So I SHOULD have listened to my instinct last night and withdrew my Bitcoins. Ugh... This is why we can't have nice things.
Why, because exchanges still think hot wallets are a good idea? |
|
|
|
|
I love Casascius coins. I think they are awesome, they deserve the attention they get, and I am now thinking about creating my own coins, similar in format to Casascius coins.
The big reason I want to do this is as a way to use some of the great firstbits addresses I have. You could buy a coin with 1KILO on the back of it, and know that you can always look up the full address of that coin at blockchain.info (or firstbits.com when it is back up). Or, buy a coin with 1KIRK on the back, redeem the coin by importing the private key into your Bitcoin client, and then use the address as your own (perfect if your name is Kirk?).
These coins would:
- have custom security level hologram on one side with private key behind it (~$5000 sunk fee)
- have elaborate design on the other side
- potentially have some sort of edging on the coin (like US quarters do)
- likely be 1.5" in size
- all be 1 BTC coins (1 BTC is held inside of the private key)
- all have premium firstbits addresses on them, such as 1SEXY, 1KIRK, 1KILO, 1STUD, 1MUSIC, 1AAAAA, etc
Decisions to be made:
- Design of hologram and coin face.
- Size of coin.
- Straight metal coin, or colored?
- Is 1 BTC too much or too little?
- NAME of the coin.
Your thoughts? Would you be interested in such a coin?
|
|
|
|
Still, I don't know why you should actually own these things, but that is kind of an american thing.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free" - A. E. van Vogt One would imagine the right to make weapons would be even more the right to be free. I doubt there is that much truth to it. Freedom needs weapons? What for? For the right to shoot someone? The one thing I have never understood is, considering the immense might of the united states military. How does anyone in his right mind think that beating this complex with a revolution is a good idea?  The use of weapons always brings nothing else but death. Don't get me wrong, im not an anti gun nut, but neither am I a believer that everyone should be armed. I don't see any use for it. For me, it's for fun (target shooting) and for if someone breaks into my house. They'd get a face full of rounds from me. |
|
|
|
Also, how do we know you're legit? Can you post pictures of the ammo boxes you have in stock? Can you release your address, name or at least registered business name? Posting cheap prices on fake ammo these days would be a great way to scam a lot of people out of money... Registered through: eNom, Inc. Domain name: bitmunitions.com Administrative Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent ( wwhrndqyg@whoisprivacyprotect.com) +1.4252740657 Fax: +1.4259744730 PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O bitmunitions.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US Technical Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent ( wwhrndqyg@whoisprivacyprotect.com) +1.4252740657 Fax: +1.4259744730 PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O bitmunitions.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US Registrant Contact: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. Whois Agent () Fax: PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1 C/O bitmunitions.com Bellevue, WA 98007 US Status: Locked Name Servers: gabe.ns.cloudflare.com jean.ns.cloudflare.com Creation date: 20 Apr 2013 05:33:46 Expiration date: 20 Apr 2014 05:33:00 |
|
|
|
|
Why are you charging tax? I'm in Oregon, no sales tax ever paid on anything, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
I have always hated yahoo. Always too cluttered. Before google, I used altavista.
|
|
|
|
|
I have not received such an email.
|
|
|
|
|
*looks at sig*
I have a lot of cool firstbits...
|
|
|
|
I like this site, it's not to 'fancy' and easy to navigate through, I will be getting one of these soon I think!
Btw, I registered.
The only improvement I could suggest is adding more, but the site is actually very good and I have not come across a site like this yet.
