Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2023, 07:01:22 AM *
News: Mixers will no longer be allowed after Jan 1
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] Satoshium: Minted Bitcoin on: February 05, 2017, 12:33:43 AM
Contrary to global platform facilities claimed in the posted whitepaper, we have determined that the cryptoprocessor manufacturer does not sign install receipts. In fact, there is generally no widely known public key for the cryptoprocessor manufacturer. We are reworking section 5 of the whitepaper (counterfeiting) in light of this new information. 

Meanwhile we are looking into an alternate third party attestation mechanism that makes insider attacks sufficiently unfeasible in practice. Stay tuned.
2  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ANN] Satoshium: Minted Bitcoin on: January 17, 2017, 01:04:55 AM
Yes. To this I would add: before satoshium, there is no way to give someone bitcoin hand to hand and trust free, without requiring the recipient to understand bitcoin addresses and how to determine the value.

With satoshium all you need is the token and the phone client shows you the dollar value which the only thing a newbie cares about. All complexity is hidden.
3  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Satoshium: Minted Bitcoin on: January 13, 2017, 12:36:23 AM

Satoshium has something we call "Secret Extraction" it's not meant to be a backup in the same way as hardware wallets,
but rather it's an advanced feature to deal with various edge case scenarios, one of which could be aging or various types of damage.

Thomas here.

In short, backups are permitted but somewhat hidden / discouraged. Backup, or as we call it "secret extraction" is covered in section 2 of the Appendix.

There are two use cases for a backup. One, recovering a stuck redemption. The other is for value extraction, where the user is concerned about hardware failure and doesn't care about circulating the satoshium.

Of course, a backed up satoshium is non transferable.

In my experience, many users find backups anxiety provoking, and hide them so well that they forget where they were stashed. So, we allow backups for those that want them but do not see them as a primary usage mode.
4  Other / Bitcoin Wiki / Re: Request edit privileges here on: November 01, 2015, 08:12:28 PM
I am Tphyahoo on bitcoin wiki and I am currently working on improving

I would appreciate edit bit.
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! on: September 25, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
Would it be possible to add shapeshift market to coinmarketcap?

I would be interested to see where shapeshift instant exchanger stacks up here:

Shapeshift api docs:
6  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: November 28, 2014, 03:29:05 AM
It would be good to have a list of the other whitelabel exchanges cfig is in competition with. Here's one

Apparently they'd already signed up ten exchanges at time of writing (four months ago), none of which I've heard of.

The article claims ""We are the only company in the world offering an exchange package that includes banking facilities and a legal structure.""

Which would seem to be untrue in light of cfig offering.

Anyway... other similar projects?

7  Other / Off-topic / Re: NORML Needs You! on: June 03, 2014, 09:59:15 PM
Yeah, I agree, so I posted

A lot of charities use for easy donations, including NORML. So if clicknpledge accepts bitcoin, it will open the door for a bunch of other charities as well.

Mainly I just care about norml Wink

So can someone with visibility that knows how to do these canpaigns tackle clicknpledge now?
Bitpay, I'm a lookin at you...

So all of yalls upvote that and talk to bitpay and coinbase and get them to sell clicknplay and play on bitcoin.

and then it'll happen.
8  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: June 03, 2014, 07:21:00 PM
MrWDunne: That's an interesting perspective.

I notice you have counterwallet in your sig.

Is your cfig platform exchange going to include an xcp tie in? I rather hope so! Smiley
9  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: June 03, 2014, 06:08:08 PM
Does anybody have any idea if CFIG, or havelock escrow, holds any of the IPO funds in bitcoin?

Given the recent price rise, and overall bullish upturn in the market, this is probably quite material in terms of both salvage value (in case of bad outcome) and runway/lift speed, in good scenario.

I suppose we will know for certain when CFIG publishes its next quarterly statement.

The next milestone will be when the first exchange goes live, and!exchanges/c1df1

starts filling out.

Overall, I view CFIG as a bitcoin hedge, and also sort of a bet on the crypto ecosystem in general as opposed to bitcoin specific.

So, in a success scenario with both bitcoin taking over the world and CFIG succeeding as an enterprise, I would expect CFIG to do quite well for outperforming the dollar but not beating bitcoin in terms of absolute returns.  On the other hand, if something changes in the bitcoin story and another altcoin or altcoins mounts a credible market share grab, investing in something like CFIG will make a lot of sense.

I expect institutional investors interested in grabbing some crypto market share without exposing themselves to the full volatility of bitcoin might see it that way as well, so we could see the company traded on a mainstream stock exchange alongside bitcoin etf etc, as sort of core crypto portfolio company.

