[So somebody today owns this piece of stone money, even though nobody's seen it for over 100 years or more]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-island-of-stone-money

One time, according to the island's oral tradition, a work crew was bringing was bringing a giant stone coin back to yap on a boat. And just before they got back to the island, they hit a big storm. The stone wound up on the bottom of the ocean.

The crew made it back to the island and told everybody what happened. And everybody decided that the piece of stone money was still good — even though it was on the bottom of the ocean.

"So somebody today owns this piece of stone money, even though nobody's seen it for over 100 years or more,"

[then what the hell is the European Union good for]

Here's a little rant I want to share because I think it illustrates everything that is wrong with today's AML regulations.

I live in the Netherlands and I am an active user of crowdcube.com - a p2p crowd-financing site based in the UK.

Crowdcube stated on their website that international investors were welcome as long as they didn't break any rules in their home country.  For 2 years, I was able to invest in various pitches without any problems.  Last month, I decided to invest 300 GBP in a UK-based biotech startup.  Then, suddendly, they decide to change the rules right in the middle of my investment and send me this email:

Due Diligence and Anti Money Laundering checks

Hello ******,
 
I’m currently running Anti Money Laundering check reports for the ****** pitch you invested in. I’m afraid that the address that you supplied us with will not suffice and we require a UK residential address in order for us to complete the investment process. The requirements set by GoCardless, our payment provider, also deem that you are required to have a UK residential address with a UK bank account to invest on Crowdcube.
 
Many thanks,
 
Jessica ***** | Customer Service Advisor

"Anti Money Laundering"  
So sending 300 GBP from the Netherlands to the UK, now automatically makes me suspected drug dealer?  Guilty until proven innocent? WTF?

You don't have to be a libertarian to see that there is something seriously wrong with the system here.  If an ordinary person living in Amsterdam is prohibited from buying a handful shares in a Cambridge-based biotech startup, then what the hell is the European Union good for?  Apparently the "single market" does not apply to the small guy.

Yes, I realize that this is GoCardless' individual decision, and that this does not constitute a universal cross-border investment ban, but what we are seeing here is a chilling effect of excessively complex and draconian AML regulations.  I am sure that there are many other examples of companies simply shutting out foreign investors rather than taking their chances with overzealous regulators.

What makes me really angry is that the damage caused by these regulations is invisible to politicians and voters.  The biotech company will never know that they missed out on foreign investors like me.  Maybe they will fail, and the politicians will never know that this company could have created life saving treatments, had it been only able to raise more starting capital.  The jobless biochemistry graduate will never know that this could have been a great place to work for.  And so on...   So the regulations will only get worse, and the bad guys will simply route around them through the darknet.

I am sad to be expelled from Crowdcube. It was a great concept. But I can take my money elsewhere. It's not like the UK economy needs it or anything.
 

There is Alice, the main signatory. Then there is Bob, the secondary signatory.

The main signatory can spend the bitcoins at any time, with her signature alone.

But if Bob wants to spend the bitcoins, he needs to make two signatures. The second signature needs to be at least 6 months after the first.
 
Alice continues being able to spend the bitcoins, even after Bob has made the first signature.


My question: Can this be done?

My reason for asking is that I think this would be a great way to handle inheritance without having to trust a third party (eg. a notary or lawyer). If it can be done, I might be willing to pay somebody to code it, depending on how complex it is.

Technically, it could be argued that bitcoins are "created" collectively by the network and simply "awarded" to the miner, or "found" by the miner, or whatever.

But judges tend to care more about what's going in principle, rather than what's going on technically.  So regarding the the FinCEN statement, I think that this is the more legally pertinent question.