Thank you Welsh! I do plan to add more pre-generated addresses as well. They were already generated in 2011, I just haven't had a chance to add them yet. |
|
|
|
I typically don't thread bomb but I couldn't resist on this one. You're charging 10$ for a 1-5 character vanity that seems way to easy for a computer to automatically do. My computer can find a case sens one in about 10 seconds:  Even lower without case sens (<1 second):  Honestly, the price for the 10 letter one is about right. It's about a 1 year process for a 1abcdefghij without case sens. (over 100,000 years with case sens) I don't want it to seem like I'm flaming you or anything, I really don't. But if I went into a local store and saw an outrageous price for some type of item, I might have something to say to the owner. Nothing personal, seriously. Really wished I could have gotten around to registering for your 1btc drawing, although. I am mostly charging for my time on those ones - communicating with the customer to get their public key, waiting for the address to generate, packaging it and sending it out. It is targeted towards those who do not know how to generate their own address or do not want to take the time to figure it out. Some people don't even know what a command line is, or how to install a particular set of drivers (as vanitygen is only compatible with some driver sets). It's kind of like how a grocery store charges $5 for a small bundle of wood, whereas if a person bought it straight from a woodcutter, they could get the same amount for $1. Well, the grocery store has already gone through the work of contacting the woodcutter, bundling the wood, and putting it in a nearby location to make it convenient for the customer, warranting the higher price. Anyway, thanks for the feedback! |
|
|
|
why are ebay bitcoins selling at such a high markup? is it all due to risk of chargebacks?? what is ebay/paypal total fee % nowadays?? I cant picture spending $150+ for 1btc, I would rather just try CL or something.
Because it's easy to buy them. Think about the hell people have been through trying to buy Bitcoins through Coinbase, or MtGox. People WANT Bitcoins, but they can't figure out how to actually buy them legitimately without waiting for two months or having to send everything but the kitchen sink as verification for their account. |
|
|
|
|
Good points as well, DeathandTaxes.
Perhaps covering the private key with a tamper-proof hologram? Then, the scammer couldn't redeem the coins without ruining the hologram, and the seller could refuse a refund stating that the buyer didn't return the item as it was sold.
At that point, it'd be a his word vs my word thing as far as who did what. How do those disputes with a brick sent instead of a laptop usually work out?
|
|
|
|
Never had a problem. But I have to say, I have payed for shipping through eBay, which gives the tracking number to PayPal. PayPal is on the side of the buyer, but limited primarily to the extent that they have proof the item arrived. They are not concerned if the customer doesn't "like" the product-in that case they would just return it. All you're sending is a worthless piece of paper-why would PayPal believe it if a customer said they received something different?
I can't even tell you how many coins I've sold on there. Usually I do it in like .1, .5 increments. Its GOOD money. People on eBay know about bitcoins, but thats about all they know (they have no idea how to "get" bitcoins. So, they have no problem paying a premium to buy into something they otherwise wouldn't have the knowledge to do).
Well, I like the idea of waiting to fund it until the buyer confirms they have received it. Seems like a pretty fool-proof way of doing it TBH. |
|
|
|
|
I've wondered about this. So you haven't had much trouble selling these on eBay? No one has attempted to scam you or dispute the charge?
|
|
|
|
|
The triangle/wedge isn't consolidating upward though (which would indicate a breakout upwards). It is consolidating to the middle, which means it could break out either direction.
However, with the Gyft + Humble Bundle news, I think it'll break out upward. Just a general optimistic feeling about BTC today.
|
|
|
|
The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form. Now everyone has to accept reality.
Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte. Except... this patch exists. Which means it is quite possible for people to do it. I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing. Huh? In that case, the victim would have to install that patch in order to be victimized. In this case with the 0-conf security hole, no one has to install a patch to be victimized, but an attacker could certainly install the patch to make it easier for him to make people victims. Those are polar opposites. Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.
The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch. It disables possible use cases that shouldn't have been use cases at all. Starbucks shouldn't be getting robbed of $3 this way, because they shouldn't be accepting 0-conf transactions anyway. They are inherently unsafe. Gavin's patch shows exactly why they are inherently unsafe - anyone could code such a patch and use it in their client. Saying that 0-conf transactions can be secure is like not having locks on your house and pretending that it is perfectly safe to leave for the weekend. "Well, as long as someone doesn't spend the time to figure out my house is unlocked, it'll be fine - nothing will be stolen." While that may be true, more and more criminals will decide to check houses to see if they are locked if they know that people are leaving their houses unlocked. Similarly, while 0-conf transactions may be mostly safe today, you can guarantee that patches to double-spend coins would be very prevalent in the future, just like aimbots are prevalent in FPS games. Gavin is preventing a big problem before it starts by making it a really bad idea to accept 0-conf transactions and prevent merchants from relying on 0-conf transactions. I am bullish on this news. It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.