The main downside risk is technical and regulatory of course.

That 8 second load time is kind of a canary in the coal mine for me. And as others have brought up, it's not clear if the "offload your aml/kyc" strategy and foster a lot of mid size exchanges can get traction, let alone be legal in enough places.

Is bitstamp + btc-e + coinbase + circle going to have 95% of market share in five years? If the answer is yes, then CFIG is pretty much uninteresting.

But if we see a broad ecosystem of mid size exchanges with low founding costs, collaborating in a federated system, then there's a pretty good chance that CFIG was the pioneer of that particular model and has first mover advantage in a significant global market trend.

So, it's a hedge that could become a ten or hundred bagger I suppose.
10  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: May 31, 2014, 06:28:49 PM
It's not just investors, it's customers.

It's the main site.
11  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: May 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
Load time for

is > 8 seconds, and there is no caching, so it's just as slow on the second load.

This is basic stuff. I hope it isn't a sign of letting the small things slide because the big things are totally out of control... but some investors are going to see it that way.
12  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: May 16, 2014, 05:38:25 PM
It could be. It could also be early investors, defending a core position.

Insider buying is usually bullish.

I think 65% chance there's good news soon, 20% no news, 15% chance there's very bad news (like havelock goxxes its users).
13  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Financial (CFIG) Official Thread on: April 04, 2014, 08:12:12 PM
There is a lot of anxiety because of what happened with neo and bee.

This is relevant to the cfig thread because my understanding is that cfig owns, or at least has an owning interest in, havelock. If CFIG is banking their future that they are the "good guys" for the next wave of exchange (proof of reserves, no frac, etc) the reputational question is that much amplified.

I think if havelock/cfig could issue a statement concerning how neo and bee is being handled it could potentially calm a lot of nerves.

Havelock has a fiduciary duty to perform due diligence on its investable companies, and so far I would say they have done a decent job at least compared to the competition (though that's not a very high bar). But I think it's fair to say that Havelock dropped the ball in the case of Neo and Bee. At least a lot of investors are going to see it that way.

A shareholder class action law suit from Neo investors seems almost a given to me at this point. Even if it's not justified, it will happen. The question is, will it happen and quickly get quashed at an early stage, or is this going to fester for years?

I don't expect CFIG to speak at length to the question of a potential neo lawsuit. Too messy and too many variables.

Some terse words might however might help clear the air.

Points to touch on.

-- What is the relationship between cfig and havelock, and what are the respective ownership stories?
-- Does CFIG and/or havelock have an ownership position in Neo Bee, and how much is this?
-- If Neo and Bee goes bankrupt, is this going to be reflected as a material capital loss for either entity in the next reporting period?
-- Does Havelock hold any bitcoin from the Neo investors, or was all the bitcoin released to Neo already?
-- Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for salvaging Neo as an ongoing concern, possibly with Havelock / Panama fund owning a significant chunk?
-- Is the Neo debacle going to prompt any changes to how Havelock handles due diligence for investors?

I was also skeptical of Neo from the start, including on my blog, where I dialoged inconclusively with Danny Brewster about a business plan that seemed to require the price of bitcoin to continue its rise forever, despite a lot of hand waving about how a price decline could be hedged:

I'm long CFIG and I'm not selling -- though I think this message might wake some bears.

I think CFIG could be the "anti MtGox" in 2015. We need a federated model for bitcoin -- many exchanges, cooperating, not one exchange with a target on its head. We need audited proof of reserves, not just for crypto but for fiat. CFIG could be all this and more, and I blogged about this as well:

Bears will be bears, we could see a price drop for a while. I invested what I could lose, and if Havelock and CFIG goes poof, I will lick my wounds and go on with my life.

But if CFIG / Havelock / Panama Fund need to communicate honestly about what happened with Neo and Bee, the core investors will feel a lot more patient about giving CFIG the time they need to get the exchange model done right.

So, I hope CFIG can spend a little time now to save a lot of time in the future, and keep its treasury stock valued at a comfortable level while the exchange is in limbo.

Be honest, and say something about how Neo and Bee affect the picture at CFIG.

Then get back to building the exchange platform the bitcoin world needs, and take the time to do it right.


14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [SKY] Skycoin Launch Announcement on: January 16, 2014, 04:33:41 PM
In the OP

"We will not do a Nxt or Mastercoin style IPO because we believe they are unfair and discourages new users."

I think you might want to reconsider. Nxt/Mastercoin exodus IPOs went very well, and by and large the coins have done okay. As long as the IPO date has a long enough lead time (3 months seems more than reasonable) and is well publicized, it's not unfair. As has to happen with cryptocoins, old money gets shaken out on price lulls and when things aren't going well, and then new money gets its shot.

