[Consistently High Prices]

It's been a wild August, but a quiet September amidst press from east to west. Here are a few points (Mt. Gox USD market) I find noteworthy:

Consistently High Prices. Bitcoin has not traded below 10 $ since 2012-09-03. This makes 17 full days above 10 $. The only other streaks of over 10 $ that lasted longer than a full day were:

• 2011-06-03 thru 2011-08-02: 61 days
• 2012-09-03 thru 2012-09-19: 17 days (streak still active)
• 2012-08-03 thru 2012-08-18: 16 days
• 2011-08-15 thru 2012-08-24: 9 days
• 2012-08-25 thru 2012-08-30: 6 days

Consistently High Volume. Measured in USD, the volume has exceeded 100000 $ since 2012-05-27. Such a streak has never before occurred in the past, not even during the 2011 bubble.

Low Volatility. September 5^th, 2012-09-05, was the last day to have considerable volatility. Since then, volatility has been either normal or below normal. This volatility coincided with the Romney ransom.

Yearly Gains Continue. Compared to 365 days ago, 2012-09-19's weighted average was 103.11% higher. Prior to September, such an increase over one year was last seen in April 2012 (2012-04-27).

As we approach the North American holiday season, and with it the block halving shortly followed by mass selling for gift purchases, volatility is likely to move up again. A good time to speculate, indeed.

[- My thread creation is kept at a minimum.]

This is Atlas. Negotiations are underway to bring me back on the forums under the following conditions:

- I use one account.

- No trolling or vandalism is done.

- I respect the rules of the forums.

- My thread creation is kept at a minimum.

The acceptance of this agreement is pending.

I wish to thank Blitzboom (Blitz) for his support in this endeavor.

(emphasis mine)

In 87 posts and little over a day, Atlas has started 14 topics (including one poll). I believe this does not meet the condition given. This is a public plea to continue enforcing sanctions upon him until his thread creation is truly reduced.

[Scenario 1]

Not all scenarios below correspond to an actual situation that has occurred in the past on these forums, but I can guarantee that some are. In the interest of neutrality, the connections are not posted here.

I don't claim this poll to be important anyhow, but it'll be interesting to see the results.

Scenario 1

I will give each user 0.1 BTC, up to a maximum of 100 BTC.

After paying out 50 BTC:

Sorry, I ran out of BTC. I know I said 100 BTC maximum, but please respect my situation here.

Scenario 2

Send me 0.1 BTC, and I will double it in a week! I will double 100 users!

After doubling 50 users, refuses to double 51^st user, paying it back in a week:

Sorry bro, ran out, and I need to minimize my losses. I paid you back your 0.1 BTC, sorry it took so long. I don't know what I was thinking when I made the OP.

Scenario 3

I'm going to bet up to 100 BTC that the Penguins will win the Stanley Cup this year. Just send to [address] and I will return to one of the inputs if I lose. 1:1 odds, normal rules apply. I'm well trusted here, so don't worry about escrow.

After the Rangers win the cup:

I'm so sorry! I intended the bet to be a joke. I never expected anyone to send. I returned all the money sent, plus 1% extra as compensation for the time.

Scenario 4

I'm going to bet up to 100 BTC that the Blue Jays will lose tomorrow’s game. Anyone interested, post your address and amount here!

After the Blue Jays win:

Look, I'm not going to lose this bet on poor umpires. It was clear that the umpires were biased, deliberately calling a few shady Jays runs "safe". I'm not going to ask you to remit the funds, but I won't pay out either.

The Bitcoin Wiki is lacking in address coverage, so I decided to start writing some pages on notable addresses in Bitcoin history. It's a niche interest, I know, but pages written here also serve an educational purpose: just how anonymous is Bitcoin? I've started the project by writing two articles, found in this category. If you are an address enthusiast, please help out by expanding coverage of addresses and writing new pages on addresses. Connecting addresses to a specific entity is encouraged, to better educate people about proper anonymity techniques. Just make sure the analysis is rational!

I guess having a topic in Project Development would be useful, because Bitcoin.it doesn't have a concept of WikiProjects. This thread should serve as a discussion hub for addresses that should be covered or other related activities. I'll start the discussion by asking for suggestions on a notability guideline: what type of addresses should be covered?

