That's true. I suppose the matter of the curve is a struggle to reach a balance between providing an crucial incentive for early adopters and keeping later adopters from being shut out of the market. As far as that goes, I hope that the curve won't discourage use (it certainly hasn't discouraged me), but I guess only time will tell.

Perhaps the fact that it is possible to trace the transaction history back will cause the disgruntled to value recently mined Bitcoins more than older ones...

As someone without a graphics card new enough to mine with or enough spare money to buy one, it can seem a little unfair. However, when I think about it, I can't think of any better way to distribute Bitcoin around that wouldn't be vulnerable to attack. Two thousand years ago, I could have complained that gold was unfairly distributed, but in the end, gold was secure and useful and that's what mattered. I use Bitcoins because they're secure and useful.

Thank you so much! 

Well, looking at the Block Explorer for block 65711, it seems that the previous block 65710, which holds the redeemed output, actually has a timestamp that is later than block 65711. So, apparently the calculation is "correct", but I honestly don't know why the dates are backwards...

The makefile is looking for the boost folder at C:\boost-1.43.0-mgw . It's possible that there is a typo or something.

Thank you!

Well, going off of this thread, http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1026.0 , I was able to make a Javascript version of the code here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/check.html (Code and example)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/sha256.js
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/BigInt.js

Well, I have managed to compile the latest source on Windows XP SP3 with ssl support just fine by editing makefile.mingw:

line 28:
to

and line 33:
to

and then following the instructions here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=5851.

I confused myself pretty quickly trying to figure out what's going on, so I don't know whether this has anything to do with the problem. Earlier I was trying to replicate the original hash by using openssl on the command line. I first digested the data using sha512, then signed with the private key, and then encoded into base64, but the signature didn't match.

So I looked around and found this thread: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/77070
It seems that the sign function in ruby does something different than doing it step by step with openssl like I was trying to. Instead, the private_encrypt function seems to do the trick. Perhaps something like this would work better

I very much like pie, but I had to vote that it is a good idea. It's a common enough trade and there's nothing wrong with more organization.

Darn, darn, darn. I just managed to iron out the last snags in my code. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/destroyed.py
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/deserialize_destroyed.py

Copy them into the bitcointools folder.

As far as I can tell, I'm getting more or less the same results (with little differences here and there for some reason). You can see my full output here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28441300/output.txt

Oh well. It was fun and enlightening anyway. (By the way, not to brag but mine is faster )

I think I've got an idea on how to do this, but I'm rusty on my python, so please bear with me for a little while...

Sure, that works just fine. Thank you very much! 

Payment is confirmed. Thank you!

I think that the main problem is that Bitcoins seem risky, especially to the technologically impaired, and men are more likely to both take risks and be interested in technology. Until the Bitcoin market becomes more stable and accessible, I'm afraid that we're gonna be stuck in a sausage fest. 

The problem is that none of us probably have enough influence to get a unique name like 'Gav' to really catch on (unless it was especially catchy), so it would have to be immediately intuitive to anyone who saw it that you mean 0.001 Bitcoins. Using milli- is the most obvious, but milliBitcoins doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. I would recommend shortening it to something like "mCoins", and then abbreviate as mBTC until perhaps mC catches on. But, that's just my two Bitcents. Someone will probably have a better idea and we'll end up using that instead.

Somebody sent me 0.25 BTC by mistake? Haha, sucker! (Just kidding. Sent)

I don't want to undercut lulzplzkthx, but in case it doesn't work out, I'm interested as well.

Ok, so upon further research (I'm sorry for not doing a more initially), it seems that your best bet is to write a raw SQL query.

http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/topics/db/sql/#performing-raw-sql-queries

I can't write the exact code and query without knowing more details about the database you're using, the tables and such, but assuming you're using PostGIS, it should go something like this:


Fiddle around with it and let me know if it works.