The point is to raise enough funds so that developers can focus their energies full time on making the coin a success.

One concern with an exodus style IPO is anonymity of whoever owns the exodus address. With mastercoin, the founder was a well known public person. I'm not sure the case with nxtcoin, but I think there was some preexisting reputation. Skycoin seems to be more of a blank slate, albeit with some github repos.

The desire seems to be to challenge bitcoin on its own turf by moving fast; and a generous policy for developer bounties plays a key role here.

I think either the skycoin founders should reveal their identities, or we need trustees.

This is bitcoin however, so we can be creative with trusts.

A multisig exodus with some m of the key holders keeping the main founders honest might be a way to protect against scams in this case, while still protecting founder anonymity. This could be enhanced with voting and multiple stages.

Assume an m of n board of trustees, with the trustees public trusted figures in bitcoin. The trustees only ratify votes, and have no policy role other than controlling disbursement according to a transparent policy that is fixed before the exodus. Voting would be done by proof of ownership of exodus keys, with weighting by percent of ownership. There could also be more than one exodus round.

A simple rule for voting would be that there will be no-confidence votes at regular intervals for 24 months. Any no confidence vote would return all undispursed funds to investors. Otherwise, there is partial disbursement to an address that is controlled fully by founder team (with no m of n trust).

Time 0: Rules for the exodus, voting.
wait a while for word of the exodus to spread.
Time 1: First exodus, 50% of coin sold. 5% disbursed to founders for bounty fund
Time 2: First no confidence vote. (Recurs regularly on some schedule)
Time 3: Second exodus, 25% of coins sold.
regular 5% disbursals to founders)
Time n: All coins sold, all funds disbursed to founders for bounty fund.

If at any time investors are dis-satisfied with progress, or disagree with how bounties are being distributed, a no confidence vote happens and btc goes back to investors.

Seems fair enough to me, and founders can stay anonymous.

15  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-09-19 PR Web - Coinsigner Launches Distributed Exchange Platform on: December 27, 2013, 03:37:22 PM
As for finding the application, it is a provisional patent and from my knowledge they are not searchable because they are not public yet. Now I value your input and I am building this application to help the very people and community that are against this action . It wouldn't make sense to go against the general consensus of the very community I am trying to contribute to. Also it is a provisional patent application, so it has an expiration date of 1 year. So being that your opinion is valuable and the community has spoken, it only makes sense to let the application expire. If any possibility of the future threats from financial services  I described become real, then I think the prior art argument applies because this issue is very public at this point. Please provide comments and feedback, thank you all.

Yet you still prominently feature this patent application at

and claim

"In regards to intellectual property being claimed, the idea behind coinsigner is a unique external system that improves and enables things that were not previously possible in bitcoin and other alt coins. It is important to note that the idea is new, unique and un-obvious combination of processes of doing things that is protected as a defensive measure. Not anything invented by the core developers. "

uncharitable explanation: The patent is for investors to see, the retraction is for the community to see. (but you can't have it both ways)

charitable explanation: you forgot to change the website, it's on the todo list just slipped through the cracks.

hmmm... conspiracy theory variant: since the website and the forum are anonymous it's not clear that you are even the decisionmaker here. maybe you are a developer with rosy glasses but the owner who actually filed the patent and controls the website does not intend to let this drop.

solution: edit the website to read patent application plus number on red strike out font, and CANCELED next to the patent claim, and screenshot here for caching. or just add a footnote that you were pursuing a patent but dropped it because of concern from the community.

16  Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It on: October 25, 2013, 12:01:43 AM
The rumor has friedcat predicting an exahash (1000 petahash) of total network power by the end of 2014. That's a hoover's dam worth of power, on gen 3.

I find that a little hard to swallow.

My understanding is that mining becomes uneconomical on electricity costs alone at the current price, somewhere in the 60-80 petahash range. So I don't think it's realistic to forecast a petahash, unless prices rise over a thousand.

Would friedcat really go out on a limb like this? I bought some more on the rumor, but I'm still skeptical.

It is estimated that the network hashing power would be 1000p then, while Friedcat would deliver several hundred of it.

Has anything about this interview been confirmed or is it all BS? Sounds too good to be true.

not yet
17  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Is Mastercoin bloating the blockchain and what we can do about it? on: September 01, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
There are plenty of ways to accomplish that, the easiest of which that works today would be to stuff data into unused public keys of an OP_CHECKMULTISIG transaction.