I'm of the opinion that if an address meets any of this criteria, it should be eligible.

• Address firsts: e.g. 342ftSRCvFHfCeFFBuz4xwbeqnDw6BGUey (the first P2SH address)
• High-volume addresses: e.g. 1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM
• Addresses linked to a notable company: e.g. 1dice1e6pdhLzzWQq7yMidf6j8eAg7pkY
• Addresses linked to history: e.g. 1KPTdMb6p7H3YCwsyFqrEmKGmsHqe1Q3jg (destination of the Allinvain theft)

Any other suggestions?

Living in a place that is hurricane-free, it's depressing reading the media about another to-be-catastrophic hurricane. The death toll is thus far low, relative to other disasters, but so much more touching when you realize how sudden and unpreventable it is. I know New Orleans isn't the best place to build a city, but seeing as most of the residents there don't have a choice, one can't help being struck be dejection.

Anyone here affected, being affected, or just depressed by Isaac?

Anyone else notice this pattern?


I don't think this will continue, but do believe that there is a chance it will. Bitcoin seems to have reentered a hype cycle, but this time with faster declines than growths, but longer periods of growth. Whenever a crash happens, bringing record volume, two or three weeks of steady rallying seem to follow.

The Mining board suddenly shrank recently. Curious as to why, I searched for new subfora. However, the latest subforum appears to be Long-term offers. Does anyone know why over 2500 posts have disappeared?

[guaranteed]

Missing Pirate? Need more "investment" material? Well, you're in luck! I am now offering guaranteed and insured −7%/week interest on deposits (Fees apply. See below.). So, how does it work? Simply send money to 1P5Wyd1dXcDoWvLoWAstwdfGbqVph6DWtN, and you will get 93% of it back in a week. Guaranteed!

But how? Well, the trading strategy I employ is top secret, but I can assure you, it is not a Ponzi scheme. Nor does it have anything to do with money laundering. Given this amazing never-before-tried strategy, better than even Pirate himself did, what are you waiting for? Deposit now!

Did I mention that this is fully insured? If for some reason I don't pay up, I will pay the debt for myself! No risk, negative reward, what are you waiting for?

Fees: An initial fee of 100 BTC is deducted to pay for management of this service.

Edit: Due to high demand, We now allow specialized Anti-Pirate accounts! Screwed by Pirate? Don't think you're getting your money back? Wish you could rewind time?

Well now you can!

Instead of Pirate's 7% per week interest, we offered −7% per week interest. But keen mathematical minds here will realize this doesn't exactly rollback Pirate's endeavor! So now we offer alternate accounts with −6.5420561% per week interest. This is set up so that one week of Pirate plus one week of antipirate is exactly 0 weeks of pirate! In other words, reverse Pirate with Anti-pirate! Don't miss your chance! Invest now!

[0.00000000 BTC]

Many websites dealing in BTC have low-quality, sometimes nearly illegible English stemming from rushed text, usually written by a non-native speaker. Due to Bitcoin entrepreneurs originating from all around the world, this is becoming increasingly common. Many do not realize how deleterious this can be, both to the service operators and to the Bitcoin community as a whole. Sales may increase dramatically after a proper proofreading. I am offering this service.

I am not, nor do I claim to be, a professional. I have neither qualifications in editing nor proofreading. I lack degrees in any field remotely similar to the English language. Indeed, English is not even my native language. However, I still have the skills necessary to convert mangled or incoherent babble to professional, easily understandable, and succinct prose.

I offer proofreading for any English text related to a Bitcoin business. I am not an expert; therefore, a website should not rely on me to produce professional-grade services. My motivation to provide this service mainly consists of irritation with the oft-degenerate English used in most Bitcoin websites today, combined with a goal of increasing Bitcoin's perceived professionalism.

In line with this motivation, I demand the lowest possible payment: 0.00000000 BTC. Similar to the IBB (a venture that I respect and wholeheartedly support), I will also accept (but not demand) gratuities. I believe this payment model most conductive to collective strengthening of the Bitcoin community.

Please PM me if your website is interested in this service. If you wish to comment on the feasibility of this plan, spread FUD about this service, or advertise competing services, please feel free to do so in this thread. However, please remain on topic; discuss only topics relating to proofreading and improvement of written language.

