I can verify that the BitAddress.org website has been updated and returns the same HTML from the commit with the description v2.1 (d34b4f7f9a219293238f93507617586f5ba4db17) in github:
 - https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org


To confirm this I first check the sha1sum hash of the html returned by a request to http://bitaddress.org:

$ wget --quiet -O - http://bitaddress.org|sha1sum
af431934553aeef3e042e796a31ee101cdabc496  -

$ GET -eSd bitaddress.org|grep -i "200 OK"
GET https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v2.1-SHA1-af431934553aeef3e042e796a31ee101cdabc496.html --> 200 OK


Then from my bitaddress.org repo:

$ git checkout master
$ git pull
$ git log --pretty=oneline|grep "v2.1"
d34b4f7f9a219293238f93507617586f5ba4db17 v2.1 Vanity Wallet add/multiply public/private keys. Code refactors.

$ git checkout d34b4f7f9a219293238f93507617586f5ba4db17
$ git rev-list --max-count=1 HEAD
d34b4f7f9a219293238f93507617586f5ba4db17

$ sha1sum bitaddress.org.html
af431934553aeef3e042e796a31ee101cdabc496  bitaddress.org.html

With the Bitcoin.org client if your wallet contains a lot of microtransactions, such as those coming from the free bitcoin sites, or the losing transaction payouts from SatoshiDICE, or from a mining pool with the payout threshold too low, then you've hit a scenario that the client doesn't deal with very well.

One workaround is to break up your spend into several transactions using smaller amounts.  Choose a smaller amount and send that amount to an address not in your own wallet (e.g., to an Instawallet or some other EWallet).  Then do another one and continue until all the funds from these small transactions are spent.  

Another workaround is to import the private keys into another client that doesn't have this same problem.

It is possible this issue will no longer occur with the next release of the client (v0. since much of the database code has been reworked but there's no ETA yet on that.

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Why_a_GPU_mines_faster_than_a_CPU#Why_are_AMD_GPUs_faster_than_Nvidia_GPUs.3F

Now you might want to take a look at what CoinLab is creating.    They are building a client that you run and earn bitcoins.  It will performing computing tasks, not necessarily be used for bitcoin mining.  They are still working on the HPC client (which will do much better on NVidia than AMD).  Currently, they just operate a mining pool though.
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99643.0

I hate to be debbie downer here, but GPU mining is just about done for.  If you pay anywhere near ten cents per kWh or more, you are losing money with each hash.
 - http://blockchain.info/charts/miners-operating-profit-margin

i.e, There are no pros and cons, because there's just no sense to buying GPUs for mining at this late stage of the game.

There's a bitcoiner learning the ropes right now.  Here's a video of him creating an ingot from melted jewelry and other scrap:
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKak7tPxd2M#t=1109s
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133022.0

There's a little backstory there to be sure.

But that shows the amount of effort to convert silver items to silver usable for trading and why physical silver is sold above spot market rate.

Bitcoin is starting to pressure these digital currency exchanges.  

Where they used to get 6%, or 8% to convert funds, they instead are now facing competitors like AurumXChange, which takes a minimal fee (1% for LR --> Mt. Gox,  2.5% for Mt. Gox --> LR).    So some of them turn to running scams (or increase the level of scamming they perform).

If they only scam the larger transactions, they can keep their long confidence game going (by processing successfully the smaller transactions, which gives the customers confidence to continue using the service except with larger transactions.  That works until one day, bam! Scammed.)

Are you referring to how a merchant might receive a transaction that itself is based on a prior transaction that has not yet confirmed? 

If so, then yes that can be determined either from the blockchain or with the help of third party services such as Blockchain.info.

The Bitcoin.org client doesn't let a transaction use a coin that has not confirmed (unless it is change from a previous transaction) but other clients don't have that restriction.

I've been wondering how long before someone takes this approach.  More overview of Marshall Islands:
 - http://www.healyconsultants.com/company-incorporation/marshall-islands-company-formation.html

The FAQ gives additional useful info:
 - http://picostocks.com/pages/faq

Another thread on the topic:
 
technocashier.com scam or legit?
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102744.0

To Liberty Reserve your options are:
  AurumXChange, BTC-e, Bitcoin.de, Vircurex, and a number of e-currency exchanges like ECurrencyZone, Lillion Transfer, WM-Center, etc.

