Selling five 1 ozt Credit Suisse Gold Bar .9999 Fine (In Assay). Offering a discount on the full lot of five one 1 ozt bars. Stock photos (will upload actual photos this evening):    Video (no affiliation but it has good views of the bar ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcG6EAJFNOADetailsMint: Valcambi SA (Credit Suisse) Composition : .9999 Fine Gold Actual Gold Weight: 1 ozt (one troy ounce) Dimensions (bar): 40mm x 25mm x 2mm (aprox) Dimensions (package): 86mm x 64mm Price:1 to 4 bars: $1,420 ea 5 bars: $7,000 ($1,400 ea) Equivalent in BTC @ Bitstamp (not MtGox) exchange rate. I reserve the right to adjust price if spot price of gold rises more than 1% over $1,367 an ounce. Shipping (US only):USPS Priority Mail: $5 (2-3 days) USPS Express Mail: $18 (1-2 days) USPS Registered: $20 (3-5 days) Insurance (optional):$5 per shipment plus $5 per bar. (i.e. $10 for 1, $30 for 5) For more than 3 bars Registered Mail is required (our non-registered insurance contract has a maximum claim of $5,000). Terms:Payment is in BTC only based on Bitstamp exchange rate at the time of payment. Insurance is offered, if you opt for delivery without insurance you assume all liability for lost/stolen mail. Insured packages will require signature for delivery. Uninsured packages will be sent with no signature requirement (let me know if you would prefer signature required). Shipment will be in padded envelope inside flat rate envelope securely double taped (all seams). I have only lost 2 of 500 mailings using flat rate envelopes so the risk is low but I leave the choice of insurance up to the buyer for shipments up to $4,999. For shipments $5,000 or more registered mail with insurance is required. If paid (6 confirmations) by 2PM it will ship same day, otherwise will ship the following business day. Tracking number will be provided. Escrow:Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If you check out my history and still want insurance my terms are: sale price is 1% higher due to my risk, you cover all escrow fees, escrow agent is someone I trust, and shipment will only be sent insured. I would recommend John K for escrow. Other:Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. |
|
|
|
The ideaThe purpose is to try to guestimate (and yes that means error) how much hashing power is in "the pipeline". If there were no pre-orders every unit sold means a unit hashing and then difficulty rises a little and that makes new sales slightly less attractive so sales are slower. This economic feedback model constrains hashing power to overall network efficiency, electrical cost, exchange rate, the risk premium miners are willing to accept and the time value of money. There is a reason GPU mining never allowed the the network to reach petahash scale with miners, mining away at massive losses hoping to make it up with future exchange rates. The problem with preorders is it breaks the feedback model and that is a great thing for hardware vendors; they can sell more hardware, earlier and at higher prices. You can tell people difficulty will go up but there is a lot of uncertainty in how much and how fast. That uncertainty favors the vendors. Not until miners believe there is no profit and stop buying will prices fall. Accurately projecting growth simply by looking at prior growth is probably an exercise in futility. So lets look at it from another direction. If you know all pre-orders are X PH/s and you assume they (or most of them) will be delivered over some period of time (say between now and end of year) then you can come up with a more realistic curve for the next couple months. You know hashrate now and you can project hashrate at the end of the year and then fill in some likely curves. For that we need an idea of how much hashing power has been presold . So throw me your cites, guesstimates, and official numbers.The rules1) To keep this thread from derailing please leave the "xyz is a scam" for another topic. On edit: I wish I had made this moderated. 2) A good starting point is the total pre-ordered amount. This is likely unrealistic but we need a starting point. Later that total can be discounted by the likelihood of fraud (the "coefficient of scamming"). 3) If you have a reference or cite (even unofficial) to back up a guestimate please link to it. If not a reasonable explanation is more useful then just posting a number4) We can safely assume that all non-ASIC hashrate will go to zero so no need to break it out between delivered and ordered. Eventually hashrate ~= total pre-orders. 5) No idea/number is bad. Please be respectful. Honestly nobody knows except the chip makers and most of them are keeping quiet. The running totalPromised delivery by December 2013 AsicMiner (internal): 1,000 Thash [7] [14]
AsicMiner (sales): ?? Thash
AsicMiner ("next gen"): ?? Thash
Avalon (rigs): 123 Thash
Avalon (chips): 274 Thash [1]
Avalon ("next gen"): ?? Thash
Bitfury (internal): 200 Thash [11]
Bitfury (Aug US & EU): 50 Thash [3] [9]
Bitfury (Oct US & EU): 255 Thash [3]
Bitfury (metabank): 32 THash
Bitfury chips: ?? Thash
BFL (SC series): 3,000 THash [4] [15]
KNC: 500 Thash [5] (alternative viewpoint based on small 11mm x 1mm die = 2,000 Thash [8])
HashFast: 470 Thash [2] [6]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Running Total: 6,004 Thash
Post 2013 rollouts Cointerra: 2,000 Thash (January 2014) [10]
HashFast (MPP or reserve): 880 Thash (January 2014) [12]
BFL (monarch): ?? Thash (February 2014)
BitMine: 4,000 Thash (March 2014) [13]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Running Total: 6,880 Thash
Running Total 2013: 6,004 Thash
Running Total 2014: 6,880 Thash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total: 12,884 Thash
1 TH/s = 0.14 mil difficulty
1 PH/s = 140 mil difficulty
1 million difficulty = 7 TH/s
1 billion difficulty = 7 PH/s
1 trillion difficulty = 7 EH/s
Upper limits on difficulty based on hardware efficiency: Miners are unlikely to mine when their electrical costs are higher than the value of BTC mined. This limit can be called the electrical break even point and is based on: a) the current exchange rate (USD per BTC) b) the hardware efficiency (J/GH ) c) the miner's electrical rate (USD per kWh) When hashrate/difficulty gets high enough it will cause the least efficiency miners to idle thus creating a sort of replacement cycle (i.e. x GH/s new efficiency hardware causes Y GH/s of older less efficient hardware to idle). This should slow growth significantly because the returns on new hardware will be low, miners will be exposed to the bad news of less efficient miners being forced to idle and X GH/s doesn't mean the hashrate only rises by (X-Y)/GH. It also illustrates the improbability of difficulty power growing exponentially over a long period of time like a year. For example 65 million difficulty gaining 75% per month for a year results in 50 billion difficulty. The electrical cost even at 1W/GH and $0.10 per kWh would >$250 per BTC. A related thread on the break even point is here: Break even difficulty by hardware efficiency (power cost = value of BTC)Alternate viewHere is an alternate visual representation by gkm22d. I don't agree with all the capacities but I would consider it a worst case scenario (delusional miners may wish to close their eyes as this may be painful)  [1] https://docs.google.com/a/nacrypto.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiLYkKIHJaIsdHpIaGdUOWRYVUdncTNpNlVKbVhCbEE#gid=0 970,000 chips @ 282 MH nominal [2] 550 orders @ 400 MH nominal [3] Based on report that Dave (US distributor) sold out of their allocation of 300 full systems and 300 starter systems. Oct is not sold out but conservatively it will if/when Aug deliveries are made. I will assume that the EU distributor received an equal allocation (an assumption based on bitfury facing unknown demand and users in both markets). [4] http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8577/how-much-asic-power-has-been-or-is-being-shipped-in-2013 Crude assumption based on distribution of wait list (hashing power per order) and number of orders. 2PH/s is guestimated based on (avg GH/s per order of known orders)*(num order numbers)*(1/3 to account for unpaid/test orders). Monarch is highly unlikely to ship in volume (if at all) in 2013 while upgrades cancel the existing 65nm order which would reduce the amount of 65nm pre-orders. [5] Guestimate. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278384.msg2994436#msg2994436[6] https://bitfunder.com/asset/IceDrill.ASIC[7] http://www.dpcapital.net/blockchain/?hours=336[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor[9] Reduced to 30 full systems in Aug for both US and EU distributors https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278384.msg3010364#msg3010364[10] http://www.coindesk.com/cointerra-cuts-price-of-terraminer-iv-bitcoin-mining-rig/ "In Dec" without a specific date can mean as late as 31 DEC. Given that and the tight schedule and the fact that even a small delay would push it into 2014 I included it in the 2014 group. [11] https://ghash.io/[12]HashFast MPP will issue miners up to 4x their initial hashing power if 100% ROI is not acheived within 90 days. Even if MPP is not needed, HashFast would need the chips in reserve and any chips not paid out in the MPP are likely to be deployed as quickly as possible. [13] http://www.coindesk.com/bitmine-to-drop-4phs-of-asic-power-onto-bitcoin-network-before-april/[14] http://thegenesisblock.com/cointerra-expects-to-deliver-2-phs-of-asics-in-december/ (Numerous references, Cointerra 2PH/s, KNC 0.5 to 2 PH/s, AsicMiner 1 PH/s, Bitfury 0.5 PH/s, Avalon 0.32 PH/s [15] Upgraded BFL estimate from 2 PH/s to 3 PH/s https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278384.msg3029092 (see also the next two posts)
