说明在这里：https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.msg4998488#msg4998488 和这里： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=173220.msg6160307#msg6160307 。 主要思路是利用TLS协议的特点，让买家/卖家和仲裁者（可以是交易所或者靠谱的第三方担保人）一人生成半个Master Secret,最后只有被仲裁的有加密/解密密钥，仲裁者有MAC密钥进行校验，审核被仲裁者提交的数据包是否显示了正确的交易状态和金额，和来自于银行。

有问题欢迎提出，如果大家有兴趣的话，我也可以写个中文说明。

代码在这：https://github.com/themighty1/tlsnotary

E.g., when a small-sized block arrives, delay it for 3-5 seconds, and only rebroadcast it when no new valid, larger block is received during this period. Would it encourage mining pools to increase their blocksize,  or does this behaviour have any bad effect on the network?

No "connection reset", just the page taking forever to load, with GAE or VPN on the page loads instantly. Can any other Chinese user confirm? I have asked several people to run the test and they return the same results.

There are several write-only encrypted filesystem using asymmetric encryption out there, I wonder how practical it's to use them for Armory offline transactions? Only pubkeys will be entered on the online computer, so even if the malware can write itself into the filesystem, without knowing the internal structure of it, it will have a very low chance ending up somewhere executable.

http://www.ecns.cn/cns-wire/2013/11-15/88703.shtml

So I read this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277389.0 , without understanding much math detail about it, but if "a system where someone can run an arbitrary program inside a special environment and then publish a very compact and quickly-checkable proof which will convince anyone" is indeed possible, then it sounds to me like it should also be possible to build a program which allows a Bitcoin buyer to do an online banking session, and publish a proof to convince a escrower that he has indeed transferred the negotiated amount of fiats to the designated account. Such a program would then enable anyone to buy bitcoins online in a P2P manner without giving away any confidential information, all you need to find is a seller, and an escrower.

Could anyone please tell me if I am too naive? Thanks.

So I read the warrant against Gox, http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mt-Gox-Dwolla-Warrant-5-14-13.pdf , and I think basically they are trying to justify the seizure by saying Gox is involved in dealing in currency and transmitting money for their customers, which Karpeles denied when he registered the account with the bank, however, I doubt whether such accusation is really well-founded.

First, the warrant is very assertive that Bitcoin is a digital currency, and Gox is a digital currency exchange, nevertheless, according to http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=d5570d7646c5fc13fe1fa42a61d1dcf1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.2&idno=31#31:3.1.6.1.2.1.3.1(search for "(m) Currency")  Gox cannot be called a currency exchanger or dealer because it doesn't deal in foreign currencies, you cannot exchange dollars for other currencies on Gox directly, you can only exchange them for bitcoins, which is not a currency by their definition.(In fact, the Japanese authority considered Bitcoin a ledger and decided not to regulate)

Second, Gox cannot be called a money transmitter either, according to the definition from the same source(search for "money transmitter"):"(5) Money transmitter —(i) In general. (A) A person that provides money transmission services. The term “money transmission services” means the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means. " Especially the following two exceptions:

"(ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitations. Whether a person is a money transmitter as described in this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. The term “money transmitter” shall not include a person that only:

(A) Provides the delivery, communication, or network access services used by a money transmitter to support money transmission services

......

(E) Provides prepaid access; or

(F) Accepts and transmits funds only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services, by the person who is accepting and transmitting the funds."

So my conlcusion is there should have been no need for Gox to register as a money transmitter, as they never engaged in exchanging one person's currency and funds for another person's, and Karpeles should indeed answer "No" to the two questions. Any legally knowledgeable guy please enlighten me if I am wrong.

I don't see it being advertised a lot, neither is it given a lot of love(we still can't do it in the GUI),  but I definitely see a market for such  a feature, there are a lot of transactions for which both parties involved would not want to put the escrowed funds in the hands of a third-party, in fact they may not even want any third-party to be aware of the transaction. So it seems that multisig can at least solve such a problem for a lot of these people.

What do you think?

What about the Twitter account of a major news agency?

Seriously, is that all it takes for the world's biggest stock market's index to drop 143 points?

Back again https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=28488;sa=showPosts

And how can I forget... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=21082

The price ever goes to $1000.

No matter how you have vowed you will never sell.

You will exchange most, if not all of your bitcoins for those filthy, worthless pieces of green, red, blue papers, coming straight our of the factories of Ben and his pals around the world, which you have so far loathed and despised.

You will forget about the plan of liberating money from the monopoly of governments and banks, like you have never believed in such an idea.

I know, I know, you need the money to start a family, you want to give your kids a better education, you have wanted that car for a long time, you can finally set your parents up...... I understand, I totally understand.

Just don't overestimate yourself.

You know who can cause a crash? Not some evil manipulators, you will cause the crash.

No, no need to prove to me anything, prove to yourself.

All the permabears out there, it's time for you to put your money where your month is,  my proposal goes like this:

1. If the MtGox bitcoin price(or whatever market that is the biggest by then) ever goes to below $10 before GMT 00:00 Jan 1st 2014(I intended to say "never", but obviously it's not a usable deadline), I will pay every bear who bets against me 1 BTC.

2. If the same price doesn't go below $10 before GMT 00:00 Jan 1st 2014, every bear who bets against me have to pay me 1 BTC.

3. Every participant has to be at least a senior member of this forum, the deadline for participation is GMT 00:00 Apr 9th 2013.

Your thoughts?

Could the European residents on this forum tell us the reactions from you friends/acquaintances/family members, after hearing about this?

I.e., can't stop giving away bitcoins noobishly at whatever low price, even when buyers are already offering conspicuously higher bid prices.

Can't remember how many times I have seen it.

Please vote.

You know what would a bankster do when he finds out there is something seriously wrong with their new transaction system? He will try to hide it, he will try to do everything to make sure this information doesn't get outside, he doesn't want his stock price to drop, he doesn't want his investors to lose their confidence. But you can't always stop the information/rumors from spreading, your investors will somehow get to find out a bit about it here and there, this gives them uncertainty, and their greatest hatred is uncertainty.

Now let's face it, the investors are not idiots, no one is an idiot. We all know very well there never was and never will be a error-free system in the world, and a crisis is doomed to strike you sometime, the important thing is how the people behind the system handle it. In the bitcoin world, the bug itself and the way people handle it is clearly visible, everything is transparent, everything is there for everyone to see, investors will get no uncertainty, they can figure out exactly how much their risk is in such a situation(which is not big, by the way), if they are willing to take things into their own hands and not succumb to panic. They will like a system like that, and a system like that will prevail in the end.

I think this rally is making money for a lot of people, rather than just a few people like in June 2011, not to say that many trigger-happy early adopters, who can liquidate tens of thousands without any hesitation, are mostly out of the game. So once a crash comes, a lot of people will be in a comfortable position to cash out and reinvest, including bears who can't wait to get back in, obviously the majority of late buyers will get burned, but if let's say, the price plunged 60% to like $15-19, the buying pressure coming in from people reinvesting part of their profits may well be enough to prop the price up, a further plunge to below $10$, especially $2 is unlikely to happen, though the chance is not negligibly small, my current estimation of the "absolute bottom" is somewhere around $7-$8.

Your thoughts?

I can't figure out why many here believe they will. They could do dark pool sellings out of the exchange, many people/corporations/direct buying organizations would be willing to buy their bitcoins at some fixed prices.

Also on ClarkMoody, MtGoxlive, etc. Anyone notice the same thing?

When will him(assume he is still alive) or other dictators discover Bitcoin?