The king is dead! Hail to the king!



Welcome and thanks for reducing the price, but why not be a bit more aggressive? Grant your users a 100% referral bonus for example. This effectively also halfs the price/profit but gets you known. I found the price very well before already and I would rather want to see your service grow fast. So far, nobody knows about it. You can still lower your price when the competition wakes up.

Just because not having an email address distinguishes you from others, doesn't mean optionally having one wouldn't improve your service. Sure, people that download movies for example, should not put in their verified gmail address if they live in countries that honor copyright, but having that feature would still be nice. Memorizable credentials to recover an account would also be nice. Why not mung my credentials into a secondary token? You could hash login+password client-side. This would not lead to you having a way to contact me, but it would be much more transportable and even safer in case my computer is lost. My password safe would hold the login and not my bookmarks.

for the first time ever i try to speculate rather than to just cost-average buying bitcoin. my buy order is at 83.something but it's no quantity you would easily find
So according to Murphy's law, we will never fall below 83 again or if we do, go to 0.

In a pm. I wasn't sure if he said it in the thread, so now I'm a bit confused why he makes it a secret here and tells me he sold there.

I thought I did that but right now I don't find it. I will. Eventually. If not, it's not the end of the world neither.

Krak are you the new owner of bitfetch? Scrat Acorns said he sold bitfetch and I kind of like to know who I'm dealing with when I trust them with my money. As the sums at stake are low or at least can be kept low, I don't necessarily need to know who the owner is but still I prefer to know who I'm dealing with.

Uhm … wtf?? I had some whatnot GB left in my account and now I went there and it says "BALANCE0.0 KB"? I wanted to check for you but apparently I deleted a cookie. I should have the link somewhere though. Maybe optional login wouldn't be a bad idea. Cookies are something people tend to delete from time to time.

Even with MtGox having lost half its share which they didn't, this does not look bullish yet. We are not back at $100.

Oh, I'm impressed by this turn of events

So you defend the stupid so they can continue using weak passwords on brainwallets? Why not take a 50% recovery fee? The money moved again? Is the account in his sig the the brainwallet(WTF!) ?

??

Micro-payment channels only require trust up to the value of one micro transaction that can be one Satoshi. As a micro transaction still has transactional costs of the value to calculate and send it (0.0005ct. maybe) + the two transactions back and forth you need per timout, sending 1Satoshi might still be prohibitively expensive, so as long as paying 1% transaction fees is ok, this method reduces the amount that is ok to be sent from currently $1 to $0.005 aka it is 200 times more efficient for micro transactions.

The legally binding contract thing was colored bitcoins and was in "( )" as it is just a comment where I thought up a case where there would be not only no third party risk but no risk at all, regarding the transfer of property.

My quote is out of context. I said I am bullish short term for the first time since the last bubble popped. I only doubt that this current increase is driven by outside people. Many of my indicators turned bullish these days. For the first time since 3 months I'm getting buy requests on localbitcoins.

Exactly. For the 10ct. you need trust and always will need trust for things you can't pack into the blockchain.

Imagine you buy some digital good. The merchant could send you the encrypted version and forge a transaction that would only be valid if it contained the key for your copy of the digital good. You sign the transaction, granting the merchant the price. Now the merchant could either sign it, too, granting you access to the blob of data he claimed was the digital good, or not sign. At least in this scenario you are damn close to having proof that the merchant did not deliver. I doubt that it's theoretically possible to get much closer to trust-free than that.

(Well, colored bitcoins would be an example though. If there is a legally binding contract that states that this car belongs to whoever controls this satoshi, you could pass ownership of this satoshi and a payment for it in one transaction both parties sign and publish. Maybe this is still a bit esoteric.)

You don't need news. If all are just waiting for the bottom and then start panic buying, a price move $66 – $86 is news.
Another interesting indicator for me is how people post here on the forum. When I saw 20 of the threads I posted in being active yesterday I felt something was in the bush and decided that's bullish. If people are interested in Bitcoin, new money will flock in. How interested are they? Well, new people aint: http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin#q=bitcoin&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q

I don't understand you well but maybe this helps:
You secretly ask the merchant for a refund of a not yet published payment A.
The merchant secretly sends you a contract B1 "If you publish A (aka send me $100) I send you B which can be used to send $100 to you."
Now with this contract in hands you publish A.