|
|
|
|
 Fire resistant high security storage for paper and digital backup of encrypted keys. pywallet makes the export easy and secure.  Yes folks despite what "sentry safe" may want you to believe that is what a real (TL rated) safe looks like. |
|
|
|
On edit: DOH. I realized somehow I had window open with outdated (2009) version of the regs. Well prior to 2011 when the reg was updated it would have been a decent argument. The latest version of the regs however are symmetric so no joy there. 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. “Any means” includes, but is not limited to, through a financial agency or institution; a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both; an electronic funds transfer network; or an informal value transfer system Since you can't delete anything from this forum I will leave the original incorrect post below so everyone can see my mistake. I was rereading the Bitcoin Foundation's response to DFI and the section dealing with the asymmetry of the MT law in CA. At first it caused me to first say "man I wish the federal law was written similarly" and then made me check to see what the wording actually was. In the guidance dated FinCEN states 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."11
11)
31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A). http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.htmlHowever what does the actual regulate states. 31 C.F.R. 103.11(uu)(5)
(5) Money transmitter— (i) In general. Money transmitter:
(A) Any person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network; http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=a7e1bef2c8dbac0d6893186f0c01390c&n=31y3.1.6.1.2&r=PART&ty=HTML#31:3.1.6.1.2.1.3.1Removing the aspects not in dispute it becomes: accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds The actual definition doesn't provide three criteria for accepting and transmitting as the guidance indicates but rather two criteria for accepting and a third criteria for transmitting. Accepting: a) currency b) funds denominated in currency AND Transmitting a) currency b) funds c) the value of the currency or funds Note that despite the statement in the guidance the actual reg does not define a money transmitter as one who accepts "the value of the currency or funds" that is only included in the definition for transmission. One could argue this is merely an oversight by FinCEN however this particular reg has been updated three times. If the reg was intended to state the following as FinCEN claims they why doesn't it? Any person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, or other value that substitutes for currency and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network Reg 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A) as implied by FinCEN's guidance (the bolded portion is absent from the actual regulation). |
|
|
|
Alternate title " The only way forward to real security is ASICs, but it is going to hurt in the short term". Background/theory (skip if bored)So difficulty is going up a lot but I think (based on anecdotal evidence) on the forums I think many underestimate by how much. People see difficulty going up x% on average per adjustment and make statements like "well it can't keep doubling forever" and while that is true it misses the point. We don't know exactly how much difficulty will go up each 14 day period as it has more to do at this point with supply chain constraints than actual demand for new hardware. It is better to look at where hashing power and thus difficulty is going to and then work backwards from there. Looking over the various pre-order threads (BFL, Avalon direct, Avalon chip assemblers, KNC, ASICMiner, Bitfury) conservatively I am taking a SWAG and saying we are looking at more than 5,000 TH/s of hardware ALREADY ordered* (see disclaimer below). This "preorder bottleneck" distorts the normal new hardware deployment feedback cycle. The feedback cycle is where new hardware gets purchased, deployed, hashing power and difficulty goes up, and that forces the return on new hardware down. This lower return (ROIC%) makes new sales less attractive and hashing power increases slow and eventually flatline. What usually leads to a resumption in higher difficulty is a higher exchange rate which raises the ROIC% in USD terms. My assumption is that we wouldn't be seeing 5,000 TH/s ordered at current exchange rates if it weren't for the pre-order bottleneck ("peB" from now on because I am lazy). The peB allows those ordering hardware to delude themselves. While logically we know difficulty is going up, we don't know exactly how much or how fast, or who will deliver first. This leads to a scenario where an individual prospective miner can fall for the "I am special" fallacy. In a casino most people go in knowing that "most people" lose money in a casino (those suckers), yet every gambler believes they are "special" and somehow have a reduced chance of being in the "most people". They reality is they don't but when down, they just need a run of lucky cards, and when up they can't lose. Inevitably in the long run they are no more special than anyone else and join the ranks of "most" losing their money to the house. This insight only occurs after the fact. Without the peB, if difficulty today were 500 million, the daily return on 1 GH/s of brand new hardware would be ~0.03 BTC per day. That would make prospective miners less likely to deploy new hardware. Although it is highly likely difficulty will be higher than 500 mill by the time most miners get their rigs many people believe they will be the lucky first and thus while many will lose, they will make enough return fast enough to beat the rising difficulty. The reality is like the lucky gambler a small few will but most won't but this results in more hashing power being pre-ordered then would be ordered. Eventually these 5,0000 TH/s of preorders will be delivered and difficulty will rise to ~800M. How long will it take? 6 months? 12 months? I don't know but it overall it doesn't really matter. See the hashing power increase is directly related to the speed of delivery. Slower delivery, means slower growth but most miners will not have rigs yet. Faster delivery means more miners get their efficient rigs but difficulty will rise faster. When someone is hoping they get their rig "fast" what they really mean is I hope I get my rigs faster than the average guy but the majority of people can't get their rigs faster than the average guy. Due to this most miners will get their rigs "too late" for higher profits and it doesn't matter if "too late" is next week or next year. Another way to look at it. Among the various ASIC offerings the average price is around 40 MH per dollar. Lets reverse that metric, one GH/s costs $25, or one TH/s costs $25,000. If 5,000 TH/s have been ordered we are looking at $125M in pre-orders. Electrical efficiency varies a lot but if we use the median of ~300 MH/J the entire network will produce a load of 16,667 KW (5TH/s / 300 MH/J / 1000 J/s per KW = 16,667 KW). Avalon/ASICMiner will have double the electrical cost and BitFury will have half the electrical cost. Also once again the exact numbers don't really matter. We are just looking at the magnitude of the values (so if it is an average of 400MH/J or $30,000 per TH/s it doesn't really matter). You can run with marginally different numbers they really don't materially change anything. What would change things is a magnitude difference (i.e. 3 GH/J or $2,000 per TH/s) but those are highly unlikely in the near term. With 8760 hours per year (24*365) and $0.10 average electrical cost, the network (5000TH/s @ ~300 MH/J) will expend ~$15M in electrical cost electrical costs annually. Once again how profitable each individual miner will be depends on timing, efficiency, longevity, and yes a lot of luck but we are more interested in all miners collectively. As a group all miners share a "reward pool" of ~$123 mil at current exchange rates (6 blocks per hours * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year * 25 BTC per block * ~$94 USD per BTC). $123 mil - $15 mil in electrical cost = $108 mil net reward on $125 mil total deployed capital assumming no new hardware (or change in exchange rate). The problem is 420 days is forever and as the backlog diminishes demand for new hardware will go up. Maybe miners are smart and won't accept the current prices but ASIC producers have plenty of margin and can cut prices 50% or more to stimulate new sales. It would be foolish to do so now with massive backorders but eventually those will clear out and those producers aren't going to just