Prerequisites: There are a few requirements for using this service.

• The client must have a public website that advertises or sells a Bitcoin-related service.
• The website must be in English and must target an English-speaking audience.

[What I want]

Due to BTC price fluctuations, I'm looking into value protection by investing into the Bitcoin goods and services market (which I feel has a lot of potential). Needless to say, a browse of top assets on the GLBSE has disappointed me. Most of the highest traded companies on GLBSE are either mining companies (which I believe will crash) or abandoned Pirate passthroughs. As such, I'm having difficulty finding the appropriate companies to invest in. Does anyone have any suggestions?

What I want
Not all these conditions have to be met, but these are the general qualities of a stock I would like to own.

• Secure future^A: Probably the most important. I dislike mining stocks and Pirate-like ponzi schemes because they can fail at any moment. If a stock fails this, I won't invest in it.
• Verified^B: Having an owner that is known in the community and who has a name is very important. The more information, the better.
• Voting^C: A voting stock is better than a non-voting one, because voting stocks treat the shareholders better.
• Dividend^D: A stock that pays no dividends or erratic dividends is not acceptable. However, a company should keep enough of its profits to reinvest or invest into marketing, improvements, or expansion.
• Communication^E: If worse goes to worse, a company that leaves without a trace is unacceptable. The owners should maintain communication with its shareholders.

I realize this is picky, but in the USD stock market finding a stock with these traits is easy. I fail to understand why Bitcoin should be different.

Rejected

Ticker	Reason
BIB.PIRATE	A: Abandoned PPT
BITBOND	A: Mining
COGNITIVE	A: Mining
FOO.PPPPT	A: Abandoned PPT
FPGAMINING	A: Mining
FUTUREFUND	A: High-risk
GIGAMINING	A: Mining
PPT.A	A: Abandoned PPT
PPT.B	A: Abandoned PPT
PPT.C	A: Abandoned PPT
PPT.D	A: Abandoned PPT
PPT.DIV	A: Abandoned PPT
PPT.E	A: Abandoned PPT
PUREMINING	A: Mining
TYGRR.BOND-B	A: Abandoned PPT
TYGRR.BOND-P	A: Abandoned PPT
YABMC	A: Mining
YARR	A: Abandoned PPT

Unlikely

Ticker	Reason
BDT	ABCE: Shady operator
BIOETHANOL	Partially fails A, fails B
KRAKEN	Fails C, does not strictly meet A
MOVETO.FUND	Likely fails A due to investments in mining (not transparent)
OBSI.HRPT	Partially fails A, fails B & C
TEEK.B	Fails B & C.
TYGRR.BOT	Fails B & C, has not paid dividends recently
ZIP.A	Fails C and recently D & E

To be considered

Ticker	Reason
CHEAPERINBITCOINS-STOCKS	ABCDE: Recent troubles.
GSDPT	ABC

Accepted

Ticker	Reason
BITCOINTORRENTZ	ABCDE: Secure, no competitors
RUGATU	ABCDE

Key
Q: Fails Q
Q: Partially fails Q
Q: Partially passes Q
Q: Passes Q
Q: No comment on Q
[nothing]: Q is not relevant, not available, or there is insufficient information to determine a pass or fail

[Prices]

Wow, it's been a volatile week (decade, to be exact). After laughing my head off because of my long position during the 5 US$ to 15 US$ spike, then panicking (but, thankfully, not panic selling) during the ensuing bloodshed, I've still made off with a 100% increase in a matter of months (take that, Pirate investors). So, what happened this week? Well, something certainly did happen, and I'll recap the points that are most important to me below.

Prices: During the rally, the price momentarily rose above that of last year before returning to below that of last year during the correction¹.


Volume: Volume in USD for 2012-08-17 was the highest of record for Mt. Gox's USD market. With more exchange decentralization now, this is even more of an accomplishment. 2011-06-08 held the previous record, and retains second for this benchmark. 2012-08-19 achieved 5^th place for that benchmark. Volume in BTC was also stunning, with 2012-08-19 winning a 3^rd place finish. The January rally still makes up the bulk of those records, however.

