Makes sense. If it does not exist the key has not yet been created so it should be detected at send. So it should not send to an invalid address. Does it though?

If it was valid but the wallet was offline, it would have a valid key and be sent. Wouldn't it then wait till the wallet was online?

If not I need to leave my wallet online all the time to wait for the millions I am being sent. That doesn't sound right.

Interesting. Won't it just wait until the wallet comes back online. In the case of someone sending to a valid address not yet created would it not suddenly gain that amount when it was created?

I thought it's a bit like a text message. Waits till it turns on then sends it.

If not people need to leave their wallets on all the time and we know that isn't true. So maybe if there was a time limit of X days/weeks/months?

Guys,

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.

Guys,

Thank you.

Rob has hit on one area I didn't understand. How it related to my existing domains. Now I know it doesn't and may never I'm a bit happier. I see it being like Bitcoin for those that don't trust the government and want to use it on a subset of the web.

I still have a few concerns but as it will not impact my current domains I don't have an issue.

Regards

What is the point of it? I do not see any use for it at all yet it seems very popular.

I've looked at a few FAQs and they explain what it does but no real explaination why.

Sounds interesting. I was thinking of doing the same thing for a small local barter system.

Is the point to set up your own currency? Will the exchange rate be linked to Bitcoins or USD for example?

Call me silly but I wonder who it was that decided on the value of transaction fees. I tried to send some BT to someone else and the fee wanted was more than the transaction amount. Now I now that the theory is it is to stop DoS type attacks but I know that techies can spam the channels without using the BitCoin client so it seems to me it is just a way to force us to pay funds into the mining pools. Who will process the funds when the mining pools stop as the coins become prohibitive to mine? Not me I switch my cleint off now as I don't get any of the fees.  It seemed reasonable to have a low fee to send your funds immediately but what about those that are happy to wait and want to spend as little as possible on admin costs aka bank charges. Finally, when everything settles down and BT comes to a value where 0.000001 is the cost of an item, say a UK penny, it is possible, then a 0.01 admin fee is going to be £100. A bit steep wouldn't you say? Why isn't it say 1% max of the value being sent.

I would have posted this in the correct forum but I'm a newbie. Only another 4 and a half hours to go. 

Guys,

Thanks for that. From the articles it was not made clear it was on only just one exchange. The text from the website http://blogs.computerworld.com/18504/can_geeks_save_bitcoin_after_hellish_week_of_hack_heist_trojan_and_a_crash was;

The value of the virtual money crashed from $17.50 per bitcoin to almost nill - mere pennies. MtGox was shut down before operators rolled back the fraudulent transactions and restored bitcoin value to $17.50.

So my concerns were;
How did they manage to 'rollback fraudulent transactions' when they went outside the exchange or were those not?
'restored bitcoin value to $17.50' sounds a bit like manipulation to me.

Thank you realnowhereman for explaining the story a zillion times better than the hacks at that web site.

It makes a bit difference to people and they need to understand it.

I'll still be keeping away from Mt.Gox as much as possible anyway for having such mickey mouse security for what is in reality a bank.

I feel much better now about the whole thing.

Regards

If someone had access to all that then more than that account would be compromised. I would be truly right to be paranoid.

I joined and tried to earn them. After 25 minutes filling in a survey I was entered into a pool to win £1000 instead of any Bitcoins. So that was a waste of time, unless I win the £1K of course. 

Hi there,

A while ago I came across Bitcoin and didn't really understand it. After some recent articles on the web I decided to have another look and seen a much more vibrant market so I decided to get involved.

The main reason I got involved was the fact that there was no central control. Finally, free from government meddling. However after reading about the handling of the recent hack and the theft of Bitcoins I'm now not seeing any difference between Bitcoins and tangible goods.

I'm not concerned about the hack and I'm not concerned about the theft both of those can be handled, There will always be weak points in security and even experienced IT people get hacked. Where money is involved it makes it more attractive. People should lose trust in the people who were hacked because they clearly were not looking after the system correctly.

The part that concerns me is the rollbacks and the adjustment of the Bitcoin value. This was purely to regain trust in their system and make them look good. This is no different from Government meddling in my book. Adjusting the price of Bitcoins, This means they could drop the price, buy Bitcoins then make it artificially high and sell them. This sound like control to me and I don't remember reading about this feature in the specifications. In addition did this rollback rollback other transactions not related to the theft?

I though Bitcoin was a way to avoid control and meddling. I'm not convinced it can work now which is a pity.

Or do I have the wrong take on the handling of this 'bank job'?

I can understand some restrictions but this seems a bit excessive. Am I to gather that it was worse than this before. Trolls will always find a way.