close up shop. If $25,000 per TH doesn't cut it maybe $15,000 per TH will or $10,000 or $9,5000. Due to that many miners will see their 420 avg break even being continually pushed back into infinity. Sorry. So what will things look like when pre-orders are delivered in bulk. Hashing power ~5,000 TH/s Difficulty = ~800 million Revenue per GH/s: ~0.01886 BTC per month To factor the average increase per month (or day) just estimate how long it will take to delivery this hardware. Will it take a year from today? (5000 - 200)/ 200 = 2,400% or ~0.9% per day compounded growth (1.009^365). Six months? (5000 - 200)/ 180 = 2,400% or ~1.8% per day compounded growth (1.018^365) How high can difficulty goWell once paid for hardware is a sunk cost. An individual miner can sell a rig to another miner but that doesn't change global hashing power of difficulty, it only changes who is taking the risk. Also unlike GPU where they could be sold for non-mining purposes and thus remove global hashing power, ASICs only have one purpose. So unless miners in bulk decide to re-enact the copier scene from Office Space the hashing power will still exist. How high depends on how low of a return miners are willing to take. Since miners (collevtively) do a bad job of estimating what other future miners will do (and thus raise difficulty) we can guesstimate that difficulty will aproach (but likely not reach) a point where the electrical operating cost of existing hardware equals the mining revenue, the "break even on electricity" point. If the average rig has an electrical efficiency of 300 MH/J, the average miner pays $0.10 per kWh and the exchange rate remains the same that break even (excluding capital costs) point would be: Total annual revenue: $123 mil (6 blocks per hours * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year * 25 BTC per block * ~$94 USD per BTC) Total electrical consumption (kWh): $123 mill / $0.10 per kWh = 1,230 million kWh (or 1.2 trillion kWh) Total electrical load (KW) 1,230,000,000 kWH / 24 /365 = ~140,000 KW Total electrical load (J/s): 140,000 KW * 1000 J/s per KWh = 140,000,000 J/s Total MH/s: 140,000,000 J/s * 300 MH/J = 42 billion MH/s or 42,000 TH/s BTW 42,000 TH/s (or 42 PH/s) Now this is the break even electrical point for the average miner and logically hardware isn't free so miners (collectively) should stop adding new hashing power well short of this however collectivley miners aren't always that logical. This could be considered the upper bound for difficulty in the ASIC era. Difficulty will not sustainably rise beyond that unless a) exchange rate rises and remains significantly higher than $100. i.e. @ $200 the break even difficulty would double. b) ASIC producers significantly lower their selling prices. While there are a lot of potential margin to cut. Maybe $20,000 per TH/s is possible, maybe even $10,000 per TH/s is possible. c) ASIC producers are able to improve efficiency. With most designs at 40 to 55nm there isn't that much that can be cut here. A jump to 28nm might give a 2x increase, and 20nm (someday) another 2x increase (say 4x theoretical from today). For b & c the "better they get" the less potential improvement exists. At best an ASIC producer could only sell at cost on a cutting edge manufacturing process (20nm today). Obviously there is no reason to do so but we can look at that as once again an upper bound on improvement. Baring some radical break through (i.e. a exploitable flaw in SHA which allows better than brute force mining) baring an exchange rate increase difficulty will remain within one magnitude (up or down) of 40 PH/s. Wait 42PH/s that can't possible right? Can it?Lets look at it in reverse. In January the network was a majority GPU miners (with a small amount of FPGA & CPU miners on the edges). If you look at the difficulty & hashrate between 9/12 to 2/13 it was roughly (+/- 25%) 20MH for that period of time.  Note it isn't important to look for the exact hashrate but we can see there were no magnitude changes (i.e. 2M or 200 MH). Here is a pricing chart for that period of time.  Volume weighted average price is ~$15.00. Now this year price rose from $15 to $266 and then back down to $90. I would argue that the network was in equilibrium from 9/12 to 02/13. Essentially the revenue for miners roughly balanced the risk and thus expected ROI%. The only thing which prevented a rise in difficulty due to more GPU rigs was the "future risk"of FGPA/ASICs. In another universe where FPGA and ASICs were impossible I would expect that when price rose by a factor of 10x and thus miner gross revenue rose 10x that hashing power (and difficulty) would have also rose 10x. So all things equal a GPU only network would probably support a hashrate of 10x 20MH = 200MH at the current exchange rate. Once again the exact math isn't important but it is unlikely it would support 2000 MH/s or only 20 MH/s today (even with only GPUs). So if current exchange rate can support a GPU powered network of 200 TH/s and the average ASIC is 150x the electrical efficiency (MH/W) and 40x the capital efficiency (MH/$) we would expect that ASIC miners (who probably are no better or worse at projecting profits) would drive hashrate up by at least 40x and probably more like 150x. Over time electrical costs become more important as people are more likely to overbuild the network then underbuild as the under predict the rising difficulty and once purchased hardware is a sunk cost. 40 x 200 TH/s = 8 PH/s 150 x 200 TH/s = 30 PH/s. Remember 40 PH/s is the upper bound based on break even efficiency. Without a peB and high availabity of ASICs I wouldn't be surprised to see the network already at 8 PH/s on it way towards 30PH/s. TL/DR version: the network "only" being at 200 MH/s is a combination of a) slow deployment of ASICs b) lack of new GPU hashing power because of the risk of the inevitable future One shouldn't look at 40 PH/s and say "that is 2000x higher than today with ASICs" as the 200 MH/s today is artificially "low" (although it may not feel like that for GPU miners) for the two reasons above. Hey jackass, this sounds like horrible news, how is me losing money "ok"?Well there will be pain. The peB caused surplus capacity to be built and that is going to result in some losses by at least some miners. I don't wish any losses on anyone and if you are afraid of losses well you probably shouldn't order, seek a refund, or sell your spot in line. However this is good for Bitcoin in general. At 5 PH/s the cost to attack the network is probably greater than $100 mil and that is probably a lower bound on hashing power. Since electrical efficiency break even (for current gen & exchange rate) is closer to 40 PH/s, if the network eventually rises to 20 PH/s the cost is closer to a quarter billion. Could the US govt pay that? Yes but security isn't a black or white dynamic. It now puts 51% attacks well beyond the range of all but the most power sovereign entities. Even the largest corporation's can't just pretend away a 9 figure expenditure as if it is nothing. Whole ranges of attacks are now gone. An economical 51% (where attacker attempts to profit directly from the double spend) is a non-issue, botnets will never have the capability to threaten Bitcoin. Hell Bitcoin is even safe from the majority of Sovreign nations. From genesis block to a quarter billion dollars in security in 5ish years. Not too shabby. The other piece of good news is that even if miners will not profit it makes no economic sense to stop mining once the hardware has been paid for. The overcapacity due to pre-orders may result in reduced future hardware sales but for existing miners, their hardware costs are already sunk. Any mining revenue means a smaller loss (and potentially the hope of a small return). Turning off one's already bought miner is just a way to guarantee a maximum loss. Think about it assuming revenue is greater than electrical cost at which point does a miner realize the maximum loss (assuming no resale)? The maximum loss occurs upon delivery if miners, doesn't mine anything. Even if the miner will eventually come out behind the longer the miner mines (when revenue is greater than electrical cost) the more net revenue against the same fixed capital cost. Miners who in frustration sell their rigs (because they realize the break even point is 1,000+ days away) to other miners don't really change the security of the network. This level of security is simply not possible without ASICs. ASIC "unfriendly" designs simply pigeonhole themselves into a space of minimal security. Maybe good for a hobbyist but hardly strong enough for any real commerce. The good news is that with Scrypt's memory hardness reduced by >99% only existing Scrypt based coins are only marginally ASIC resistant. * Disclaimer: try not to get hung up on the exactness of 5,000 TH/s. If you think it is off then substitute your numbers instead. The reality is if only 1 PH/s of hardware is sold then more will be sold once pre-orders are delivered until the market reaches equilibrium. Really it only changes the shape of the curve not the endpoint. |
|
|
|
|
Title says it all, any documentation (other than the code) on the structure and format of the wallet database?