Mt. Gox USD Volume in Currency
Source: http://bitcoincharts.com

Date	Volume (USD)
2012-08-17	2930580.33
2011-06-08	2858820.38
2011-06-12	2451134.56
2011-06-10	2274786.40
2012-08-19	2170411.03

Mt. Gox USD Volume
Source: http://bitcoincharts.com

Date	Volume (BTC)
2011-11-14	382186.83
2012-02-14	297572.02
2012-08-19	238860.32
2012-02-08	237943.12
2012-01-18	226680.97

Volatility: Although the event brought volatility, the event was not as volatile as some others. The decade beginning 2012-08-13 brought six days with above average volatility, three days with average volatility, and one day with below average volatility².

Conclusion: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Although I declared a bubble previously, I now retract that declaration. Luckily, only a correction seems to have occurred. But only time (or the manipulator) will tell.

Footnotes:
¹ Based on open prices exactly 365 days apart, i.e. one day less than a year prior
² Based on three equiprobable categories over two years of data.

[I have personally retracted this statement.]

Disclaimer: I hold no financial interest in Pirate@40's endeavors, nor do I condone investing in shady 7% a week schemes.

I have personally retracted this statement.

I have recently been approached about my current position of Bitcoin Savings & Trust. While in the past I have remained fairly negative about BS&T, accusing the fantastical rewards as impossible and the entire business as a scam, with recent proceedings I have been forced to change my position. Although I refuse to accept that investors in BS&T have made a smart business decision, I am now forced to agree that the dice have turned their way and investors in BS&T will be receiving their full investments, plus interest, back.

Below is my rationale, point-by-point for structure.

• Trusted operator: Pirate@40, although I have previously discounted this fact, is well-trusted in the Bitcoin community. This is both a white and red flag, admittedly, as investors may not have participated if a non-trusted member formed BS&T
• Known operator: In similar vein, Pirate@40 is supposedly well-known among investors, having disclosed a factual name and picture. Admittedly, well-known Ponzi schemes have done the same; Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi not excepting. However, when the choice exists to be anonymous, Ponzi operators are likely to take it.
• Continued communication: In an environment like Bitcoin's now, and building upon experience from Madoff and Ponzi, a true Ponzi operator would likely choose to fly to an exotic country and cease communication. Pirate@40 has done neither.
• Payback: While all Ponzi operators have historically attempted payback when the operation is collapsing, the situation involving Pirate@40 is distinct in certain ways. The crucial difference here: Pirate@40 has closed the scheme himself. With the option of simply taking all the money and leaving, paying back a few investors is not constructive to his goals.
• Financial incentive: At this point, with many PPT bonds in free-fall, Pirate@40 himself has the option of purchasing a large amount and reducing his debt. This gives him a financial incentive to repay his lenders. Additionally, Pirate@40 runs a reportedly successful business in GPUMAX, profits from which would disappear if Pirate@40 chooses to vanish.

Blockchain.info All-time 7-day Average Market Cap, 2012-08-16

Blockchain.info All-time 7-day Average Market Cap, 2012-08-17

Blockchain.info All-time 7-day Average Market Cap, 2012-08-18

Blockchain.info All-time 7-day Average Market Cap, 2012-08-19

I'm going to take snapshots of this frequently, because I suspect that we're surpassing the record high (back in June 2011) soon, at least well before either market cap (non-averaged) or price will. It'll be an interesting milestone for Bitcoin.

Cast your ballot!

[1426]

I was wondering why BitcoinTalk was lagging so much today, until I took a look at the bottom. Most online today: 1426! And the day isn't even over.

This is the highest value since February 18th, 2012, and the second-highest since July 5th, 2011. What could be the cause of today's explosion?

[Clarifications]

I was wondering if the Bitcoin community tends to be male-dominant and young, especially with many memes that poke fun at elderly women, of which likely few use Bitcoin. Since I think this community is a large sample of Bitcoin users, I'm starting a poll. Unless forum admins are snooping, this is fully anonymous, so please be honest!

Clarifications

• Age is measured from date of birth. All categories are inclusive.
• Please enter your gender at birth if you cannot classify yourself as male or female.
• If you have more than one account, please vote with only one account.
• Please vote as soon as you see this thread, so as to avoid bias in people crossing age boundaries.

