I don't know the policy yet on positions.

About the ETA: the records here are immense. It took me 2 hours to do a handful of people. I calculated that it would take one person 10 days assuming they do 10 hour days - which you don't want to do because you make mistakes. 4 hours a day is the absolute maximum (with another person checking the info).

5% of people are verified so far.

This is the guy making it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6974216.stm

Also: I saw bitcoincard, and the device is legit. It has only minor kinks that are easy to work out.

I'll avoid posting more as they're quite sensitive to exposing their secrets right now, but the device is really cool. I'm hopeful for it.

First off:
- It's tiny. Credit card sized and < 1 mm thick
- Low cost (cheap device)
- Low power (runs off solar)
- Theoretically it should be secure, but I need to know more of their setup first to be sure their implementation is secure. I'm guessing there may be a couple of vectors they haven't thought of yet, but with proper help they should resolve this.

For merchants, it's trivial and safe to allow Bitcoin payments from these. They also look pretty nifty.

I can imagine one day, Intersango giving away a basket of these for free branded with our logo (or something). They are really cheap and simple devices.

I'm not questioning the tech tbh, but more whether people would prefer this over mobile phones (a social problem) despite improved security. Phones can do way more than this device so I'm not sure.

You should quote the entirety of my post:


Bitcoinica Consultancy registration was never completed. I for instance had not signed and my documents weren't notarised. Similar things for others. So there is no clear ownership here.

Tihan was asking for completion of the registration for Bitcoinica Consultancy, whereas Donald was asking for legal authorisation from Core Credit.

Tihan sent this email:


Donald:


Tihan:


(And then this goes backwards and forwards with Donald asking for Andrew Thornhill's contact details, and Tihan saying we don't need them, as we are in charge. The issue being of course that Bitcoinica Consultancy is a non-existent/unformed company)

He also sent me an email asking me for the documents to complete the formation of Bitcoinica Consultancy, which is a bit weird as we're paying people back, and I don't have a spare day or two to go get my documents notarised.

Anyway I'm not sure who's right between Donald (being excessively "by the book") or Tihan (trying to limit his perceived involvement). But it does not matter who is legally in charge right now as the way forwards is clear and everyone is in agreement about what needs to be done. We will make the payments, we now have consolidated all the records and the money.

Matthew N Wright is not involved with Bitcoinica (from what I know). That's not to say him and Zhou Tong did not ever have friendly relations. It's common among Bitcoin people that we all speak and share ideas despite being 'competitors'. For instance I advise Andreas how to improve his Bitcoin client despite that I'm working on a different client. We all want Bitcoin to succeed, and better services = better community for all.

For instance I gave advice to Matthew about his magazine despite writing for BitcoinMedia. I think it's a cool project and want it to succeed.

Anyway I'd prefer to keep this thread on topic. Make a separate thread for periphery topics.

- serialisation has changed. more intuitive and uses native c++ features to support extendability for saving and loading of bitcoin messages.
- async_service now provides access to underlying io_service ptr which is now the requirement for services.

I don't like this witch-hunt for Zhou Tong. Please stop it. He is still young and it is unfair to be too harsh. When I was young, I also did many stupid and seemingly unforgivable things I wish I didn't do. Is it really worth ruining the life of a child as retribution? That's so petty.

As for the funds. It is being worked on. Of course we want everyone paid back, but it isn't so easy. Consider that we have run an exchange for nearly 2 years now which has been operating with the utmost honesty and respect, having never been compromised dealing with comparable levels of funds as Bitcoinica. Although we are conservative and cautious in our actions, we acted slowly and deliberately to be sure there were no further disastrous mistakes. The legality of the payments had to be sorted out and checked first, and proper systems had to be developed to enable staff to collaborate and corroborate records to the most accurate possible.

Just under 10% of claims have been verified, and I'm waiting on those payments to be made out soon.

Also: I saw bitcoincard, and the device is legit. It has only minor kinks that are easy to work out.