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin signs each of the inputs for tx with a separate signature. This adds significant size to the overall transaction size. The size of the most common Bitcoin tx can be computed as the following:
Size (in bytes) = 10+147*NumIn+34*NumOut
This applies to tx with standard outputs, scripts of less than 256 bytes each, and all inputs use compressed public keys. If the public key for the input is uncompressed the size is 32 bytes larger.
The largest portion of a balanced (number of inputs and outputs are equal) comes from the input portion and the largest component of the input is the signature which is 72 bytes with encoding. If we assume the average tx consists of two inputs and two outputs that makes the average tx size 368 bytes. Roughly 39% of that or 144 bytes is from the two signatures for the two inputs. However a tx is only valid if all the signatures are valid.
Is it necessary to store each signature separately?
Is there some ECDSA operation which could allow verification that data was signed by multiple private keys with a single signature and multiple public keys?
Given:
private keys a & b
Public keys A & B
Data to be signed d
Is it possible to create a signature S such that it can be verified given only A, B, and d?
|
|
|
|
A common question is how to setup a website or service to accept bitcoins without using any third party services and without leaving keys vulnerable to an attacker. The most direct method is using a "watching wallet" (aka "read only" or "watch only wallet"). This wallet does exactly what it sounds like. It can only "watch" owned addresses for incoming transactions. It is unable to spend/transfer coins. It does this by simply not having the private keys necessary to sign transactions. There is a complimenting "spending wallet" which can be kept secure offline (or at least off the visible public webserver) which has the private keys and can sign transactions. An attacker can't steal what isn't there. Other clients have supported watching wallets but bitcoind does not, this guide however will illustrate a workaround which enables the use of bitcoind in a "watch-only" manner. Assumptions on my part:1) Bitcoind requires an encrypted wallet to be unlocked to refil the keypool. 2) The wallet will perform this refill transparently (without notifying the user) anytime the wallet is unlocked for any reason. 3) If the wallet is never unlocked the keypool will eventually be exhausted. 4) If the wallet is exhausted and locked, a request for a new address (getnewaddress RPC call) will always fail and no address will be returned. These assumptions have been verified and create a scenario where we can ensure the public keys on a wallet don't change. We do this by expanding a keypool, locking the wallet, and not unlocking it. The webserver simply "doesn't know" the passphrase necessary to unlock it's wallet and thus the keypool will consists of known keys until it runs out and needs to be replaced, this is the "watching wallet". By having another copy of the same wallet offline with a secure known passphrase we can spend coins we receive if/when necessary, this is the "spending wallet".
Random passphrase method for creating a "watching wallet" using bitcoind: 1) On a secure non-public computer, create new wallet, expand keypool to desired size, encrypt with strong known passphrase
2) Make an offline backup of the wallet and passphrase = "spending wallet"
3) Change encryption passphrase to a random 256 bit string (64 hexadecimal digits) = "watching wallet"
4) For security purposes, discard and do not record the random passphrase anywhere.
5) Transfer "watching wallet" to wallet server.
At this point you have two identical copies of the same wallet (including the same sequence of private keys in the keypool). The "watching wallet" has an unknown and unbreakable random passphrase so loss of the server wallet will not compromise the private keys.Pywallet clone method for creating a "watching wallet" for use with bitcoindAt this time the ability to clone a watching copy is only available in the beta version of Pywallet (v2.1.0b2 or later). Pywallet will work with the encrypted copy of your wallet file, does not have access to your private keys and does not require your passphrase. BETA DISCLAIMER: Beta software should only be used for development and not for production.Pywallet 2.1.0b21) Secure the "spending wallet". You will need a copy of the wallet which can be used to spend coins as the watching wallet lacks to the private keys necessary. We will start by ensuring we have a good "spending wallet". I recommend starting with a new wallet (launch bitcoin with no wallet.dat and it will create a new one). You should encrypt the wallet by setting a passphrase. Before you go any further verify the passphrase is set correctly by unlocking the wallet. This is also a good time to securely record the offline passphrase in a paper backup. Strong cryptography is a great tool but lose/forget your passphrase and you will realize the nightmare of how strong it really is. The wallet you have now is the "spending wallet". It should be stored securely offline or on a secure (non-public) computer. The spending wallet should never be on the same server as the watching wallet as that defeats the purpose. 2) Expand the keypool (if necessary)Since new keys are added to the keypool randomly, the watching wallet will remain perpetually locked so no new keys are added. This is important because new keys are random so if the watching wallet expands it will not match the "spending wallet". By keeping the watching wallet static we can ensure there is no loss of keys. The downside is that eventually the watching wallet keypool will be exhausted (0 available new keys) and you will then need to repeat this process. The default keypool in bitcoind is relatively small at 100 future keys so for most applications you will want to expand the keypool to something larger. To expand the keypool bitcoin (GUI client) or bitcoind (daemon) needs to be started with the --keypool argument. This can only be done at launch there is no RPC call available. bitcoind -keypool=XXXX <--- to launch deamond
bitcoin -keypool=XXXX <-- to launch GUI client
XXXX is the desired number of private keys in the keypool (i.e. keypool=1000 will enlarge the keypool to 1,000 keys). The value provided is the new keypool size not how large to expand it. On a new wallet using keypool=1000 will add 900 more keys for a total of 1,000 not 1,000 new keys for a total of 1,100. The command only informs the client it should expand the keypool when it has access. The client can't expand an encrypted wallet if it is locked. You can force the wallet to unlock temporarily with the walletpassphrase RPC command. walletpassphrase="<password>" <time to leave wallet unlocked in seconds>
walletpassphrase="abc" 120
For large keypools it can take a few minutes to create and store the keys depend on your system performance and the program will provide no indication of progress. Just wait. Performance Note: Wallets with a large number of keys (more than 5K to 10K depending on system) can be sluggish in responding to RPC commands. It will also require more resources to scan the blockchain for incoming transactions. Try to balance the size of keypool with your expected number of keys and the computing power available. If your site needs <10 new keys per day and is running on a low powered VPS making a wallet with a 20,000 key keypool is likely not going to produce good results but on the other hand if you need an average of 200 keys per day and have a dedicated server making a keypool of 250 is going to need nonstop refreshing. 3) Verify the keypool is set correctly.To verify the size of the keypool, use the getinfo RPC call.
> getinfo
...
"keypoolsize" : 301,
...