Now you feel like you need some service from the merchant. You ask him and he offers you something for 10ct, but asks you to sign B2 "I $99.90 to you. This overrules B1"
As it's a fair deal, you sign it and send it to the merchant.
Now the merchant is compensated and grants you the 10ct. service.

Now you feel betrayed by the merchant and publish the very first full reimbursement but the merchant has time until the timeout of A expires to publish any lower reimbursement that you signed and that overrules all prior Bs.

The highest B at the end of timeout wins and becomes a blockchain transaction. This might happen before the timeout if B∞ gets published with all signatures early.

As I said, it's not their fault, so they deserve the $1000 but maybe they don't deserve the publicity from B100 until the donation progress is usable. Wonder what Coinbase has to say about that issue.

?? I don't understand you.
I think if you have an algorithm for brainwallet, that takes for example 5 minutes to mung your password into a key pair, your mothers name and a 4 digit number might be enough as creating the rainbow table would take millennia for even this small password space. Or maybe your mother has a very complicated name and there is no public record of it that somebody might ever take as input for a rainbow table? In any other case I would expect your bitcoins to disappear rather soon.

Sad thing is that brainwallet mining is more profitable for some than securing-the-network-mining but it's certainly only beginning. At some point huge amount of computing power will get directed to collect the coins that are said to be lost here in the forum. When we migrate to safer keys, not all coins will migrate and people will hunt for those nobody migrated.

I would agree if kipochi wouldn't look soooo cheap. They have more typos than sentences on their barely professional page and no updates in a while, so I want them to proof themselves first. Their mpesa partner is not affiliated to mpesa aka some guy who's using his private mpesa account to manually funnel transactions?
I call this vaporware and would take bets that they don't process 1000 transactions within the next 3 months or prior to having serious issues. Total noobs trying to do finance at best. Maybe just some pump and dump.

The placement of the button is nice but WTF??? I wanted to send $2 their way and the thing askes me to send exactly one bitcoin??? For an anonymous donation that's a bit steep. The wording "send exaclty" sounds like if I send less, Coinbase will just hide it from them and "try to settle this with me" and if I send more, they will just keep that and try to settle with me again?? Donations should not have a minimum or otherwise exact amount.

This criticism is for Coinbase, not for ASI Conserva Chile though. I'm glad to see some bitcoins flow to Chile and sad that actually they don't flow to Chile thanx to coinbase
ASI Conserva is there no techy among your organisation that promises to buy those coins and sell or not sell them on the Chilean market? I'm in Viña and would offer to help out and I know in Santiago trading Bitcoins is not really much of a problem.

Edit: Coinbase stinks. Either they just got 10 bug reports or zero. The input allows me to enter 0.05, the radio buttons once selected don't allow me to unselect either 5 or 10 but the payment request is 1BTC regardless of what i click above. Sorry but Coinbase seams to be busy counting millions rather than to implement some decent interface.

guys, you are off topic.

on topic: I'm surprised by the features. It is progress and the dev team certainly has a reason to go this way but to me it feels rushed after a rushed 0.8.2 that also got many people by surprise. I don't see why a CA should be used in Bitcoin. Is this a protocol extension? The return-address certainly is an extension but I don't see why this linking of transactions should be in the block-chain. A service could have an api to receive signed messages with return addresses for certain transactions (if you receive a transaction with id X, please send return to Y. Please confirm this signing with the key of address 1dice...). Will these payment requests be public? Will transactions reference these requests? Where can I read more details? Why not sign with keys? Where can I read what plans the devs have to integrate next?

Are these changes pull requests now? Are they well tested on the testnet?

All in all I would just want more and kind of earlier info. Everybody knows about pruning but this gets delayed over and over it seams while some surprise-features pop up with next releases.

Isn't it funny to see every day how a security company comes to the supermarkets to pick up the collected cash from the supermarket, guarded with guns and armored vehicles that don't stop the engine outside, while an hour later another security company comes by doing the same security circus to fill the ATMs? Replace fiat with bitcoin and they all loose their jobs.