As I stated if the coins came from "coinbase" then there simply *is no return address* - do you get it now?

(also as was pointed out previously if the user was using a web-wallet service or some sort of "mixer" service the input address can in no way be reliably used to send coins back to the original sender - hence the warnings given to people wanting to play with satosh dice)

I think we have already explained that what you think you need simply does not exist - so can you now try once again to explain what you actually need (without re-stating what is in the thread title)?

Perhaps it would help if you could tell us what exactly you need this for?

Also I hope you realise that it is even possible that funds could be sent to you from "coinbase" (e.g. if a miner were offering this as some kind of anonymising service) in which case there are no real inputs to tie your output to (apart from those of every tx that paid any fees in the entire block if that's of any use at all).

Yup
Actually I think even my XP machine does this (although I might have turned autorun off in the registry anyway).

Is it still the case that if you hold down the shift key whilst plugging in a USB that no autorun stuff will occur (in Windows)?

I think you can do that with "brainwallet.org" although I haven't actually verified it yet (but will be doing so soon).

Another approach (if you are just wanting to generate addresses) is to use "vanitygen" or download a webpage such as "brainwallet.org" for offline usage.

Also I posted a script for combining vanitygen with GPG on the forum (try searching for those two terms) if that might be of any interest.

Unfortunately we seem to be living in a time where the idea of "sharing information" have been re-labelled as "stealing information" (how can you really "steal" information - as far as I can see you can only copy it) - the two worst things IMHO that have affected software since the 1970's were application of copyright and patents to software (two things that are IMHO 100% not needed in the industry and have produced 0% benefit to it).

Personally I would not put bitcoind on any VPS - is it such a problem to set up your own computer to do that?

Well I think the main problem that happened with Bitcoinica was actually the leaking of the source code by someone else - but in any case I am using Nameterrific for ciyam.org and have nothing bad to say about this particular service.

I'm a little confused - what exactly is wrong with Zhou's domain name service (or is the problem just his name being associated with it)?

Just noticed this thread - you guys might be interested in my upcoming open source project - as well as an entirely new methodology for creating web applications (called Software Manufacturing) its very first "live project" will be its own project management application that uses a completely new model for BTC project funding (not just funding per "ticket" but allows for specific funding to be donated to task areas and even entire projects and allowing all donations/payments to be publicly traced via the block chain).

A sneak preview can be seen here: http://ciyam.org/sample and any developers interested in "getting on board" prior to the actual release feel free to PM me for more details.


Cheers,

Ian.

One last try (similar to the last suggestion I made) - "mumubank" (as well as the G.E.B. concept of "mu" you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF).

Hmm... "nanobank" - oops website taken - okay then "mubank" (website available - the "mu" is taken from G.E.B's meaning "to unask").

[edit] Do the rules apply to edits?

Certainly anyone can start their own alt coin (or a fork if they really want to) but to keep up continual > 50% attacks would become prohibitively expensive for any organisation when it costs zero to start up another coin (which you would also have to attack if you want a monopoly and if someone does start trying this then I'd expect hundreds of new alt coins to suddenly start appearing).

Also understand that > 50% does not mean you can "double spend" it merely means that you can invalidate (some slightly) older transactions by replacing them with new ones (meaning also that you can't steal other peoples coins with such an attack but you could "respend" some of your own).

The so called 51% attack (which is actually the >50% attack) doesn't require a competing currency (just the hardware hashing power) - what such an attack potentially can do is either "undo" some tx's or refuse any new tx's (the latter being perhaps of more concern). In either case if such an attack were to be carried out it certainly would be an issue for Bitcoin (please also note the that Bitcoin is one word not two) although not necessarily fatal (ideas such as "proof of stake" are already being trialled in other alts). Also note that the cost (in terms of hardware) to carry out such an attack would be rather high.


It is a trivial change in terms of source code but without 100% of current users agreeing to migrate to the same new software it would result in a "hard fork" (which would turn Bitcoin into effectively 2 currencies at the point that the new software was used).


Although IANAL the software was initially released in 2009 (and contains "Copyright (c) 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto" comments in the source code) so unless a patent was filed in 2010 I think it would not be possible to do so now.


Cheers,

Ian.

I have been trialing http://www.bitronictech.net for a VPS service and have so far found their support to be very good and the VPS itself to be working well (although server response it is a little bit slow using the cheapest plan they offer).

I used this service to send a bitcoin to my nephew - worked perfectly and was very quick also.

Personally I'd like an option to simply not display the "Show new replies to your posts" as sometimes I accidentally click on that when I'm meaning to click on "Watchlist" (especially after a few beers).

Oops - I was looking at the source code on my own computer (so not up to date).

Guess there has been some reorg work done on the headers.