This wallet has 301 keys in the keypool. 4) Make a backupMake a backup of your current wallet.dat. This is a backup of your "spending wallet". I recommend you name the backup something descriptive to avoid confusion with the watching wallet copy (i.e. "wallet.spending.dat". At this point the spending wallet should have an expanded keypool and be encrypted with a strong passphrase. If you lose a copy of your spending wallet you will be unable to spend your coins. If the passphrase for your spending wallet you will be unable to spend your coins. The watching wallet copy we will make next is incapable of spending the coins to ensure you have a backup or your wallet and passphrase. The whole point of the watching wallet is for it to be unspendable, you should understand that undspenable means unspendable. There is no hack or trick or backdoor which will restore access to your coins. The watching wallet copy should not be considered a backup. Paper backup of private keys (optional) For additional security you can export and print your private keys using a dump from pywallet, to store in a safe offsite location (fireproof safe). pywallet.py --dumpwallet > dump.encrypted.txt
or
pywallet.py --passphrase="pass" --dumpwallet > dump.decrypted.txt
The dumpwallet command will dump the entire wallet (tx history, keypool order, labels, etc). For brevity you can print just the "keys" section (it includes the keys in the keypool). You don't need the "pool" section as it just contains the order of the keypool. If you include a passphrase the keys will be decrypted. If you do not include a passphrase the keys will be left in encrypted form. I use the encrypted option to print a disaster recovery (a backup for the backup) copy of all the company private keys which is stored off site in a fire rated safe. Yeah I am a little paranoid about backups but haven't lost a Satoshi yet. 5) Clone the backup of the "spending wallet" to produce a "watching wallet" using pywalletYou will need pywallet (and python and necessary dependencies) installed. Installation is beyond the scope of this guide: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.0Only the beta version of pywallet (2.1.0b2 or higher) has support for watch only clones. http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=2FtQDj3v]Pywallet 2.1.0b2 We will use pywallet to create a "watch only" clone of the existing encrypted wallet. For ensure the watching wallet can't be used for spending the existing keys will be overwritten with random placeholders. Pywallet can't simply delete the private keys as bitcoind is unable to handle a wallet with no value for a private key so it uses a random value as a placeholder. The watching wallet should remain perpetually locked as if it is unlocked the keypool will refresh with new random keys not contained in the spending wallet. Pywallet protects against accidental user unlocking by setting the passphrase on the watching wallet to an unknown random value. So in summary: A thief can't steal the private keys because they don't exist in the watching wallet. A user can't accidentally unlock the wallet because they don't know the passphrase. The command to create a watch copy of the wallet using pywallet is: pywallet_2.1.0b2.py --clone_watchonly_from /path/towallet/wallet.dat --clone_watchonly_to /path/to/clone/wallet.watching.dat
An extracted keypair dumped from a wallet prior to cloning. {
"addr": "1FHiDfisR6fysDtQnYouVXrmjZZmp7neBx",
"compressed": true,
"encrypted_privkey": "d37ea90b1d6f5c33a087c24caa45ca2ff688ece354356a6d86f4d89a44b64ca829996e669c20207947588f738daf4b7c",
"pubkey": "032101fb87879f540d9496f744e3b159eea5243d766a0540a7d67cb5e3eaa50868",
"reserve": 1
}
The same keypair dumped from the cloned watch-only copy. {
"addr": "1FHiDfisR6fysDtQnYouVXrmjZZmp7neBx",
"compressed": true,
"encrypted_privkey": "06a858fc422cd20c4dd92017592c3b878b2973496bf0ed5e6cb25711d90e32d7fcd809325a7c9c747eb38534b6091f88",
"pubkey": "032101fb87879f540d9496f744e3b159eea5243d766a0540a7d67cb5e3eaa50868",
"reserve": 1
}
You may wish to store a backup of the watching wallet in the same location as the spending wallet. There is no risk of losing funds if the watching wallet is lost/stolen/corrupted however having a backup avoids the need to reclone the spending wallet. It is strongly recommended that you label the files appropriately (i.e. wallet.spending.dat & wallet.watching.dat). 6) Upload the watch-only copy to your public server.Upload the watch-only copy of the wallet to your public webserver. Make sure you upload the correct one. If necessary rename the wallet to wallet.dat. Restart bitcoind. Once synced to current block, if the client still shows an incorrect balance, restart using the "--rescan" command line option. |
|
|
|
Looking for detailed information on the data directory and file formats for QT client (0.8.3). There is this wiki page but it is pretty sparse: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directoryFor example what format is the peers.dat file in? The chainstate sub folder contains leveldb representation of the UXTO right? What is the significance of multiple xxxxxx.sst files? There is also LOCK, LOG, and MANIFEST-xxxxxx files? The "blocks" subfolder contains leveldb representation of raw blocks right? Why are the files of difference size? 08/05/2012 02:16 AM 2,097,361,271 blk00000.dat
12/16/2012 02:37 PM 2,097,361,271 blk00001.dat
12/16/2012 07:04 PM 2,097,299,522 blk00002.dat
02/22/2013 01:23 PM 1,879,601,111 blk00003.dat
02/27/2013 07:07 AM 134,217,728 blk00004.dat
03/04/2013 02:05 AM 134,217,728 blk00005.dat
03/08/2013 01:52 PM 134,217,728 blk00006.dat
03/13/2013 05:51 AM 134,217,728 blk00007.dat
03/18/2013 11:53 PM 134,217,728 blk00008.dat
03/24/2013 03:29 AM 134,217,728 blk00009.dat
03/29/2013 04:37 AM 134,217,728 blk00010.dat
04/02/2013 06:30 PM 134,217,728 blk00011.dat
04/07/2013 01:42 AM 134,217,728 blk00012.dat
04/11/2013 06:15 AM 134,217,728 blk00013.dat
04/16/2013 12:28 AM 134,217,728 blk00014.dat
04/21/2013 04:08 AM 134,217,728 blk00015.dat
04/25/2013 09:57 PM 134,217,728 blk00016.dat
05/01/2013 09:47 AM 134,217,728 blk00017.dat
05/06/2013 02:32 PM 134,217,728 blk00018.dat
05/11/2013 12:56 AM 134,217,728 blk00019.dat
05/15/2013 07:33 AM 134,217,728 blk00020.dat
05/20/2013 09:52 AM 134,217,728 blk00021.dat
05/25/2013 11:00 AM 134,217,728 blk00022.dat
05/30/2013 03:57 PM 134,217,728 blk00023.dat
06/04/2013 05:22 PM 134,217,728 blk00024.dat
06/12/2013 11:01 AM 134,217,728 blk00025.dat
06/16/2013 06:07 PM 134,035,313 blk00026.dat
07/02/2013 06:03 PM 134,216,638 blk00027.dat
07/02/2013 06:16 PM 134,108,901 blk00028.dat
07/03/2013 06:25 PM 83,886,080 blk00029.dat
02/22/2013 01:42 PM 264,241,152 rev00000.dat
02/22/2013 01:54 PM 242,221,056 rev00002.dat
02/22/2013 02:25 PM 236,978,176 rev00003.dat
02/27/2013 07:07 AM 17,825,792 rev00004.dat
03/04/2013 02:05 AM 16,777,216 rev00005.dat
03/08/2013 01:52 PM 17,825,792 rev00006.dat
03/13/2013 05:51 AM 16,777,216 rev00007.dat
03/18/2013 11:53 PM 16,777,216 rev00008.dat
03/24/2013 03:29 AM 16,777,216 rev00009.dat
03/29/2013 04:37 AM 16,777,216 rev00010.dat
04/02/2013 06:30 PM 17,825,792 rev00011.dat
04/07/2013 01:42 AM 16,777,216 rev00012.dat
04/11/2013 06:15 AM 16,777,216 rev00013.dat
04/16/2013 12:28 AM 16,777,216 rev00014.dat
04/21/2013 04:08 AM 16,777,216 rev00015.dat
04/25/2013 09:57 PM 16,777,216 rev00016.dat
05/01/2013 09:47 AM 16,777,216 rev00017.dat
05/06/2013 02:32 PM 16,777,216 rev00018.dat
05/11/2013 12:56 AM 16,777,216 rev00019.dat
05/15/2013 07:33 AM 16,777,216 rev00020.dat
05/20/2013 09:52 AM 16,777,216 rev00021.dat
05/25/2013 11:00 AM 16,777,216 rev00022.dat
05/30/2013 03:57 PM 17,825,792 rev00023.dat
06/04/2013 05:22 PM 17,825,792 rev00024.dat
06/12/2013 11:01 AM 17,825,792 rev00025.dat
06/16/2013 06:07 PM 17,127,799 rev00026.dat
07/02/2013 06:03 PM 17,186,353 rev00027.dat
07/02/2013 06:16 PM 17,151,788 rev00028.dat
07/03/2013 06:25 PM 9,437,184 rev00029.dat For example there are 30 blkxxxxxx files the first few are very large then most are 134MB. The last one is smaller but that would make sense as it is the block file in progress. Why 134MB? Why roughly 2GB for the first two block files and then the third one breaks that pattern? |
|
|
|
|
Title says it all....