I'll avoid posting more as they're quite sensitive to exposing their secrets right now, but the device is really cool. I'm hopeful for it.

First off:
- It's tiny. Credit card sized and < 1 mm thick
- Low cost (cheap device)
- Low power (runs off solar)
- Theoretically it should be secure, but I need to know more of their setup first to be sure their implementation is secure. I'm guessing there may be a couple of vectors they haven't thought of yet, but with proper help they should resolve this.

For merchants, it's trivial and safe to allow Bitcoin payments from these. They also look pretty nifty.

I can imagine one day, Intersango giving away a basket of these for free branded with our logo (or something). They are really cheap and simple devices.

This is false. It happens fairly often in fact that someone sends to an address and then debits in the same block. The only restriction is that the transactions have to be chronologically ordered in the block (due to the way bitcoin blocks are processed)

If anyone wants a place to stay, I have an extra bed and a sofa for people to crash on. Also lots of floor space.

Hopefully they get done soon I think. One of the points outlined today by Tihan was:

"This is what I need from each of you today:

1) A sign of life that the claims processing has begun -- an announcement to that effect and/or actually paying people back

..."

So things are moving forwards now after the hiatus. Most people involved are in agreement on what needs to be done.

No. It was hacked because someone's personal email was compromised.

https://intersango.com/security.php

Intersango uses SHA512 + salt + site wide secret

This is the third time Bitcoinica has been compromised. Everyone knew there were security problems. That's why we were signed on to help secure it. Not only that, but the site was losing money because of the inefficient way it was being run. These were problems which were identified, and a plan drawn up to fix them. The plan did not get a chance to run beyond the bare beginning. Normally our policy for identified flaws in Intersango is to shut down the site until it's fixed. However I think with Bitcoinica, it wasn't our site to shut down (imagine bringing someone on and they shut down your site). But once Bitcoinica was compromised, we had it shut down, and it will stay shut down until people are paid. It will not go back online unless it is secure and in our total control. This is different to Bitomat or MtGox who were compromised and had identified flaws, but kept operating regardless. The situation here is complicated by the fact that Bitcoinica was undergoing a transition during this interval, and the specifics or leadership and technicals were still being agreed upon. It was during this time, that the keys were being slowly handed over and the documents were being signed (I only went to try and notarise my signature the day before the attack).

There were no backups.

Until Saturday (or so), I was working on helping process the claims. Since then I've been working on libbitcoin and Electrum.

Now the thing is that for payments to be processed, we need legal authorisation from the person in charge. Tihan denies being in charge, which means his parent company (Core Credit) has to authorise the payments. However Tihan is saying we don't need that.

The problem is that Bitcoinica Consultancy only begun the process of being formed when the attack happened. The paper work was not completed and we weren't acting as GP. Tihan is asking us to finish completing the formation of Bitcoinica Consultancy first, while we are asking for legal authorisation to conduct payments on their behalf.

But I think the issue may be resolved now although I'm not sure of the specifics (I'm not a lawyer). Hopefully someone acting on proper legal representation can respond.

Anyway I'm going to avoid posting now, since the technical problems have been resolved, and the remaining things are legal. I've probably made a bunch of mistakes or inaccuracies above as I don't have a complete understanding of this and don't have a legal background.

I know as much as Zhoutong really. I try not to post unless I'm sure what I'm saying is correct or meaningful.

Fixed for g++ 4.7

Related: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-02/msg00201.html

OK, seems like Ubuntu Quantal uses g++ 4.7 (release date is October) and many distributions are phasing in the new toolchain. I think it's because g++ 4.7 implements the vast majority of the new C++ standard so it's being fast tracked in.

I'm upgrading to a system with 4.7 so hopefully I should be get it working with the new compiler now.

I met the OpenSim people and they didn't really care much for Bitcoin. Also: they are pro-copyright, and think that downloading media is stealing.