Supponiamo che volessi aprire un sito di intermediazione di acquisto/vendita di btc (tipo mtgox, btc-e...), di che autorizzazioni avrei bisogno?
E da che tipologia di esperti "legali" dovrei andare? (commercialisti/avvocati esperti di )

Grazie!

Bitcoin 0.4 began using BerkeleyDB 4.8 instead of 4.7. Can I ask why they didn't directly jump to 5.2? 4.8 is still quite "old" (it's two major releases from the newest: 5.0 and 5.2)

Am I the only one with the account still locked?

I'm quite sure there was a beta version some weeks ago that had a bug that "ate" 10 btc to a person. There was a message about it. I'm trying to find the message and, if possible, the update revision in github (I'll add that, if I remember correctly, the bug was that the public key the money was to be sent was zeroed, so the 10 btc had been sent to someone with public key 0000......000000, but clearly there wasn't this public key.)

Thanks!

As the title suggest.... Ignoring the mega-transactions ( http://blockexplorer.com/tx/7e7839a52f7eab5841e21eb597bd037ec29aac28b38204c6b5a5f29829f1cc48#i1294990 ) that are probably just internal securing of MtGox... how much rich is the richest? I know someone sold 263k of his bitcoins at 0.1, but before arriving at 0.1, how much did it sold from the account?

Difficulty of Bitcoin: 877227
Difficulty of Namecoin: 55882

Value of a Namecoin (from https://exchange.bitparking.com/main): around 0.060-0.063

Theoretical value of a Namecoin in BTC based on difficulty: 0.0637

So at this point mining for Namecoin will give the same result as mining for BTC.

I would suggest a feature. It would break a little BTC, but not very much.

When you make a transaction you can mark as "Parked" or something similar. It means that any transaction that is based on that transaction is reversible in n time (where n is fixed when you create the originating transaction) (we could say that any transaction outgoing from that transaction is slow to start). This attribute is public, so anyone can see it.

The use (and an example): let's say I have 25.000 bitcoins and I want to protect them, but I still want to be able to spend them. I know that simply saving them on an external disk is useless, because an opportunistic virus could wait and steal this secondary wallet. I send them to myself marking them with "park, 1440 blocks (10 days give or take, right?)". We call this the transaction A. Now any transaction B that is based directly from transaction A is reversible in 1440 blocks from the creation of B and won't become confirmed before 10 days pass and so I can cancel it (I know a feature to cancel an unconfirmed transaction is already in the work). There are two scenarios from here:

A) I need the money: I will have to transfer it to a "standard" transaction waiting 10 days. Then it becomes again "standard" BTC. (in fact only transactions directly connected to transaction A have to wait)
B) Someone steals my money: he can try to spend them, but I can cancel its spending if I notice it in 10 days (we could make the client remark that a "Parked" transaction has been "activated"). Technically me and the thief could begin cancelling each other the transactions based on the transaction A and the money would get in a limbo... But it's probable that the thief would lose interest... More times it tries to cancel the transaction more risks he has. And in the end it's better "lost" than "stolen".

As an add-on, on this "special" transaction we could save a "master password" (a signature with a different public-private key, protected on the wallet.dat by a different password than the "standard" password that will protect the everyday keys), so anyone that has the master password can activate the transaction without waiting the time, but I'm not sure this would be a good idea (we would return to the original problem)

Ok... My english isn't very good... Please someone can make it comprehensible?

I was thinking, some minutes ago...

• Bitcoins don't have intrinsic value
• Namecoin do have an intrinsic value (they can be "bartered" with the "system" for a new domain/for renewing the domain)

Both can be traded between persons. Clearly the value of a domain isn't "fixed" but...

[three]

I have written a C# 4.0 version of poclbm (the command line program). I wanted to try "bold new ways"... In the end I can tell you three things:

• you can't make a DirectCompute 11/11.1 (DirectX 11/11.1) kernel/program faster than the OpenCL version
• you can't speed up poclbm by changing the "front end" (the part that is written in Python or, in my case, in C#).
• I have wasted the money I used to buy a 5970 + power supply... The difficulty is growing too much and in two or three weeks I'll be out-of-the-game, without even recouping the money spent... But at least I have a good graphical adaptor :-)

BUT

There are always persons that LOVE to tinker a little. And C# is probably one of the two/three most "known" languages. So I'm putting on sale the C# program (the source, and the exe/dll if you truly need them). To give some numbers... counting comments and blank lines it's 1500 lines of code, 620 effective LOC using the Code Metrics Tool of VS 2010. I would love a collective offer to open source it (poclbm is MIT licensed, and I think the MIT license is very good).

What I'm "selling":
a complete, working conversion, nearly line-by-line of poclbm PLUS a retooled version that uses multiple threads (so much line-by-line that if you rename the exe to poclbm.exe and put it in the folder of GUIMiner it will run flawlessly). Both of them, on my 4 core intel with an ATI HD 5970 are nearly as much fast as the original poclbm (my computer does 380 mhash/sec) (I think my multithreaded version is around 0.15%-0.20% faster than poclbm, but I could be wrong, and my version uses 1%-2% more CPU). I'm even working on a multi-kernel version (extracting the code that "speaks" to the kernel in a different module)

If a single person wants to buy it, we will discuss what he is buying (probably a one-year exclusive license and then I can open source it, or something similar... a longer license if he feels he truly need it. We aren't speaking of the secret sauce for the most good cake on Earth... We are speaking of a C# conversion of a working program). If it's bought by a collective group, it can be licensed as you prefer.

The target price... I don't know... In the end it won't be much (especially if we compare it to the days it took me to convert it). First I want to see if there is an "interest", then someone can throw a number :-) Otherwise I'll throw it in the bin of useless projects...

Ok... this is quite stupid... And I know it... And I don't even truly need the money... It's more a matter of principle...

Would it be possible to add a "stupid proof" mode where new addresses aren't generated/used (I know of the 100 pregenerated addresses) (so for example no direct IP transfer of money, the New Address is grayed out, flashes a big warning dialog if used, and send money sends the "remaining" money back to the same address/to a "default" "already fixed and shown" address) so that users don't have to always backup? I have to admit, every time I move btc I'm quite scared I don't have a backup. (yeah, I know that these feature are to be used to anonymize your operations, but many persons don't truly need so much anonymity. Shops will use one time addresses to collect money, so the money you expend can't be connected to what you buy)
Oh... I would even add a nag window to remind to backup the wallet and a backup function on a menu (just to be more "stupid proof")

Now, I do know that the difficulty auto-calibrates on the "power" of the combined "cloud". My question is different: if more (many more) users come, will the economy of the pool "handlers" change? More users (and greater difficulty) equals more weight on the pool servers (and so less "net" money to pool handlers). And there is probably a maximum number of users a pool handler can handle before his network pipe gets full (and I don't know if the weak link is the network pipe, the processor or the disk). Or will simply increasing the difficulty of the "simple" shares used by pools solve this?
How much powerful must be the pool servers? (or, more importantly, how much less powerful than their clients can they be?)