Is there a limit on the max number of inputs and outputs in a transaction?
|
|
|
|
Selling 25 (twenty five) 1oz Canadian Maple Leaf Rounds as a complete mint tube, the last tube of a purchased monster box that I have parted out. Total of 25 ounces .9999 fine silver. Will not divide. Coins have never been removed from tube. I did open the tube to put in a foam spacer to protect the coins in transit. Without it, mint tubes have a roughly 1/4" void which allows coins to rattle when shipped. This can either draw undesirable attention or allow the coins to become dinged if the package is roughly handled. Stock photos (will upload actual photos in next post):   Stats (per round, 25 rounds total) Year: 2013 Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Content: 1 toz Silver Diameter: 38 mm Thickness: 3.29 mm Fineness: .9999 fine Price $630 equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to adjust price if spot price of silver rises to more than 1% over $21.93 Shipping:USPS Priority Mail:  USPS Express Mail:  Third party Insurance (required signing for delivery by addressee or agent - requires ID name must match package): Insurance includes the cost of restricted (signature) delivery. Personally I think the odds of lost/stolen shipment are less than 2% (cost of insurance) but I leave it as an option. If you opt not to take insurance you assume liability for the shipment. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but it is going to be more, probably a lot more. Escrow:
Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent adult restricted signature (you will need to show ID to sign) for proof of delivery. * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. Off the top of my head that is only John K. Other:Please no low ball offers. I am not desperate to sell. Thanks. |
|
|
|
The sudden rise of the internet may not be the biggest news story in the past fifteen years, but it was certainly the most entertaining. Over the course of only a year the value of technology stocks has doubled, only to crash right back down within months. Suddenly, it felt as if we were back in the tulip era. But what is this strange technology that is behind all of this unexpected public attention? A cure for cancer? A solution to the problems of poverty and world hunger? No. As it turns out, the underlying technology is basically a clunky, inferior version of a phone, and is primarily used by terrorists and prepubescent children with nothing better to do with their lives than send each other images of cats. However, since this technology has been all the rage in the past few weeks, its supposed “advantages” deserve a thorough debunking, and those who have so far been fortunate enough not to get caught up in the hype deserve a thorough understanding of just how pernicious and evil the underlying ideology of this “invention” is. To that end, I have gathered up the fundamental flaws behind the internet’s design and will summarize them all in the rest of this article. http://bitcoinmagazine.com/five-reasons-you-should-not-use-the-internet/ |
|
|
|
Selling 18 (eighteen) 1oz Canadian Maple Leaf Rounds as a single lot. Includes high quality air-tite protector for each round (the good kind with foam insert). Rounds transferred from sealed mint tube into airtites with cloth gloves. Selling as a full lot of 18 coins. If I don't get a buyer I will look to part them out but for now I prefer a single sale. Stock photos (will upload actual photos in next post):   Stats (per round, 18 rounds total) Year: 2012 Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Content: 1 toz Silver Diameter: 38 mm Thickness: 3.29 mm Fineness: .9999 fine Price $460 equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to adjust price if spot price of silver is rises to more than $22.15 Shipping:USPS Priority Mail:  USPS Express Mail: Third party Insurance (required showing ID and signing for delivery by addressee or agent):  Package is too heavy for first class mail and standard mail is almost $9 and take forever so I didn't list it as an option. Insurance includes the cost of restricted (signature) delivery. Personally I think the odds of lost/stolen shipment are less than 2% (cost of insurance) but I leave it as an option. If you opt not to take insurance you assume liability for the shipment. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but it is going to be more, probably a lot more. Escrow:
Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent by registered mail OR adult restricted signature (you will need ID to sign). * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. Off the top of my head that is only John K. Other:Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Trying to add $1,500 to my namecheap account. Namecheap's add funds form for Bitcoins (screen prior to being directed to Bitpay) indicates: Minimum $0.01 / Max $10,000.00/ Total Max Per Day $10,000.00/ Today $0.00 Entering any amount up to $500 works as expected. Click continue and bitpay order form shows. Entering any amount >$500 (but less than $10,000) results in form being reset without error. It looks like the issue is on namecheap's side but in chat they indicated it must be a problem with their payment processor. If anyone from bitpay sees this you may want to reach out to someone who knows on namecheap's side. |
|
|
|
|
(Just a random guys reflection on Bitcoin four years later and the vanity of needing to make the 10,000 post important)
If you have been involved in the Bitcoin community for any period of time you likely have heard the phrase "Bitcoin is the most disruptive technology since the internet" or something similar at least once. Have you ever thought deeply about what that means? Bitcoin is disruptive because it doesn't need the blessing or support of established interests. In that respect Bitcoin was successful as soon as people voluntarily began using it. It only requires voluntary association to grow and flourish and that is a powerful thing. The future is unknown and the growth of Bitcoin is almost certainly going to be painful. Certain actions taken by established interests can slow adoption, degrade the value of the network, and even destroy the Bitcoin protocol. Well at least the form of the protocol we call "Bitcoin" today. Bitcoin however will route around damaged parts of the system and make no mistake, our financial and political systems are horribly damaged. Bitcoin interfaces at the edges with those systems and that will make things chaotic for a while. If states adopt punitive legislation then wealth, innovation, employment, and yes even tax revenue will flow to states that don't. If banks are reactionary they will lose to banks that are forward looking. Today the amount loss is negligible but what about in a decade or two? Like water of electricity Bitcoin will organically find the path of least resistance.
The concept of cryptocurrency is now unstoppable. Today Bitcoin is the dominant system but regardless of the success or failure of Bitcoin, the thing of far greater note is the larger concept of decentralized currencies have been proven viable. Economic systems secured by math and logic not fallible humans and political will. People will never stops improving it. Even if established entities succeed in crippling the Bitcoin network, future cryptocurrencies will evolve from the lessons learned in Bitcoin's destruction. It has always been a possibility that Bitcoin will be the Napster of cryptocurrencies. Innovative, new, and ultimately fatally vulnerable from the day it launched. The media industry struck the Napster network at the vulnerable point and for a short time they enjoyed success, but the concept had already taken root. People were already thinking, creating, evolving the concept. What spawned from the death of Napster wasn't carbon copies, that would have been futile. Instead it was a technological petri dish, with various new forms of file sharing being created, competing, and mutating into forms that were increasingly more resilient to control and censorship. The same will happen to Bitcoin, there is no need for a replacement to start from scratch. A future protocol could start from a snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain at a point in time before it was attacked, gaining at launch stakeholders who have a vested interest in the success of this alternative. Will the process be chaotic, scary, unmanageable? Of course. A cacophony of competing ideas, networks, and participants. However like file sharing the genie is now out of the bottle. We may in twenty years look back and find cryptocurrencies are very similar to what exists today or they may be so radically different as to be unrecognizable. Nobody know if Bitcoin will remain viable and resilient over an extended time frame. If someone says they know, they are lying, either to you or themselves. Of one thing that I have no doubt, is that cryptocurrencies in some form will exist in the future.
