Ok, cause I read through the earlier links you posted and all they showed was things like a mail drop address was used, a certain type of hosting service was used,  and privacyshark was used etc.  All leads, that can help narrow things down, but all pretty hard to make much more headway on without real police powers (which bitcoin-police probaby does not have,  it is probably more likely bitcoin-watch)


Hope to see more information public soon, and people getting their coins back etc.

Thats just it though, they had no customers.  They just had users.  Maybe a credit union type of set up where the depositors own the business would be a better model for it to run under?   Probably a discussion for another thread though.

No one who cares about privacy and security is going to agree to use skype.

I built and ran the devcoind, though it built of course as bitcoind, it did create a .devcoin directory at least!

After that I built and ran the devcoin-qt,  it told be it could not run since I had devcoind already running, so I stopped that and reran it.  It is now showing as only having one connection and 6581 block(s) downloaded.

I build it on Debian 6, and had to install the boost libraries, and gthread2.0 and qt4-qmake to get it all to build.

Not really sure what to do now though!

Not sure they have been shown yet to be a thief, but they have been shown to be a bad place to have kept bitcoins.

I am curious, why would you want to use any online wallet at this point?   There are none that can't really do the same shut down later.

Are there any active new blockchains?  How does one get made sure to know about them?    I am aware of namecoins.  Any more? Any using merged mining yet?

Nothing I have seen posted indicates that who they are is known even close to EXACTLY.   That also does not negate what I said even if they did.    It does not take time to make travel arrangements really, if you already have a passport, and with bitcoin the need to move money ahead of time is also negated.  

In any case, the core idea that you want to push forward I think is very valid.  This does not create any reason for people to pause in their reports and doing whatever actions they planned to towards investigating and reporting things.

I glanced at mybitcoin.com when I was first researching bitcoins and could only see two use cases for it.  The merchant services and  a place to keep a small remote balance for on the road spending.   It did not look sustainable or scalable since it had no revenue model.  So you had no contract with them or consideration, and they did not even try to use ads to be even using the eyeball model of the early .coms, so I was surprised to learn so much was held by them.  I hope most do somehow get back control of at least a decent percentage of their bitcoins.  I also hope that bit-pay is able to grow and become a dependable merchant service quickly, as that is a void that bitcoins needs filled for long term growth.

That really does not make sense though.  Any communications is a chance to create a leak.  Once someone decided to split and hide they would remain dark.

I am looking for an HTC touch pro 2 for use with Sprint.   Anyone happen to have one gathering dust since they upgraded past it?

I am curious what the thoughts are on merged mining and alternative blocks. Would they help with scalabilty issues by moving some of the load to other blockchains?

This still has the feeling to me of a site that was being run by a bitcoin enthusiast who  'got hit by a bus'.    I think if the main operator of the site was not out of commission for whatever reason this type of message would have been posted sooner and with his usual MO of signing it.    The way the site failed with the breakdown of communications the some weeks before it stopped running also leads me to hang onto this idea.   If it was set up as a scam site the shut down could have been  done in a way to get more loot, no need to actually turn off the site so quickly but rather they would still allow money to trickle in for as long as they could.   If it was a discovered breach as the current letter posted says,   there would not have been the break down in communications ahead of time and the change in MO.  I still think something has happened to the operator of the site, and someone has gotten around to finding and invoking some shutdown plan he had made.

Indeed,  and you can even pay them with bitcoins!

Having used cacert in the past,  they went off the domain registration info, so doubt you can get anything that the whois did not also give.

I want to be able to buy Yuengling for bitcoins.

So the model is the BBB?  Is this supposed to be a good thing? 

The point is I don't want to install pkg-config. I know exactly where say libcurl is,  as I of course build and install that from source.   If there is another dependency I would do the same.  At least with makefiles I could also just edit them easily myself quickly.  Autotools already makes that a longer cycle to fix when things go wrong.  What does it hurt to at least give the option for me to tell it exactly where to get the library it wants to link to?  Put in the README/INSTALL the version dependencies (though the library itself should offer some  way to check this, and let it abort if it is a bad version).

What is wrong with  leaving in the manual override option?  What is crappy about leaving people  the option to not install more abstraction layers on things they don't want?  If I want enough abstraction layers I may as well just go use windows and autoupdates.

Why?  You seem to miss the point completly.  I don't have pkgconfig.  I don't want pkgconfig, so why should I read up on it?  I have been building software from source for a few decades now.   Since usenet was the way to distribute the sources for most.   The all the worlds linux folks are as annoying today as the all the worlds a vax foks where then.

Seems to be a way that works on more systems  and with local built binaries is the right way to do it.  Dependance on a packaging system  is the crappy way to do it.

I hit this myself pretty quickly when I had three people pming at once.  The biggest problem with it was that it caught me
completely by surprise.     Now that I know about it,  I can pack more into each pm, or switch to IM  etc but the first time was a complete shock.  Mostly because I was replying to pms and every other spam limitations on pms I had hit before had always been a throttle on how many different people you could send a pm to.   Can there at least be put a message shown when sending a pm,  you have N pms left for this hour?

He does not accept them due to the campaign finance laws, and all the issues that it could cause from those.

He does support competition in currencies, which to me is better then a specific probitcoin stance.


http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-07-11/ron-paul-we-need-free-competition-in-currencies/