This is how I would argue that an individual miner is not the creator of "her/his" coinbase currency units, not even in principle:

*Can an individual miner decide how many coins are created? No.
*Can an individual miner decide whether his/her discovered block makes it into the longest chain? No. Though this is likely, it's not guaranteed.
*Can an individual miner decide whether his/her discovered block makes it into the consensus chain? No.
*Are miners, individually or collectively, responsible for choosing the consensus chain? No.
*Can an individual miner create currency units by solving a block but not publishing it? No.
*What if a miner solves a block, but a third party publishes it? Who is the creator? The solver or the publisher?
*At what moment does a "currency unit" come into existence? At the moment of the coinbase transaction? Or only 120 blocks later?
*If it only comes into existence 120 blocks later, can the miner still be considered the sole "creator"?  Didn't the collective effort of other miners also contribute to "creation"?

Discuss.
 

My problem:

I accidentally deleted a number of files using the rm command on an eCryptfs-encrypted Ubuntu laptop.

After cloning the laptop HD using Clonezilla, I mounted it on a virtual machine and scanned it using extundelete.

Extundete WAS able to recover some files and directories in my home directory (where I deleted the original files). However, I don't know how to decrypt them.

The files and directories are located in  /home/.ecryptfs/myusername/.Private and have names like:
ECRYPTFS_FNEK_ENCRYPTED.FWY..eji-ZXkFURR9uWEBwMcCU.iQiwLKedbxBNrycVOxcA.uMuYBD-bB---


The aim is to recover as much as possible, but the criterion for awarding the 10 BTC will be the recovery of at least one unencrypted version of a file contained in the data above.  I can provide my ecrypfs password, and the original cloned HD if required.    

Because this is sensitive data, the offer is for trusted forum members only.

In den letzten Monaten sind hier am Marktplatz Anlagesysteme aufgetaucht, die im Vergleich zu traditionellen Anlagenformen extrem hohe Zinsen versprechen.
 
Der Großteil dieser Anlagesysteme untersteht keinerlei Aufsicht einer vertrauenswürdigen dritten Partei, weder staatlich noch privat. Bei anonymen Anlagesystemen hat der Gläubiger im Falle einer Insolvenz zudem kaum die Möglichkeit, den Rechstweg zu beschreiten.

Daher liebe Forumsmitglieder: seid euch dieses Risikos bewusst, übt Eigenverantwortung und schaltet bitte euren gesunden Menschenverstand nicht aus.  

For my "current account" wallet, I use a dedicated netbook where I run nothing but the Bitcoin client.

The OS is an Ubuntu 12.04 custom install with the majority of default software packages removed. 

The ufw setup is as follows:

Code:

$ sudo ufw status verbose

Status: active
Logging: on (low)
Default: deny (incoming), deny (outgoing)
New profiles: skip


To                    Action          From
--                    -----           ---- 
8333/tcp              ALLOW OUT       Anywhere               
8333/tcp              ALLOW OUT       Anywhere (v6)

From time to time I run the Ubuntu updates; for this I temporarily change default outgoing to ALLOW.

My question is, is this setup reasonably safe against wallet theft by hackers or viruses, or have I missed something important?

Just speculating ... why the sudden spike in transactions per day?

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

The spike in late 2010 was caused by a spammer/troll.

The spike in June 2011 was caused by a spike in bitcoin users after the media hype.

The current spike seems to have come out of nowhere. Any ideas as to who might be doing this?

Ich habe veranlasst,  vorerst einmal fünf neue Unterforen zu starten:

•   Mining – Alle Diskussionen die etwas mit dem Generieren von Bitcoins zu tun haben.  Pools, Hardware, Klienten, usw.

•   Anfänger und Hilfe – Newbies, Technischer Support, und sonstige Hilfe.

•   Trading und Spekulation – Diskussionen über Kursentwicklung, Börsen, Trading-Strategien, usw.

•   Projektentwicklung –  Community, Termine für Treffen, Bounties, Initiativen, Ideen für die Förderung von  Bitcoin, usw.

•   Off-Topic – Themen welche direkt nichts mit Bitcoin zu tun haben.