We should take a look at how far we have already come. The very fact that you even have people talking about cryptocurrency all over the world, a word which didn't even exist a few short years ago, is profound. Even when people are criticizing Bitcoin for its flaws or limitations they are still talking about it as a functional network, not an abstract idea which maybe could happen someday. Compare that to the reaction Satoshi would have received, if he appeared on CNBC to discuss the still theoretical concept of decentralized currencies. It would have been painful. From an idea that many self proclaimed experts wrote off as impossible or unworkable, to a money supply valued at over a billion dollars in less than five years. All that growth occurring in a chaotic, organic and at times dysfunctional fashion, open to anyone with an idea and a drive. Unlike fiat currencies nobody is forced to accept Bitcoins, nobody is locked into keeping the coins they already hold. Fiat currencies coerce populations through the use of legal tender laws and even with that advantage Bitcoin is already larger than the money supplies of dozens of nations.
Cryptocurrencies have breathed new life to a very old concept. Private money has existed for at least as long as currency issued by the force of the state, but it has been held back by the seemingly insurmountable limitation of a trusted central authority. The concept of decentralized currencies breaks that limitation and will enable the usage of private money on a scale that has never before been seen in the history of mankind. The nature of Bitcoin makes any attempt to control the "Bitcoin proper" as futile as attempts to stop peer to peer file sharing. At best the state can exert influence on the periphery, the edge where the crypto and fiat worlds meet; however this influence will wane with time. As a circle expands the area inside the circle grows exponentially relative to the circumference. In the same respect, even if states around the world clamp down, their influence and power is directed at periphery, an area of shrinking importance as more of the voluntary transactions occur inside the network.
On a personal note I don't know the exact future of Tangible Cryptography, we have been discussing various plans and contingencies. Over the last week I have switched back and forth many times between disillusionment and defiance. After deep reflection I am as energized as I have ever been. Regardless of what happens we will remain involved in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. In the modern age defiance doesn't necessarily require one to violate the laws of the state. If the state says X is unlawful, well I can do Y instead. Individuals and companies can route around the damaged parts of the system just like Bitcoin does. Tangible Cryptography employees citizens at a time when jobs are scarce, it pays a substantial amount in taxes at a time when shortfalls are never ending. Our government should be thankful for the prosperity that our company has brought. If they don't, well there are other ways to do Bitcoin related commerce, and there are other states. The power of collocation, virtualization, private networks, and telecommuting makes the world smaller and will allow a marketplace for governance. The states just haven't realized it yet.
P.S. I hear Canada is nice this time of year.
|
|
|
|
UPDATE: Entire lot sold.Selling ten (10) 1 oz Canadian Gold Maple Leaf coins (.9999 fine). Coins are in individual air-tite protectors (the good kind with foam ring). Coins were transfered from sealed mint tube into air-tites using cotton gloves. Standard Royal Mint design. Classic leaf on the back, and sexy lady on the front. This is 2013 design so it has the microstamping of leaf and year.    (high resolution photos of actual coins in next post) Stats (per coin 10 coins total) Year: 2013 Mint: Royal Canadian Mint Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Diameter: 30 mm Thickness: 2.8 mm Content: 1 oz of .9999 fine Gold Obverse: Right-facing profile of Queen Elizabeth II, along with the year and face value. Reverse: A large, single maple leaf with a small maple leaf privy mark that has a micro-engraved “13” in the center, visible under magnification. Guaranteed by the Royal Canadian Mint. Price:$14,690 USD equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to raise the asking price if the spot price of gold rises more than 1% over $1400.00 per ounce. Shipping:USPS Priority Mail Flatrate:  USPS Express Mail Flatrate:  USPS Registered Priority Mail (with $15,000 insured value):  Important note about shipping:If you have a third party insurer which insures bullion and wish to use them I am willing to consider it. If not shipped registered mail you accept liability for lost/stolen packages. I can ship requiring signature or not your choice. I generally ship in flat rate envelopes as there are a couple million in the mail every year. Nondescript and boring. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but the price will be higher. Important note about insurance and registered mail:The only way bullion can be insured is by Registered Mail or third party insurer. Standard USPS, UPS, and FedEX insurances specifically excludes bullion. Registered mail does not have a bullion exclusion. Express Mail can't be sent registered and Priority mail generally is ~ 2 days slower when sent registered. Registered Mail must be picked up at Post Office, you will need ID matching the name on shipment, and you will need to sign. Registered Mail doesn't require the contents of the shipment to be recorded only the value. For full disclosure the registered price includes a $20 markup mainly because it is a complete pain in the ass. Entire package needs to be covered in brown paper tape, have to hand deliver to post office, wait in line, etc. Escrow:Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to use escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent by registered mail OR adult restricted signature (you will need ID to sign). * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. John K is the only name that comes to mind at the moment. Other:Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. Would prefer to sell bulk to single seller. If no offers in 48 hours will consider selling them individually. Bitcoins only (what did you think you were on fiatcointalk?).
|
|
|
|
Selling 500x 1oz Canadian Maple Leaf Rounds. Sold as 20x 25 oz tubes packed in original mint "Monster Box". Single bulk sale for Bitcoins only. Stock photos (will upload actual photos):  Stats (per coin 500 total) Year: 2013 Grade: Brilliant Uncirculated Diameter: 38 mm Thickness: 3.29 mm Price $12,975 equivalent in Bitcoins @MtGox last  I reserve the right to adjust price if spot price of silver moves more than 1% from $22.68 per ounce. Shipping:Price excludes shipping costs. USPS Priority Mail Medium Flatrate box:  USPS Express Mail Medium Flatrate box:  USPS Registered Priority Mail (with $13,000 insured value):  It can't be shipped first class due to the weight ~42 lbs and standard mail is slower and more expensive than Priority Flat rate. I can get a quote for FedEx or UPS but it is going to be more, probably a lot more given the weight. The only way bullion can be insured is by Registered Mail or third party insurer. Standard USPS, UPS, and FedEX insurances specifically excludes bullion. Registered mail does not have a bullion exclusion. Express Mail can't be sent registered and Priority mail generally is ~ 2 days slower when sent registered. Registered Mail must be picked up at Post Office, you will need ID matching the name on shipment, and you will need to sign. Registered Mail doesn't require the contents of the shipment to be recorded only the value. For full discloure the registered price includes a $20 markup mainly because it is a complete pain in the ass. Entire package needs to be covered in brown paper tape, have to hand deliver to post office, wait in line, etc. If you have a third party insurer which insures bullion and wish to use them I am willing to consider it. Escrow:
Honestly I don't think you need escrow given my trading history both (personally and running TC, LLC) but then again I guess that is what a scammer would say. If one wants to escrow the terms are: * Sale price is 1% higher due to my risk. You cover all escrow fees. * Shipment must be sent by registered mail OR adult restricted signature (you will need ID to sign). * Escrow agent must be someone I trust. Other:
I have spare empty Monster box so if the buyer wishes I can ship this as two separate shipment of 250 oz each on separate days. Please no low balls offers. I am not desperate to sell. |
|
|
|