AurumXChange
 - https://www.aurumxchange.com/exchange  <--- Now takes Bitcoin directly

To Perfect Money your options are:
 AurumXChange, BTC-e, ECurrencyZone, and WM-Center.

For bank wire (presuming you are asking about domestic transfer) and debit card transfer will depend on where you are located.

A fairly comprehensive list of exchanges:

 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Selling_bitcoins

Bitcoin sites serve a small subset of the population and aren't necessarily big earners.

Good design is expensive with costs are incurred up-front.   A few Bitcoin-related services are generating profit right off the block (e.g., SatoshiDICE) so as to be self-supporting but most others would require the investment to be able to pay for UX and design help.  Bitcoin businesses don't have the same type of investor base as most other e-commerce and online businesses, so even if a programmer who launched a service wanted to get a better design and is willing to give up equity to do so, there might not be any investors willing to make that leap of faith as well.

When there's money to be made, better design will be a component that differentiates services.    In the meantime, a service that competes by being lean and functional trumps being beautiful.

Just for future reference, you can also trade to and from MoneyBookers using VirWoX:
 - http://www.VirWoX.com

But there were better offers here from others.

You turned down bcb's offer.  Then you post here that you still need to do a trade? Am I missing something?

There had been a few individuals or exchanges in the past that would take this.  The fees were in the 10% range.

A prepaid debit card usually will function at an ATM.  There are many methods for buying bitcoins for cash.  That might be your best option.

For instance, with Bitme you can deposit cash at any Chase bank location and the funds will be credited to your exchange account:
 - http://www.BitMe.com

There is also BitInstant.com where you deposit cash at 7-11, Walmart, CVS or any Moneygram location:
 - http://www.BitInstant.com

On slower equipment it could be three days even. 

Having an encrypted filesystem will really slow things down.  Having your computer go to sleep on inactivity will really slow things down. 

There are a couple tricks to speeding it up if starting from scratch (e.g., pull down bootstrap.dat from torrent) but you are probably well past getting any benefit from that.

Needed feature:

Since LocalBitcoins holds a wallet, then anyone with my username and password has access to my funds.    Until LocalBitcoins supports a two-factor authentication (2FA, e.g., Google Authenticator) I won't be using the site for any funds except for a trivial amount.

If you do add 2FA. also any withdrawal (send) would require an OTP to be entered.   Others might want to see 2FA required on login as well, but at a minimum if I have 2FA enabled for my account then each withdrawal (send) should require an OTP.

Did you recently upgrade memory?   Sometimes it is something like incompatible memory that can cause this.  Or other hardware issues.

Those types of issues are tough to resolve. 


The bitcoin.org client uses BDB and it is a database that has the ability to recover from crashes.  There are BDB databases other than blk*, there is also wallet.dat and peers.dat.   If you don't yet have any funds on your wallet, then you can wipe the entire bitcoin directory and have it try from a completely clean, known state.


Running the full blockchain client isn't for everyone, but if you want to keep at it you probably want to resolve the once-a-day system crash issue first.

The next version of the bitcoin.org client uses a different storage system (LevelDB).  I haven't learned up on it yet to know if it might function better in an environment where system crashes are frequent so I can't say if this situation you find yourself in would still occur or not.  What I do know is that with the next version if you did need to wipe the blockchain and pull a fresh one, doing so is something measured in minutes (e.g. 250 minutes maybe) versus days.

Add BitMarket.eu to the list.  From another thread:

  [Edit: Fixed the link to the quote.]

Sigh ... where to start?


Heh, and I though for the most part the wikipedia article on Bitcoin was getting to be halfway decent.  (Excluding the "it's a ponzi schem" brewhaha).


Bzzzzt.   No, but thank you for playing.

The whole premise is to be decentralized so that the currency cannot be corrupted by political or other ambitions.


Using the term from Jon Matonis, Bitcoin offers user-definable anonymity.   If you want it to be anonymous, you have options available to you that can help protect your privacy.  But every transaction is traceable in the public ledger.


Cash is used for a lot more illicit activity than bitcoin is.  Is that a flaw?  Lots of people might think so.   But an even greater number of people will not give up cash, for various reasons including the property of it being able to used privately.

SatoshiDICE is by far the single largest component of transactions, then speculation, then about an order of magnitude smaller you might find the number of transactions associated with illicit activity.

But I guess it is easier to explain it away with the most sensationalistic component even after showing numbers that don't justify it being all that significant.


As it was in 2010 and 2011 as well.

I was just able to login successfully.