Hmm... perhaps it is because the system has already created the Invoice and already knows me (when I go to it I am already logged in) but if I click "Pay with PayPal" then just just takes me to PayPal (only option there is to cancel and return).

Hmm... well I guess the "Don't have a PayPal account" must be hiding somewhere I can't find (although I have already provided my CC details).

Can you tell me which link I need to click on to find this option?


Thanks - appreciated.

Oh - okay - didn't notice that - got through now but also didn't realise you are only taking PP at the moment (should have read the OP more carefully).

By strange coincidence I decided to close my PP account (which I hadn't used for years anyway) just recently and am not planning to reopen it.

Anyway I've placed an order which hopefully you can process for me when your direct CC processing comes online.

Got as far as the checkout but when trying to create an account it keeps telling me "Invalid email or password".

Well done!

Flyer looks good too - although I think the stuff about one sending millionth of a bitcoin might be stretching it just a tad (when the standard client will ask you to pay a 0.0005 fee).

On my rather lame laptop this took much more than a few moments (I thought it had hung and killed the task after 10 minutes).

Wow - guess my laptop computer is rather slow then.

Correct (but the difficulty dramatically increases per character).

You can generate an address with 5 leading characters (after the 1 of course) with just an average computer using vanitygen.

I did it using an average 2 year old laptop in about 4 days.

If the ability to specify a "change address" was also added to/included with coin control for release in the next version (i.e. 0.7.0) then I will gladly pay a bounty of 20 BTC to the author of the patch that is merged in (feel free to quote this for reference).


Cheers,

Ian.

Aha - understandable and as said not really very important.

I will just keep another window in focus when I'm looking at it so I don't start squinting.

I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that tainting is just a Bad Idea^TM and not really in the best of interests of anyone wanting to use Bitcoin.

Also the idea of optional "taint lists" I think just leads to a slow spiral of death as more and more such lists are put together by different legal jurisdictions whose decision about what is or isn't a crime will inevitably vary.

Currently I think only Mt. Gox dictates this (any other exchanges also?) presumably after they have been informed by others of one or more specific Bitcoin addresses to be suspicious of.


Yup - we'd all end up with some "dirty" coins eventually.

Good point - I don't think there was any real consensus about the issue before and it also didn't seem to me that the exchanges were very keen to weigh in on the issue.

Mostly correct but not always 100% true even with cash (i.e. serial number tracking to identify cash stolen in some large robberies).


Personally I don't see that "tainted coin tracking" should have anything to do with Bitcoin itself - policing is a job for police (and/or other government authorities) and is very much dependent upon laws that differ a lot between different jurisdictions.

A bitcoin should be fungible otherwise inevitably everyone's wallets will end up with "tainted" coins that they may have difficulty in using. New users have enough to cope with already without them also having to learn that "bitcoins are all equal, however, some bitcoins are not as equal as others".

BTW this issue has been discussed at length on this forum before (with a little searching you will discover a number of threads).

Apologies if this idea has already been hashed out before (did try some searches but maybe my Google-fu is not so strong).

I was thinking about the issues of ownership and virtual property and the following idea came to mind:

Consider a Bitcoin address that contains a small balance:

1ownerXXX 0.01

Now consider some sort of XMLish "virtual property certificate":

[property]
<service>WoW
 <item>Player
  <role>fighter
  <strength>1000
  <experience>10000
...
  <token>xxx123456
 </item>
</service>

and the use of the new "sign a document" feature of Bitcoin.
(so the above document is signed by owner of 1ownerXXX to prove ownership)

Assuming that the token "xxx123456" can be checked with the online service to verify ownership and validity then if one player wants to transfer this "virtual property" to another player one could send the property to an escrow (yes 3rd party trust involved here so some sort suggestions for a decentralised alternative solution would of course be welcomed) as follows:

1ownerXXX ==> 1escroXXX

After this tx occurs the escrow creates an address for payment which if funded with the requested amount results in:

==> 1ownerXXX ==> 1escroXXX ==> 1newowner
1payment ==> 1oldowner

and if full payment not met by agreed time then:

==> 1ownerXXX ==> 1escroXXX ==> 1newowner ==> 1ownerXXX
(and possibly 1payment ==> 1newoner as a refund due to insufficient funds)

The actual service (such as WoW) will decide who the "owner" of the virtual property is by simply following the transfer from the original address to its latest owner via the blockchain.

The main point here being to use Bitcoin blockchain as a way of showing proof of ownership of virtual property.

Has something like this already been implemented (and if not why not)?

I recently upgraded to the latest release and after starting up bitcoin-qt (using Windows XP) I noticed this:



I think the text ("~207 blocks remaining") might be better off being just black although this is probably just a sign of my eyesight getting poorer with age.

Oddly enough if I put the focus to another window the text color changes to black (am guessing this must some sort of standard Qt "feature").

Other than that it is looking nice!


Cheers,

Ian.

Hi Simon,

You may be having some of the same problems that I have had understanding what the Bitcoin client's "accounts" are.

You might have thought that if you assigned an "account" to an address that the "sendfrom" (when using the same account name) would use that address but that is not actually how it works at all.

It will actually pick an address from your receive address pool (more likely than not to *not* actually be the one that you had "set" an account to) and then it will "label" the tx as belonging to the account (so the listtransactions will show it when you specify the account name).

A patch by the member "coderrr", however, will allow you to specify which "from" addresses to actually use for sending which may accomplish what you are perhaps wanting (hopefully it will be appearing in a release later this year).

Also understand that the "accounts" are only known to your own wallet and so have nothing to do with another user's wallet.

Hope that helps!


Cheers,

Ian.

Using taobao the seller will pay only a 1% fee for credit card tx's (and zero if payment is direct from an account which can also be done here).

I seriously doubt that any Bit-pay like "service" (rather than self-service) could possibly be cheaper and so have stated before that hopes for Bitcoin in PRC based upon what matters in the west (i.e. being ripped off by fees) are simply not relevant.

Not true as Chinese generally don't use any of those and (certainly buyers) pay zero fees for most purchases (e.g. Taobao) - plus other than online "cash is king" in PRC.

Isn't the limit 1 MB of tx data rather than x # of tx's?