Dies sollte die Übersichtlichkeit des Hauptforums deutlich verbessern.  Je nachdem wie sich das Aufkommen entwickelt werde ich in Zukunft weitere Unterforen vorschlagen.

Außerdem finde ich die Idee gut, das Marktplatz-Forum in Themenbereiche anstatt  wie bisher in Biete/Suche aufzuteilen, wie im Englischen Forum. Verschachtelte Subforen sind grundsätzlich möglich und theymos hatte nichts dagegen einzuwenden.  Bitte sagt mir eure Vorschläge, wie wir den Marktplatz am besten aufteilen!

It's been almost two months ... time for the third informal bitcoin meetup in Zurich?  (well, I couldn't make it to the last two so it would be the first for me).

Tentative dates:

Saturday July 2
Saturday July 23

Would anyone be interested?

I felt that the Securing Your Wallet article on the Bitcoin Wiki was too hard to digest for a non-technical user so I created this simple, brief list of dos and don't as a starting point:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_Security_Dos_and_Don%27ts_%28Windows%29

Any modifications or improvements are appreciated.

Bear in mind that this is not meant to be a comprehensive guide on how to create a 100% secure wallet. I'm just trying to address the most obvious security mistakes made by beginners.

[But we need to be fast!]

If a few early adopters chip in, we should be able to afford this, now that BTC has almost hit 20 USD!

The advert will be aimed at decision makers who are not familiar with Bitcoin yet.

The point of the advert is to pre-emptively debunk gross misconceptions about Bitcoin.

If the first thing they hear about Bitcoin is that it's "an online form of money laundering", then this misconception will stick. And it will be perpetuated by mainstream media.

If the first thing they hear about Bitcoin is that it's "an open, decentralised accounting system where all transactions are public" they are going to have a hard time imagining it is "a form of money laundering"


But we need to be fast!

I reckon it's 2-4 weeks max now, before the tabloids are all over Bitcoin. We are at a pivotal point now. Let's do everything in our power to make Bitcoin successful.

wanted to bounce this idea off the community first before posting a bounty...

If Bitcoin ever becomes a major currency, it will effect a considerable redistribution of wealth in society.

We all have a pretty good idea of typical demographic of the earliest adopters:

Young, anti-establishment, libertarian, technophilic, rationalist, atheist/agnostic, globalist, entrepreneurial, open-minded, forward looking, optimistic, creative, conceptual thinkers.


But who will be the last people to adopt Bitcoin?  You know, the day that Bitcoin is taken for granted by everybody and even the last skeptics finally shut up about it and just get on with using it. My guess is,  they will be the exact opposite of the early adopters:

Old, authoritarian, pro-establishment, conservative, traditionalist, nationalist, irrational, religious, bureaucratic, technophobic, pessimistic, closed-minded, concrete thinkers.


The demographic of Bitcoin newcomers will gradually shift from one extreme to the other, as we can already observe with newbies on this forum.

If there is one thing that will do the world a favour, it's a redistribution of wealth from the latter demographic to the former.

That's why I don't resent the enrichment of early adopters.


PS. One thing I'm not so happy about though is the wealth transfer from female to male. (Female geeks where ARE you??)

The Bitcoin community is doing a good job of selling Bitcoin using rational arguments.

Unfortunately, I don't believe rational arguments are going to convince non-technophiles and non-libertarians (the majority of the population).

My experience so far: When I try to explain the benefits of Bitcoin to friends and relatives, in the majority of cases I get a strong negative emotional response.  

This response is almost automatic, knee-jerk like.  There seems to be something at the very core of Bitcoin that bothers "normal" people, something irrational (when I ask them to be specific about their objections, they become irritated or change the subject).

When I try a rational response, it doesn't work. Even if the rational part of their brain agrees with me.  

I think we need some snappy emotional counter-arguments that we can throw at people pre-emptively.  