We've got a large population of Politics & Society board users very content with anarcho-capitalism, preaching it as the solution to violence. But, after pondering the issue, one can realize that among stateless societies, AnCap might as well be the upper bound for violence.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario as follows. Someone breaks into your house and you catch them stealing your items. What do you do, and what happens after?

In a society with a predominant state, you would call the central police, who would then employ violence to rob them of the items that they stole. This is obviously not optimal; as even when the items are extorted back, the robber is then threatened with further violence to get into a prison cell. All the while, tax collectors threaten violence on taxpayers to pay for the entire process.

AnCap is much, by many orders of magnitude, better than this. Initially, no violence is threatened on the robber; instead, a protection agency attempts to persuade the robber to return the items. But what if the robber refuses? Eventually, the protection agency is forced to use violence once again to reclaim the stolen items. The amount of violence threatened and employed is much lower here, but it is not a violent-free process.

It is difficult to find a society without a predominant state that employs more violence than AnCap, in fact. In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away. In a direct democratic anarchist system, violence is only threatened after a vote, which depending on the situation may not pass.

AnCom is in theory even more violent than AnCap, but it isn't a true anarchist system because it is both involuntary and lacking of a central state. It's more like a libertarian socialist society. There are also many issues with it; so many, that it is a leftist's dream that will never work.

As a libertarian myself, I believe AnCap provides an effective way of reducing violence, possibly the most effective way known to mankind at the moment. The free market has demonstrated outstanding ability to regulate and nearly eliminate corruption, as well as boosting charity and total societal wealth. A transition of society to an anarcho-capitalist one is a huge leap forward for all of society, for mankind's future, and even for the planets we may live on. But I remain open to other low-state, multi-state, or anarchist alternatives that may be proposed in the future that enable even further cooperation. Anarcho-capitalism is not yet optimal.

Neither true anarchism (because it would be chaotic and devolve into either a state, AnCap, or AnCom system) nor direct democratic anarchist systems (as it doesn't scale) will work properly in today's society. The sole reason for this post is to affirm the existence of less violent systems, each having their own problems of course. Less violent systems that will still work remain to be invented today. But when they are, they will represent society's next step forward.

[The quarantine attack is lethal against SPV nodes, while only double-spending is possible against full nodes.]

Disclosure: this proposal likely has many flaws. Please point them out, but read the full thing first. Thank you.

In Satoshi's original whitepaper, he detailed a type of node that verifies only block headers. This type of node is useful for merchants who cannot afford to run a node that requires updating, as it can accept hard-forked blocks that don't match its rules. However, such a node has several disadvantages:

• The quarantine attack is lethal against SPV nodes, while only double-spending is possible against full nodes.
• If enough of the network switches to SPV nodes, miners could theoretically form a cabal to generate extra profits as fees.

These disadvantages are problems for merchants, who cannot afford to be the target of an attack. As a result, many merchants stick to full nodes. These, however, have their own share of problems:

• Blocks larger than 1 MB will be rejected if the merchant cannot update the node.
• Blocks with new transaction styles that utilize newly reenabled or added script codes will be rejected.

As a result, most merchants are left with no option but to run a full node that must be periodically updated. This is a problem for many; as it implies necessary downtime or extremely complex shenanigans.

However, it is possible to design a node that is neither victim to the attacks that an SPV node is vulnerable to, nor is hindered by the static nature of full nodes. Such a node is identical to a full node, but with some differences:

• The node will accept any valid block, but if a short block is available, prefer it to the long one.
• The node will not process scripts. Inputs and outputs are processed as normal for all transactions, but scripts are left alone.
• The node will keep a log of all authorized transactions leaving its wallet.
• The node will reject any blocks with unauthorized transactions leaving its wallet.
• (Hashrate Slow) If (valid) block timestamps indicate that 2 of 4 consecutive blocks have been much slower than usual, the node tells the processor to wait for 12 confirmations instead of 6 confirmations. If more than 70% of the past 6n−2 blocks have been much slower than usual, the node extends the wait time to 6n+6 confirmations.
• (Hashrate Freeze) If the node senses that more than 70% of the past 22 blocks have been much slower than usual, it issues warnings and tries to verify everything as a full node. The wait time is capped at 30 confirmations (5 hours), but because of extensive verification, the node will likely reject all the blocks anyways.

