compare these numbers to banks and lenders, which received over 150,000 complaints last year, yet how many of them are treated this way?

This is setting an extremely dangerous precedent. While BFL has certainly screwed up with their ability to deliver a relevant product on time, they have acted appropriately according to the terms of sale everyone who ordered agreed to, and the FTC should never have been involved.

Well you see, to start because they have not refunded me a dime and I have asked for a refund in June. They did offer me some BTC Garden miners but that was not a viable option for me due to space and power requirements (my X3 order was to be hosted with Minersource).

Then it would be the small matter of BA refusing to honor (according to MS) some of the promotions they have ran in the past that were part of my contract with Minersource. They didn't bother letting me know - maybe because they conveniently forgot or they were just afraid I would have asked for a refund right away since not keeping your promises is a clear indication of a shady company - once they have your money they suddenly forget all the promises/promotions/deadlines, etc.

And third, because they have stopped communicating and therefore how can you expect any amiable resolution with someone that doesn't even want to communicate with you?

When BTC implement anonymity function, he can spend it.

How can Bitcoin ever become a successful global currency when a single entity is in possession of 5-10% of what will ever be in circulation?! If he decides to sell at any point, huge inflation is guaranteed.
I know it's likely that he'll never sell the coins for the sake of anonymity and personal safety, or for the sake of the system. Possible he has even destroyed the private keys. But it doesn't seem certain enough that we can make that assumption.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been more widely discussed - so am I missing something?

When it started out, everyone with a GPU could mine, now it's only a few hobby miners, with nearly zero % change of finding and mining a block.

Yea, He had the vision, that CPU/GPU power would increase, BUT I cannot see, that he wanted a decentralized P2P network that was inaccessible to the general solo miners out there.

If you don't have a shitload of money, you are basically out of BTC mining.  

Sue Minersource for what exactly? Im pretty hes even more screwed than everybody else, cause it was this guy's main business. He will likely be declaring bankruptcy, at least we can just write it off.

In other news, Black Arrow responded to an email yesterday saying they cant ship my miner because they had to recall the power supplies, which I am aware of, but does anybody know if I just ask to receive it without a power supply installed will they ship to me as is?

Its an expensive paperweight, a novelty item which Im planning on keeping as a testament to my own hubris.

Well I can confirm that I invested a lot more than 10k with BA through Minersource. Currently I have tried to work out something with Minersource but they have stopped responding to my messages. I will probably end up suing Minersource if they don't get their act together.

If there are any other people in the same situation as myself - please contact me, thank you.

Alt coins nowadays shows remarkable improvement and safe profit in them ,