So here are some emotional objections I've heard:

* Scam!
* Ponzi scheme!
* Name calling. (You are an idiot for falling for something like this! ; Another one of your harebrained Utopian ideas! ; You are clueless because you are no banker!)
* Proof of work is a waste of energy!
* If there is no guarantee, it must be worthless!
* If I can't touch it with my hands, it must be worthless!
* Economic inequality is unfair! Everybody should be issued an equal amount of BTC!
* OMG Deflation! Bad!
* No regulation against speculators? I lost half of my pension because of those bastards!
* Nobody in charge? That's anarchy! Nothing ever succeeds without a strong leader!
* Money Laundering! Kiddie Porn! Gambling! Drugs! Terrorism!
* I hate tax evaders!
* Capitalism/money is evil!

I am trying to set up a "savings account" where I can be 100% certain that the private key of a bitcoin address never comes in contact with the internet:

1. generate a private/public key pair while not connected to other peers, on an offline machine.
2. copy only the public key to the online machine.
3. connect to peers
4. receive payments
5. copy private key to online machine only to send a payment.

Is this doable?

[claim]

Will BTC fall under new regulations for electronic money when this Directive comes into effect?

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:267:0007:0017:EN:PDF

Article 2(2)

‘electronic money’ means electronically, including
magnetically, stored monetary value as represented by a
claim on the issuer which is issued on receipt of funds for
the purpose of making payment transactions as defined in
point 5 of Article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, and which is
accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic
money issuer;

Bitcoin does not confer any kind of claim, whether on the "issuer" (be it an exchange or a miner), the developers, or any other Bitcoin user.  Neither it is issued on receipt of funds.

So it seems to me that BTC does not fulfil the directive's definition of "electronic money" and that legally it should be considered an electronic commodity.

However, if it does, this directive would imply that an amateur cannot legally mine Bitcoins!

What would motivate someone to steal Paypal accounts and then buy lots of Bitcoins at MtGox? What's in it for him? He knows that because of the 30 day freeze he will never see any coins. All he can do is shake up the market and cause grief for the MtGox owner.

That would be a hell of a determined troll who is prepared to commit a criminal offense just for a little bit of lulz.

Isn't BC prone to a lot of volatiliy because it's not backed by anything physical?

The exchange rate of BC against other assets/currencies is going to depend solely on the reputation of BC, and expectations of future reputation.

There is nothing inherently valuable about BC. Yes, I know, I know, there is nothing inherently valuable about anything, but what is the likelihood that most of humanity suddenly decides they want to stop driving and oil prices collapse to zero?

What can BC do to protect itself against a massive and sudden crash caused by a spiralling loss of faith in the system? (this loss of faith could be triggered by something like a negative press report or some temporary bug in the software.) 

Do you think such a crash is a possibility that we should worry about?

Here is an idea how Bitcoin could be improved:

In the current implementation, scarcity is created by setting up arbitrary computational problems whose sole purpose is to create scarcity. The computational problems are artificially created by the system, much like a fiat currency. There is no natural demand to solve those problems.

This is macroeconomically suboptimal because a lot of CPU power is being "wasted" instead of being put to good use (opportunity cost). It would be bad for the environment too, if BC were ever to become a world currency.

Why not use those CPU cycles to perform computations with real value? This could be done via some sort of grid computing infrastructure such as BOINC, except that it would be a marketplace instead of a volunteer grid.

For example:
A drug company wishing to model the structure of some protein could use Bitcoins to buy "computing credits". The computing credits can then be used to secure the right to define the data and algorithm of each computational chunk.  The CPUs of the BC users solve these chunks and send the results back to the drug company. As before, the BC user gets newly generated Bitcoins in return for computing each chunk. In addition, the user receives the Bitcoins paid by the drug company.

This would have the benefit of backing BC with something more tangible than just the collective faith in the project. It would also generate lots of extra demand for BC.

Any thoughts?