While revalidating the entire chain using my independent implementation I found that transaction:

70f7c15c6f62139cc41afa858894650344eda9975b46656d893ee59df8914a3d

validates only if the S value of the signature is forced positive, it seems the ASN.1 coding of the signature in the Satoshi client (probably OpenSSL) is not precise.

Here the wire dump of the involved transactions:

spend:

Code:

0100000001289eb02e8ddc1ee3486aadc1cd1335fba22a8e3e87e3f41b7c5bbe7fb4391d81010000008a47304402206b5c3b1c86748dcf328b9f3a65e10085afcf5d1af5b40970d8ce3a9355e06b5b0220cdbdc23e6d3618e47056fccc60c5f73d1a542186705197e5791e97f0e6582a32014104f25ec495fa21ad14d69f45bf277129488cfb1a339aba1fed3c5099bb6d8e9716491a14050fbc0b2fed2963dc1e56264b3adf52a81b953222a2180d48b54d1e18ffffffff0140420f00000000001976a914e6ba8cc407375ce1623ec17b2f1a59f2503afc6788ac00000000

source:

Code:

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

[00]

While bootstrapping and verifying the chain using my implementation of the protocol (that shares no code with the Satoshi client) I found that transaction

c99c49da4c38af669dea436d3e73780dfdb6c1ecf9958baa52960e8baee30e73

does not verify. Since it looks regular and my implementation verified all 110299 block before this one, I am concerned.

This transaction is at chain height 110300, block 000000000000b8c3ad583c44e2655f5384f3e4e6a1f2a932b512ecc69a07cc24

Here my JSON dump of the transaction:

{hash:"c99c49da4c38af669dea436d3e73780dfdb6c1ecf9958baa52960e8baee30e73",version:1,inputs:[{sourceHash:"406b2b06bcd34d3c8733e6b79f7a394c8a431fbf4ff5ac705c93f4076bb77602",sourceIx:0,script:"OP_PUSH73 3046022100d23459d03ed7e9511a47d13292d3430a04627de6235b6e51a40f9cd386f2abe302210 0e7d25b080f0bb8d8d5f878bba7d54ad2fda650ea8d158a33ee3cbd11768191fd00 OP_PUSH65 04b0e2c879e4daf7b9ab68350228c159766676a14f5815084ba166432aab46198d4cca98fa3e998 1d0a90b2effc514b76279476550ba3663fdcaff94c38420e9d5",sequence:0}],outputs:[{value:4000000,script:"OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_PUSH20 9a7b0f3b80c6baaeedce0a0842553800f832ba1f OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"}],lockTime:0}

I think the problem is that the bold byte at the end of the signature, that should be 01 for SIGHASH_ALL. The value 00 does not map to any flavor. IMHO this is/was a "bug" in the Satoshi client.

Would you please have a hint what goes wrong here:

Standard peers (Satoshi 6.x, 7.x) answer my self coded version of verack, inv and getdata if running on my laptop behind a router connected to the internet, but if I run the same code on my server on the internet, the getdata requests are ignored. I get version, verack, inv and addr messages but no blocks I request.

The messages I send seem to be identical (besides address and random nonce).

Thanks for any pointer.

The miner delivers the computation needed to secure the network.

Who enjoys network security ? In the first place those with significant holdings in BTC.
This makes me think that a demurrage (cost of storage) should be imposed on holdings that is to be distributed to miner.

Note that older transactions (means older money) enjoy higher security and until they do not move disallow pruning the merkle tree, therefore also imposing added bandwith on the network. These observations support a demurrage too.

Demurrage would also foster trade since storing money is associated with cost. Note that if storage cost is benefited to miner, then this is not inflationary and but mining (that delivers value to everyone) more attractive.

Anonymity and irreversibility are key values of BitCoin transactions. Merchants however might want to build reputation and customer might want to provide feedback. To add these features without touching on core values may I suggest you to consider introducing an additional "trust chain" as follows:

Assuming A buys from B a gadget using BitCoin whereby A only knows B's receiver address b. B as most merchants requires payment before delivery. A transfers funds to b and runs the risk until he receives the gadget. As the gadget arrives A is happy that b is a trustworthy address and might want to share this information with others by signing the transaction on a trust chain that is built similar to the money chain. B might also appreciate this since it gives him reputation for the next business. Note that neither A or B reveal more about their identity than available on the main Bitcoin chain.

B might be tempted to forge the trust chain to increase his reputation and generate transactions where he is the payer of BitCoin from other adresses then vote for himself. This however would be revealed if money chain is consulted, since he needs money for each transaction that will be reconcilable to a small number of sources if he were attempting to generate a good history in a short time frame.

May I invite you refine or reject the idea ?

Please confirm or correct:

The private key associated with the receiving address enables you to transfer all BTC owned by the address now and even in future.

Means protecting the wallet is important but is the private key leaked your BTC can be stolen even if you earned it after the wallet was compromised.

I wonder how to attract late adopter of bitcoin.

Like myself... although I was an enthusiastic PGP user 20 years ago, I somehow missed the wave now.
I began buying gold because knew that paper money sucks, as it was below $300 and did well, so I know how it feels for those early in this new theme.

Unfortunately I am late and all good intents, I understand and appreciate leave me thinking that this looks a bit like pyramid for those who are late.

I also wonder how you relate to Gresham's observation that is: bad money drives out good.

Now bitcoin is good, no doubt. But if I have the choice to pay for a gadget using USD or bitcoin I would prefer to give USD and save bitcoins, just like I would not pay with gold until I have anything else of less quality to give away.

If other potential late adopters think like myself how will this economy grow beyond the tulip phase ?