In case it helps other readers of the thread... If I am understanding correctly:
  1)  the idea here is that you can use something that looks like a public key, but which you don't actually have a private key that hashes right for it, since you don't need that particular private key to spend as long as you have private keys for other addresses.
  2) any 64 bytes of entropy can be used as a public key, as long as you don't need the private key

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm still fuzzy on how this could actually be implemented.

How many public keys are currently usable for m of n signatures? Are OP_CHECKMULTISIG transactions "official" and generally relayed by miners, or are these still in a grey area? I did google a bit, but I couldn't figure out where to look to determine what transactions can generally expect to be supported. Obviously it's important to have a good grasp on this for people steering mastercoin.
18  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Crypto Currency (CFIG) Official Thread on: August 25, 2013, 10:55:12 PM
I have thought a lot about CFIG in the context of what comes next for bitcoin, and posted a lengthy analysis at our company blog:

The bad news, from an investment perspective, is that I think for outsize return CFIG has to succeed really big. Bigger than MtGox probably.

The good news is that based on product/market fit, I think this could actually happen. And, my understanding is the 20% of the owners that bought the public IPO will have first dibs on exchange fees, before the 80% private start earning dividends.

CFIG is exactly what the bitcoin economy needs, today.

I expect great things from CFIG.

Reposting from blog below:

"Could Panamanian CFIG grow bigger than Mtgox? Thatís the asicminer sized question. (Thoughts on CFIG IPO)


Long CFIG (CryptoFinancial) is Short MtGox and Btc-E. And to some extent long Alt-Crypto, short Bitcoin.


CryptoFinancial IPO concluded today, with about 80% sold.

This is a meh result in Bitcoin world, where IPO investors have been somewhat spoiled, with common expectations to double or triple their money in weeks. I think prospects are still good however, and the company is a buy, even more so if the price falls post IPO. Full disclosure: StandardCrypto is long the IPO, and plans to buy more if the price goes down after trading begins.

At any rate, CFIG is now one of the largest publicly traded bitcoin companies by market cap: currently 150k BTC, with 30k from the IPO and 120k privately held. Judging by the bitcointalk forum thread at

and the lukewarm uptake of IPO stock, there's mostly pessimism about CFIG's business model and prospects for success. And no surprise: this is a hard to value company, and the current valuation is extremely high.

I'll give my own somewhat optimistic take, and I'll try to keep it short.

CFIG is a Panamanian financial services startup that aims to offer full and convenient bitcoin/fiat conversion to individuals, and KYC/AML (Know Your Customer / Anti Money Laundering) regulatory compliance services to exchanges.

Though it is not a bank, CFIG will work closely with the banking industry to make it easy to spend bitcoin in a fiat dominated world. In particular, CFIG plans to offer a debit card where customers can spend from their bitcoin with conversion automatic, like Americans tourists spending Euros with their USD-funded ATM cards when vacationing in Europe. This idea isn't exactly original -- bitinstant was supposed to have implemented in 2012. But, bitinstant is busy editing their home page, the Winklevoss twins are working on an ETF, and so no one has acutally done the debit card thing yet. So, CFIG could be first.

The pitch to individuals could be something like: "The safety of Bitcoin, the convenience of Fiat." With the American banking system in increasing disarray, the migration "offshore" of tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans is not outside the realm of possibility. Adding bitcoin to the mix sweetens the deal. Now, I wouldn't expect CFIG to be the only player in the "offshore bitcoin/usd for middle class people" market, but they could have first mover advantage.

What I like about the CFIG business plan is that the customer piece and the exchange piece are linked in a way that makes a lot of sense for grabbing a big piece of market share from existing bitcoin exchanges and payment processors in the coming months and years.

CFIG is not a bank, and will not pay interest on deposits, or as some call it "Fractional Reserve Bitcoin." But CFIG *will* provide regulatory compliance services that banks are good at, and exchanges have proved terrible at, particularly in the USA and painfully at mega-exchange MtGox. The idea is that CFIG will do compliance up to par with USA Fincen and OFAC requirements, and provide a consistent interface to the fiat world for bitcoin exchange startups hungry for market share and not thrilled about having to do compliance themselves -- which is estimated to cost in the single digit millions *per exchange.* CFIG won't be the only financial entity trying to smoothe the path for US bitcoin startups. Internet Archive Credit Union and Silicon Valley Bank come to mind as current players. But CFIG is an early entrant, and in some sense being US friendly but not physically in the US gives it a leg up. Pure focus on the regulatory and bitcoin/fiat interface pieces, while not getting distracted by everything else a bank provides, can be seen as a competitive advantage as well.

