12.500.000 bitcoins did not exist back then, lol they don't even exist now.

That is to-many bits to brute-force crack,  also memorising a full private key is unbelievable.

You cannot contact people through their bitcoin address.

Overall good effort, however not particularly believable.  We certainly can do better than that!

The best one I've seen so far has been by bitlotto

Edit: how many bits would be considered too hard?

Of course you are allowed to plagiarize... the question is "are people going to vote for me if I plagiarize?"

In response to lastminer's poorly written scams, I am holding a competition for the making the best bitcoin Nigerian email style scam!

The winner will be the most creative, believable, and well written.

Include your Bitcoin address in the post for tips.

This thread will be closed in 1 week and a new thread will be created to vote on the winner.

Have fun!  

bitcoin2cash... what is your updated rate?

I'm really sorry... I would have put a catch all phrase in earlier, however I had forgotten about it.

However 200 BTC is like 10x the market price for such a site.

If I wanted to get it done I could 'pay' almost any of the web-developers for hire 20 BTC and get it done... and own the result.

I don't' think anyone can claim that I don't put lots of money into community projects.
However I just cannot afford the opportunity cost of paying out this pledge. (the full 200 BTC)

Bitcoin doesn't need to be user friendly in the short term: remember how many people used torrents before Azureus was stable.

Sometimes it is good to have a geeky edge.  What is important is making sure our systems are much more secure than our competition.

+1

XBC = 100 Satoshis

I like

afterburner229 is a troll...

Gotta' troll the obvious troll. 

See we have got down to the basic difference between those who are 'left' and those who are 'right' (Fuck I hate those terms):

Do people have positive 'rights?'

Well as a voluntarist, I believe people are only compelled 'not to do something.'  E.g. I can not push you into the pool, but I have no requirement to save you from drowning.  (however if I bumped you in, I would be required to save you).

Violence is when you threaten somebody else's freedoms.  Aka:  "I will put you in jail if you don't trade with me."  or "I will kill you if you don't give me your house."

All you can claim is that I don't 'directly infringe' on your freedoms.  If you claim anything more, you MUST also claim some form of ownership over me.

So for anyone who claims a positive right, they are claiming that they ever directly (themselves) or indirectly (society as a whole) own other people.

holy shit! 200 BTC is lots of money now...  will restructure this prize!

@Vandroiy

There have been many people that have passionately said that 'Bitcoin was wrong’ back in early 2010, and they said that it would never get even close to where it is now.

The free market is much more flexible than what you describe.  Did you know that in a free market dominated by Bitcoin, that 'everyone' would be advantaged by its stability?  So the risk to attack may be very very small.  Therefore making Bitcoin more inefficient by artificially shifting more resources into mining may make Bitcoin even less secure as people will not use Bitcoin but something that is cheaper.

The fact is that 'we don't know' what is going to happen... We just know that bitcoin so far has been very successful, and that throughout history a free market has been very successful at predicting and working around any 'attack issues.'

Artificial restrictions are stupid and should be avoided.  I disagree that there should be a fixed fee schedule and block size... I think that it would be more accurately described by competition between the miners.  At some point, Bitcoin may be so cheap and fast, and require such a large amount of infrastructure to run that the people running the network would have a strong stake in keeping it secure.

Vandroiy, you ignore 'idle resources;' good people may have huge computational resources just sitting there for use as a deterrent to any attacker... Those resources could be sponsored by each the big bitcoin banks.  An attack will never happen, because it would be prohibitively expensive to undertake... not from the active network power, but from the potential.


In any case, there is so much about the future that we don't know... and this is all speculation.
We should focus on making Bitcoin as secure as possible NOW, not 50 years in the future.

Have no rules and let the miners decide. 


Let the Bitcoin clients check how many transactions are 'in waiting' and what fees they have.

Provide a dialogue that asks the user to specify a fee, calculating the 'expected time till inclusion in a block.'
This dialogue should include a 'suggested' button that autos to the minimum expected fee needed to get a confirmation within an hour.

A warning should be displayed if the fee is too low and the expected time for inclusion is more than 100 blocks.  However, the user can still take a gamble and send the transaction.


The best option is to provide the miners choice of what fees they want to have, and to provide the end-users the option to select the minimum fee they need for their uses.  (some people don't care if the transaction takes a day, but want to minimise their fees).