Filed a request for an administrative to FinCEN this morning. It is something which has been in the works for the last month and is overshadowed by other news today but I thought some Bitcoin related enterprises would be interested. The administrative ruling seeks clarification on if certain scenarios require registration as an MSB. FinCEN guidance on virtual currencies ( FIN-2013-G001) includes a number of confusing and contradictory statements. c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency. Issue #1: Who creates Bitcoins?The first area I asked clarification on was the creation of Bitcoins. It is "strange" that Fincen makes creators of Bitcoins a special case. I believe FinCEN has an incomplete understand of what mining is and how it work. Who exactly creates Bitcoins in the Bitcoin network? Is it the entity which produces and broadcasts a new block? Is it the entity that has ownership of the address in the coinbase transactions? If the case of "pool mining" are the "miners" which only paid for contributing computing resources to a pool operator the creator? Is the pool operator the creator? Or is neither? In the administrative ruling I provided an explanation of the Bitcoin block generation process and the scenario where individuals don't directly mine blocks, rather they attempt to potential solutions provided by a pool operator who receives newly "minted coins". The "miners" which I deemed "Computing Power Providers" or CPPs are merely contracting to provide computing power to the pool operator. The key point is that when a solution is found and a new block broadcast that block's newly minted coins are transferred to an address under the control of the operator not the CPPs. The mining pool operator contracts with CPPs and pays them an agreed upon amount (either a preset about per unit of work or a % of any rewards found based on computing power). The CPPs never receive newly generated coins (yes there are exceptions but they were not included in this scenario). I asked FinCEN to provide clarification on who is the creator. I also included the scenario where a mining pool operator pays these CPPs directly in real currency. I stated that by the guidance the pool operator wouldn't be considered an exchanger. The pool operator is paying for computing power and while that computing power may produce Bitcoins that is distinct from actually exchanging BTC for USD. There are a lot of potential scenarios on exactly who is the creator. All of these are plusible but FinCEN just leaves the question open with a vague "creator" reference: a) "Satoshi" as a result of the protocol providing entities that solve a block a preset amount of subsidy b) nobody - the protocol defines the compensation for miners and miners merely collect it c) the entity in charge of pool mining that creates the blockheader to be hashed. d) everyone contributing computing power to a pool reward e) the entity which has ownership & control of the address in coinbase tx (generally today this is the same as c but it doesn't have to be) If FinCEN indicates the creators selling virtual currency for real currency are regulated they have an obligation to provide specific and exact guidance on exactly what make one the "creator" and thus potentially under regulation. Otherwise the regulation is vague, arbitrary, capricious, and overbroad. Issue #2: What is the exchanger doesn't involve a "another person"?The reason I started taking a closer look at "creators" of virtual currency is because FincEN makes creators of virtual currency who exchange it for real currency a "special case".. Why? If indeed Fincen is stating in the guidance that any EXCHANGER of virtual currency for real currency is regulated then why also mention creators?. If the creator exchanges virtual currency for real currency they would already fall under the commonly accepted (and IMHO incorrect) "exchanger" anyways. While define them seperately. There is no additional restriction on them no enhanced oversight. Both "exchangers" and "creators who exchange virtual currency for real currency" both are subject to exactly the same definition and oversight. Hopefully this provides some clarity: All persons* who exchange virtual currency for real currency are regulated (unless an exception applies). All creators who exchange virtual currency for real currency are regulated (unless an exception applies). All creators are persons. * persons generally means any real person, corporation, partnership, or other legal construct given "personhood" under existing law. The law rarely makes a distinction between a "real person" (a human being) and a corporation for example.The second definition is redundant by scope. This is "strange". Regulations rarely define already completely inclusive subclasses. The selective service laws don't both say "all males over 18 need to register" and "all males over 18 which have brown hair need to register". The first class is inclusive of the second. There is no need to even mention it. If this doesn't seem strange to you please reread the section above as it is important to understand the basis for the rest. What if not all trades involving virtual currency and real currency meet the definition of an "exchanger" then it would make more sense to define the "special case" for issuers if FinCEN wanted (dubious as it may be) to hold them to a higher standard. The "accepted" interpretation of FinCEN guidance is that anyone who exchanges virtual currency for real currency is an "exchanger" (unless an exception applies as defined by existing MSB & MT regulations). However the actual text of the guidance does NOT say that: In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency. Now guidance isn't law, but by the letter of the guidance a trade of BTC for USD between two individuals is not an exchanger. You will notice in the definition above there are three distinct entities. The regulated entity, the entity that it accepts Bitcoins from AND the entity that it transmits Bitcoins to. FinCEN is clear to say "one person" and "another persons". Per the quote above it is accepting BTC from person A AND transmitting it to person B combined with the acceptance of real currency which makes one a regulated entity.Thus by the letter of the guidance above this would be a regulated entity BTC: Person A -----> Exchanger ----> Person B USD: Person B -----> Exchanger ----> Person A Here there is an acceptance of BTC from on person and transmission of BTC BTC to another person. However by the guidance as written above, the following would not be regulated entity: BTC: Person A ----> Buyer USD: Buyer ----> Person A There is acceptance of virtual currency by the buyer but no transmission to another person. If this looks familiar to a certain company business model well that is the point. I also brought up the scenario of operating an eWallet which involve only a single virtual currency and no real currency: BTC: Person A -----> Wallet Provider -----> Person B USD: None Lastly this would clarify some nagging inconsistencies about the accepted definition of "exchangers". I have seen a lot that people have made claims that FinCEN doesn't regulate people who exchange virtual currency for real currency on a regulated exchange. While in may make common sense, FinCEN made no except for an entity which exchanges virtual currency using a regulated money transmitter. IF ALL exchanges of USD->BTC or BTC->USD are regulated entities by the letter of the guidance it wouldn't matter if a person exchanged with a regulated entity they would STILL need to be a regulated entity themselves. Now I am not arguing that is the case, I am arguing that this weird scenario exists because the accepted definition of "exchanger" is incorrect. However if the mere act of trading virtual currency for real currency wasn't the regulated activity then it would make sense that for example the users/clients of MtGox (or any other exchanger) would not be regulated entities themselves. While they are trading virtual currency for real currency they don't meet the definition of an acceptance of virtual currency and transmission of that virtual currency to another party. Anyways it will be at least 30 days and possibly 90 before I get a response but I thought people might want to start thinking about the issue and looking closer at the guidance. I am not saying this "is" the proper interpretation but rather that people should take an independent look at the guidance and existing regulations. DISCLAIMER: The post is not legal counsel. You should not rely on it for legal advice. The definitive response will come from FinCEN or the courts in a legal challenge. The point of an administrative ruling to to ask FinCEN to provide clarification when existing guidance isn't clear. I believe that existing guidance isn't clear in these two scenarios. Lastly I believe the second scenario only exists because FinCEN chose to use existing MSB/MT regulation rather than ask Congress to give them regulatory oversight over "virtual currency" brokers as they do with real currency brokers. However "brokers of foreign currency" while regulated as an MSB are not MT and generally are not regulated at the state level so even that would be a marginal win. |
|
|
|
MtGox share is under 60%. I have no ill feelings towards MtGox and don't want to see them "go away" (as others do). However having exchange volume more decentralized is a good thing for everyone (except maybe Mtgox). I don't believe decentralized exchanges are viable (at least nothing proposed yet). For those who want to operate outside the exchange space, OTC is a great concept but major companies aren't going to use OTC. Imagine tomorrow Newegg accepted BTC and needed to convert tens of thousands of BTC a day to pay bills, suppliers, etc. They are going to use an exchange and if exchanges can't handle that volume they simply won't accept BTC. MtGox at one point topped 85%+ of total exchange volume and now is below 60%. Hopefully that will fall even further to say 30% to 40%, MtGox would still be majorly important but they wouldn't be "the" exchange. http://www.bitcoinity.org/markets/listTotal volume in prior 24 hours: 36,705 BTC
Name BTC Share Currencies
mtgox 21,397 58.30% AUD CAD CHF DKK EUR GBP HKD JPY NZD PLN RUB SEK SGD THB USD
bitstamp 5,879 16.02% USD
btce 4,625 12.60% USD RUR EUR
btcchina 2,729 7.44% CNY
campbx 882 2.41% USD
cavirtex 812 2.21% CAD
bitcurex 377 1.03% PLN EUR
We are going to start combining quote feeds from all exchanges and using the "gobal exchange rate" in our pricing models. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