I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial Not impossible at all. All I would have to do is patch Gavin's pull request into my own Bitcoin-QT, and viola! Double-spending powers! You can say that he shouldn't have done that, but then, what would stop anyone else from making a similar patch and only sharing it among the criminal underground? The miner has to install this patch. And everyone else on the Bitcoin network. No one cares about your client. No one would propagate your double spend. This patch is necessary to propagate the double spends. At the moment the Bitcoin network prohibits double spends. This patch enables it. A huge "benefit"... Right, you are right - I misunderstood the patch. My apologies. |
|
|
|
|
We should add it to every currency's wikipedia page. Because, well, it's probably true. And wikipedia is all about stuff that is probably true.
|
|
|
|
The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form. Now everyone has to accept reality.
Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte. Except... this patch exists. Which means it is quite possible for people to do it. I write a patch to send me all your coins and still as long as you don't install it this patch will do nothing. Huh? In that case, the victim would have to install that patch in order to be victimized. In this case with the 0-conf security hole, no one has to install a patch to be victimized, but an attacker could certainly install the patch to make it easier for him to make people victims. Those are polar opposites. Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe.
The "benefit" is that it disables possible use cases. The victims would be be merchant like Starbucks that get robbed $3 that way, while millions of ppl could regular pay with Bitcoins at the same time. You are one of those guys that try to outlaw cash, because it can be used for illegal thing. Once everything works electronically it can be traced and monitored and everyone is safe. Except now no one is. Same benefit as from this patch. It disables possible use cases that shouldn't have been use cases at all. Starbucks shouldn't be getting robbed of $3 this way, because they shouldn't be accepting 0-conf transactions anyway. They are inherently unsafe. Gavin's patch shows exactly why they are inherently unsafe - anyone could code such a patch and use it in their client. Saying that 0-conf transactions can be secure is like not having locks on your house and pretending that it is perfectly safe to leave for the weekend. "Well, as long as someone doesn't spend the time to figure out my house is unlocked, it'll be fine - nothing will be stolen." While that may be true, more and more criminals will decide to check houses to see if they are locked if they know that people are leaving their houses unlocked. Similarly, while 0-conf transactions may be mostly safe today, you can guarantee that patches to double-spend coins would be very prevalent in the future, just like aimbots are prevalent in FPS games. Gavin is preventing a big problem before it starts by making it a really bad idea to accept 0-conf transactions and prevent merchants from relying on 0-conf transactions. I am bullish on this news. It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening.
I repeat, have you ever tried this? Basically impossible. So bullish on making Bitcoin worse? Permabull in denial Not impossible at all. All I would have to do is patch Gavin's pull request into my own Bitcoin-QT, and viola! Double-spending powers! You can say that he shouldn't have done that, but then, what would stop anyone else from making a similar patch and only sharing it among the criminal underground? |
|
|
|
The force behind this patch is that zero-conf transactions have never, ever, ever, ever, ever been safe in any way, shape or form. Now everyone has to accept reality.
Have you ever tried to double spend? It is more or less impossible if you are not a very very big miner. People claiming that this is easy have no f'ing clue how the Bitcoin network operates. So yes zero-conf would be a perfect fit for your $3 Latte. Except... this patch exists. Which means it is quite possible for people to do it. Better to have the benefit of such a patch for the whole populace than have the benefit only for the thieves who know how to integrate such a patch, preying on unsuspecting victims who think 0-conf transactions are safe. I am bullish on this news. It kills another potential attack vector / security hole that was present by making sure everyone is well aware of the possibility of this happening. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