Notice that this node does not save any space for the merchant; the blockchain still needs to be downloaded in full. Transaction verification is done as normal, except that the scripts (including the signatures) are not verified.

Each problem and why FAN nodes are a solution is outlined below.

The quarantine attack is lethal against SPV nodes, while only double-spending is possible against full nodes.
Assume the node is quarantined. The attacker must issue a block containing theft transactions from random addresses to the merchant to exploit the merchant in any more lethality than a double-spending attack (which full nodes are also vulnerable to in a quarantine situation). The attacker has a lot of time to exploit the merchant, but no attack is likely unless the attacker controls a large portion of the network.

If the "much slower" curfew is taken at 40 minutes difference between blocks, the attacker is not likely to be able to actually mine a block that is faster than 40 minutes from the last. However, the attacker could fake the timestamps. Because the median of the past 11 blocks is valid (as the attacker would simply be wasting time if they did not initiate the quarantine directly), and the merchant's time should be accurate, the attacker's only optimal strategy is to timestamp the first block they mine as distant as possible (2 hours ahead of the actual time). As this block is "much slower", the attacker only has 160 minutes to mine the next block (otherwise, they would activate the alarm), 200 minutes to mine the next 2 blocks, and 240 minutes to mine the next three blocks. The chance of this happening is extremely small even at 5% of the network: the success rate is 1/5. As these blocks are simply getting wasted, and whether the node is actually quarantined is hard to determine, the random spending attack is not feasible.

Therefore, only a double-spend attack is feasible on a FAN node that is quarantined, giving it identical security to a full node.

If enough of the network switches to SPV nodes, miners could theoretically form a cabal to generate extra profits as fees.
This requires a more distributed approach. Assume that all BTC are in the hands of people who run either i) a full node or ii) a FAN node. The only way for miners to trick nodes into thinking that the fees for transactions are very high would be to "sign" the transactions from random addresses, sum the outputs to very little, and hope that FAN nodes believe the block as legitimate. However, when the FAN node that owns the outputs that are being stolen from receives the block in question, it will reject all blocks that build on that blockchain. Additionally, all full nodes will reject all blocks on that blockchain by default. Because so many nodes have rejected that blockchain, the relaying of rogue blocks will grind to a halt, splitting the rogue miner cabal's organization and restoring the original Bitcoin blockchain as the FAN node-accepted one.

Because such an attack will almost inevitably fail, no 51% of the network's miners will form the cabal in the first place. The maximum extent of damage is simply temporary isolation from the main blockchain before other FAN nodes relaying the blocks stop doing so. The cost of such an attack is too high to be feasible.

Blocks larger than 1 MB will be rejected if the merchant cannot update the node.
A miner cabal forming to create a chain of short blocks is the only issue here. Such a miner cabal cannot earn any money, and in fact is likely losing money due to fees. The damage of such an attack is isolation from the main network, and can lead to another attack, but at no further advantage than beginning the other attack immediately is present. Such a preemptive attack is possible against full nodes too, as it requires 51% of the hash power anyways.

Blocks with new transaction styles that utilize newly reenabled or added script codes will be rejected.
Scripts are not checked by FAN nodes, so this problem is resolved completely.

I noticed from the recent posts roll that there were ~8 minutes of downtime for the forum. During this time, I experienced a "database error". Did anyone else notice this? What was the cause?

Solved. Thanks Stephen!

This thread is to function simply as a relatively chronological index of the articles that appear in the Press forum.

This thread is useful as the SMF forum software used by BitcoinTalk sorts threads only by Last Post, so it is difficult to see from looking at the Press forum which articles are new when there are comments on older threads.

Those wishing to "subscribe" to this thread with a post are welcome to do so, but please keep it one word ... "subscribe".
With the new Watchlist feature, simply click the link for Watch in this thread to cause this post to reappear in your watchlist whenever there is a new reply.  Here's more on the Watchlist:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90136.0

Please no comments about the articles here, and no links to the article itself, only to the new forum thread created for the article.

I fail to see what the purpose of this thread is. SMF clearly has a sort by first post, here, and the thread is even less accurate than it is (due to people forgetting to post there, etc.). I suggest this post become destickied and the sort by first post feature used in lieu of it.