In some sense, the CFIG business plan is the opposite of Buttercoin, which plans to provide a trading engine and revenue share with existing money services businesses that already have compliance under control. But compliance is really the hard part, which is why CFIG's plan makes more sense to me.

The optimistic scenario as I foresee it goes something like this. CFIG acquires a large number of individual "private bank-ish" customers through its debit care and painless bitcoin/fiat services. These customers are great for PR and brand building but don't bring in that much revenue, because how much can you really charge for wire transfers and these aren't interest deposits. Where CFIG wins is on exchang fees shared with its partner exchanges.

The problems are: how can CFIG justify its current valuation, let alone grow to justify the risk of invesing in a startup. And how does owning CFIG compare with just owning bitcoin?

For CFIG to fulfill its business plan projection it needs a lot of exchange volume. To put it plainly, it needs to be handling MtGox level volumes of trades through its partners. And to grow, in bitcoin valued terms, it probably needs to wind up a few times bigger than MtGox in the hand-wavy future. To skip to the good stuff, have a look at page 33 of (other docs at and for existing exchange volume. Gox currently handles 600k bitcoin monthly, bitstamp 300k, and there on page 33 CFIG projects 17280 BTC annual transaction fee revenue on monthly transactions of 400k bitcoin.

Exchange fees won't be the only source of revenue for CFIG, but I think it's fair to focus on them as the main measure of success as CFIG launches over the next few months and fights to wrangle a dividend. If CFIG can grow its volume to gox/bitinstant levels, projected annual revenue from transactions is 17280 BTC, with a 0.3% transaction fee. So (as a side note) with their partner exchanges tacking on a bit, expect to see 0.4-0.5% exchange fees from CFIG, but with a lot more convenience than current exchanges can offer.

Bottom line for an investor: can CFIG grow to MtGox level size and beyond? I think maybe it can. MtGox has a lot of people nervous right now, and btc-e isn't exactly a model of customer service. Bitstamp seems to be executing well, but even on this well run exchange there's no bitstamp debit card you can spend off of. There's room for another big player, and the convenience factor of the debit card and related tightly coupled services could launch CFIG into the big leagues.

But even at Gox level transaction volumes, and revenues matching the projections in the business plan, we're only at 9x earnings for the current valuation. Well, this is why I said for the IPO to make sense the end game has to have CFIG volume significantly larger than Gox. How much larger? I don't know, but I have ten fingers, so I am going to say 10x -- which allows for current investors to be rewarded at 10x if they're in it for the long haul. Or to put it another way, consider every multiple of current gox size to be investor reward for courage -- or punishment for hubris if it doesn't materialize.

10x gox volume wasn't in the business plan, and I'm going to treat this like a good thing. CFIG principals seem to be sober minded people. But that's what investors should be looking for as a metric for whether they should invest, and the yardstick of performance that CFIG needs to be held to if they are to deliver value.

What about holding CFIG versus just holding bitcoin? Now that's a really hard question.

If you think bitcoin is going to go 100x in a handful of years, as a reserve / tax evasion wealth sink, somewhat like digital gold but with actual transactions at the low end of the probability spectrum, you are probably better off just hoarding bitcoin. CFIG will do well compared to USD, but won't be able to keep up with growth in BTC if "real world" transaction volume (like buying milk with fiat on a bitcoin backed debit card) lacks traction.

However, if you think crypto currencies "milk buying" transaction volumes will go up a lot, CFIG could take a real cut out of the fiat/crypto transaction flow, and the sky is really the limit, never mind what the business plan says. Well, the sky isn't really the limit (I call sky the limit 100x), but CFIG could go up 10x and wind up as an asicminer sized bitcoin blue chip stock paying massive dividends to the early crowd. I'd be happy with 2x bitcoin, too. (I just don't want 0x!)

Two more points, and sorry I didn't keep this short like I thought I would.

1) I am pretty convinced that crypto currencies are going to dominate our future, but I am not totally sold that bitcoin is going to win this race. CFIG is well positioned to soak up crypto/fiat flows going into the future even if bitcoin turns out to be an also ran. I like these types of hedges.

2) Although they're an elusive and pseudonymous bunch, I like the CFIG team from what they say publicly. I think we'll see more transparency as the story develops. And, I have lived in panama, and I think it's a great place to do this project.

To my readers, thanks for your time, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Good luck investing.

Fingers crossed."
19  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Alt-Coins on: August 24, 2013, 12:50:49 AM
I have a blog that talks about altcoins. Here's one from about a month ago on primecoin:

Come on by!
20  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: will the bitcoin reach $1000 one day...? on: August 23, 2013, 11:46:10 PM
Some crypto currency will.
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!