Does Microtronix resell through an accredited ICANN registrar?  If not, in what ways might it matter?

Which feature additions warrant a BIP and which don't?

I see a lot of pull requests and not very often a BIP, so I'm guessing there's a threshold there somewhere..

 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls

Let's say I rent out bicycles in a tourist area.  You as a tourist pay the deposit ... $100 deposit for an $80 bike.    While eating at at a restaurant the bike gets stolen from the bike rack out front.     All the locals know this happens.  I had nothing to do with the theft, but I knew it happens pretty often and didn't warn you.

Is what I did shady?

Related:

 - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328476.500-bitcoin-online-currency-gets-new-job-in-web-security.html
 - http://szabo.best.vwh.net/securetitle.html
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Property

With you being in the U.S. where there is a cheap method for converting fiat to Bitcoins (Dwolla -> Mt. Gox, cost $0.25 per transaction) that you would make that statement is something I don't understand.  When there is almost no friction to replenishing a stash of bitcoins, I will use bitcoins over credit card, myself, on principle, regardless of whether or not there is an advantage to doing so.

(With the exception being, like you mentioned, the specific transactions where I might wish to have the option to do a chargeback should one be necessary).

Now the reason you refer to it as "good money" is likely a reference to Gresham.  But Gresham didn't consider today's payment networks which have merchant fees.  Do you believe those coins will appreciate in value more than you might save when there is a merchant discount?

When a merchant receives the benefit of not having to pay the payment card transaction fee and there is no chargeback risk, it becomes possible for the merchant to pass on part of the savings as a discount.  When the purchase price to you is $50 when you use your Visa/MC or discounted at $48.50 worth of bitcoins when you pay using that method, you probably will be more willing to use your "good money" (and then to replenish your "good money" stash by exchanging fiat again.)

This discount isn't huge, but is enough to change buying behavior.  In the U.S., for instance, look at how many gas stations offer a cash price (which is a discount offered when you pay cash instead of paying for your purchase with a credit or debit card.)

Looks like there are a few factors that make a huge bit of difference as far as what action, if any, a regulator might take.

For instance, where is the exchange?  With GLBSE, they've acknowledged a proxy server being located in the U.S..   Does that make it a domestic transaction if the investor is in the U.S.?   It might be arguable that a rational person would believe that this proxy meant that the transaction occurred within the U.S..

Another factor is is the location of the company ("asset", as GLBSE describes it)?

Perhaps a listing for a "company" that is located in the U.S. might be something that would concern a regulator whereas a listing for a GLBSE asset located outside the U.S. would not, regardless if a U.S. investor was defrauded.

And where is the investor from?  So apparently, foreign investors who buy shares in a U.S. company but make the share purchase outside the U.S. are not entitled to protection by the SEC, even if fraud had occurred (that's if I am understanding the Morrison decision correctly):

"Study on the Cross-Border Scope of the Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934"
 - www.sec.gov/news/.../929y-study-cross-border-private-rights.pdf
 - http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2012/spch041112laa.htm

Forever, as in there will no longer be a GLBSE-run forum?

Well, this really has little to do with "banking".  Bitcoinica operates a type of contract for difference (CFD) marketplace.  In the U.S. for instance, CFD markets are not allowed due to OTC market restrictions by the SEC.  The foreign exchange that is offered in the U.S. differs from CFDs because cash is used to settle gains or losses from price movements of the CFDs whereas with forex spot, swap and futures transactions there is essentially a delivery requirement for the underlying asset.

Your question is worded as if the only risk taker is Bitcoinica.  The fact that a users balance can be below their margin requirement, or negative even (where funds are owed to Bitcoinica) proves that trading risks extend to those who hold leveraged positions as well.

This is one of those situations where the algorithm makes sense when things work as expected.  There are dependencies however and when things go wrong, they go horribly wrong.

When Bitcoinica does forced liquidations it must trade those on an external market. The only one it trades on is Mt. Gox, as far as I know.  Any bot trader will tell you that the automated trading API there has "less than six sigma reliability".  Add in the situation where Bitcoinica was responsible for half or more of the volume at Mt. Gox (particularly during times where there was a big selloff or a price spike) and you have instability all over the place -- something an algorithm cannot be programmed to compensate for.

So, as a result, the spread is set wider than would seem necessary and this gives added protection for Bitcoinica.  On the other side, Bitcoinica does not cover for the account holder and instead passes on the trading losses as liquidations happen at levels where the price has moved further than they were at the time the triggering event occurred.

Because the accounts can be opened using without submitting identifying documents, there can be many accounts controlled by a single operator.  With 10X leverage and a large number of Bitcoinica accounts ("sockpuppets"), the market at Mt. Gox can be manipulated by a single operator or with the help of momentum traders piling on.

The manipulator in many scenarios is not worried that forced liquidations could potentially cause the account to result in a negative balance because the accounts were opened and funded anonymously.

So this system allows the winner to keep the gains, but the losses then either gets absorbed by Bitcoinica or gets passed on to the other customers in the form of higher spread.

So Bitcoinica itself doesn't need to be "shady", but its current form allows shady business a place to operate.

What email?  Has the attacker sent out an e-mail?


Account history shows balances, deposits, withdrawals and transactions all tied to my username.

If that is what will be leaked in the "mass leak"', there will be some interesting discoveries.  Discoveries like, for instance, the amount of past trading profits.   Will there be some ammended returns filed for the 2011 tax year as a result?

Particularly of interest would be the link between username and bitcoin addresses used for all deposits and withdraws.

That would be quite useful when doing flow analysis:
 - http://toolongdidntread.com
 - http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.com/2011/07/bitcoin-is-not-anonymous.html

This encoding of a message by creating spend transactions of certain amounts was performed by the Bitcoinica thief to communicate the message "expect mass leak soon":

 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81045.msg895878#msg895878

I believe one of either Armory or Multibit offers this.

As does My Wallet from Blockchain.info
 - http://Blockchain.info/wallet

There's a huge difference between a site not functioning due to technical problems and a site that has been compromised.

There's also a huge difference between a popular site with tons of paying customers versus a fledgling niche site like this whose revenues don't likely even cover the monthly hosting costs.

Was there something from this site that would give you any indication that it was compromised and thus make it justifiable to ask your question the way you did?

Or was it just like the 99.7% other small websites out there that are taken offline for scheduled or unscheduled maintenance, or where it wasn't able to respond as the result of some technical problem?

When just checking now, the site appears as normal.

Ya, the recent bets now instead of truncating at 200 rows is now showing 2,185 rows of bets.

 - http://bitfare.org/
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Airfare.2FBus.2FRail_Tickets

That version is recent enough, so probably isn't the issue.

Could it be that the network you are on blocks outgoing traffic except for web or something like that going on?

Doesn't Satoshi run some casino now?  I keep reaading about some Dice game with blockchain betting.

Is this an "idea" or a product that is ready to be shipped?

What format is the private key under the halogram in?

Still shows: "Please note that the payment provider will add an additional fee of 1 USD."

And the fee was, as I was already aware, more than that amount.

So the fee is like a lottery?  i.e., if it is too high should cheapskates like me create a new one attempt and hope it shaves a quarter dollar or so off? 

Would you describe how this would be implemented for the user?

i.e., I presume this would allow me to create a 0 BTC spend transaction for the address that is an output in a transaction that I'm waiting on it to confirm.  Is it voluntary up to the miner to take this transaction and then include the earlier transaction, or could the miner just take this "re-fee" transaction and still ignore the earler transaction?