Do not use USB keys for long term data storage... The Data has a half-life of around 6years.

Use a mechanical Hard drive...

Or store your Bitcoins in PGP encrypted files that you send to all your friends + and other places...

Print our your private key on acid free paper and password (or keep pass in head). Store the printout in a double scaled bag in a waterproof box marine box.

That is one option.

Hiding assets is hard... e.g. a house, or a car.

They don't mind you hiding cash, because of inflation they make it worthless over time anyway.

Bitcoin is good, because it holds it's value.  So you can hide real 'wealth' instead of play-money.

 

Gavin, what do you think about including a second root-hash in the block hash tree.  This hash is the merkle root of a tree containing the root hashes every block before it?

This will be a useful feature for thin clients; once the clients have downloaded all the root hashes of the previous blocks, any new block can be used to check if the downloaded root hashes are correct.

This will enable secure arbitrary block download.

It is a miner modification to a block... I don't see it containing a large overhead,  it involves a extra sha256 of 3.2 MB / 100,000 blocks. It adds ~256bit to the block size.  I think that it's benefits out weigh the costs.

Well either the owner of the old transactions keeps the old blocks himself, or he pays another company to keep the old block for him.
The owner of the old coins understands that his old coins will be un-spendable if the old blocks are completely forgotten.

This is a user-pays system.  That is a good thing.

Instead of stopping the address collisions, we should focus on *every other doomsday scenario* because they are all way more likely.

You can safely prune both spent and unspent transactions, in fact you can prune entire blocks with spent transactions (for everyone except those those who own the coins in the given old blocks).

• Each miner keeps a list the root hashes of all the previous block, from the genesis block. (e.g. 256bit per block)
• A hash of all the past hashes is included in every block. (a slight modification to the block chain, but trivial) e.g. a Merkle hash tree root
• When an old transaction is announced, the miner downloads the block that contains these old coins.
• The miner compares the hash of the block downloaded to the known good hash of the block
• The miner then can check if the transaction is valid or not.
• When a block is announced with containing a very old block, the network will re-download that block and check if the transaction is correct
• (most) of the network forgets the old block once the new block is verified

See with one small change to the block-chain, (to contain a 2nd root of the hashes of all the past blocks), you can have secure on-demand downloading of old blocks.

So I believe your premise is incorrect.

This is not correct.  The cost is nothing more than what would need to be kept anyway even with culling. Please see: Merkle hash trees


The person who owns the old coins needs to maintain a archive of the blocks that contain those coins... Again moving to a 'user-pay' system.  When the owner of the old coins wants to spend the coins that owner must provide a copy of the full old block.

The owner makes a transaction and provides the old block for download.  (if the miners who offer this service don't already choose to keep the old blocks)


There is no global cost, (aka a user-pays system), then there is no 'unintended consequence' - the few miners who wants to secure old blocks (by downloading old blocks or keeping a archive), can charge a premium for the service.  This is why it is a 'transaction fee' for 'processing the transaction.'  If it requites more work to process old transaction, then those transactions will attract higher fees.  (again a user-pays system).


Again, yes there is, See: Merkle hash trees: negligible cost for verifying old blocks without long-term storage.  (other than the owner of the coins providing the block for upload)


This, again, is incorrect.  Nobody is compelling any miner to process old transaction... The miners can choose to reject old transactions for whatever reason they want.  Including their age.

This whole thread is based upon a false premise: there is a global storage cost for old transactions.  This is untrue.

The miners only need to keep the root hash of every block to verify transactions.  However the owner of the old coins needs to keep an complete copy of the old block.

To spend the old coins. The owner announces both the transaction, and provides the old coin's block for upload.  The miners (who wish to) will see this transaction an 're-download' the old block. (and compare the root Merkle hashes)

The miner only need to keep the more recent blocks, old blocks can be downloaded when needed.  Only some of the miners will bother to download the old block, others will just focus on bitcoins in recent blocks.

This extra work of checking old blocks can adequately and naturally attract higher transaction fees. (but not demurrage, as there was no 'storage costs')

The whole concept of demurrage doesn't isn't economically logical.  Just like always issuing new coins always isn't economically logical.  The COST involved isn't to secure old coins - but to secure NEW TRANSACTIONS.  When all the Bitcoin's are mined, securing transactions moves to a user-pays model.  (as it should be, the user pays for the cost)

There is no cost in 'not using' Bitcoin.