Heh, I had seen that thread but somehow hadn't seen that post.

That makes a good point about how Pirate had a fantastic trust history in the WoT.  So if you look at the types of ratings given they include a bunch of PayPal transactions.  So if you were to do a PayPal transaction with him you probably would have been fine.  Now loaning money to him, or depositing it for impossible gains?   Well, the WoT trust history doesn't replace using your head.

Check this thread:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115543.0

I wonder if the mining bonds and some mining-related assets would be not classified as securities.

 - http://cuttingedgecapital.com/diamonds-gold-and-capital-raising-how-to-fall-outside-the-securities-laws-in-california/


Isn't that what those "bonds" are?    Aren't those "shares" really just contracts to run electrons through computing hardware? 

The SEC hasn't finished their rulungs but the Crowdfunding ammendment restricts the selling of shares to any other unaccredited investor for one year after purchase.  The ammendment doesn't prohibit shares of equity in a crowdfunded venture from being sold back to the issuer or to an accredited investor.  What wasn't clear is if those shares can be re-sold again to unaccredited investors or not

I believe the general understanding is that there will be secondary markets, just that because of the 1-year lockup, they won't exist until 2014.  If I had to guess, I'ld think that the crowdfunding platforms will have one or more markets that they will allow their platform's collection of crowfunded ventures to be traded.  The crowdfunding platform itself wouldn't have any involvement in operating the market then.

The vote doesn't support multiple selections.  Some people run several apps,

I suspect the companies would need to be real corporations or LLCs in real jurisdictions (i.e., not Wirtland) -- just none that happen to have  securities laws that prohibit sales to the [online] public.  There probably is one or two of these countries that exist.

The thing is though that this is a righteous fight.  The laws to protect little old ladies from using their pensions to invest in "ocean front" swampland in Florida are no longer necessary.

Had it been possible that you or I, as a venture operating out of the U.S., could have IPO'd on GLBSE without that action likely being illegal to do then think of how many legitimate investment opportunities would have appeared.  Sure there would still be some risk chasers still putting coins in scams, but within two minutes of time on the forum, or IRC, a person can know roughly what type of warning flags exist.

The Crowdfunding ammendment in the U.S. still won't allow trading of shares purchased for one year after buying them.  The genie is aleady out of the bottle though.  Kickstarter is not an equity platform but gave people a taste of what they want -- the ability to buy and trade equity in startups.   So if they can't get that from the U.S., they'll buy bitcoins and send them to wherever this service (equity crowdfunding) is offered.

[Edit: And, of course, it would be beneficial if that capital were to remain within the country.  Thus there will be a push to relax the regulation (to allow secondary markets, to allow foreign ownership of U.S. crowdfunded equity, etc.) or to apply tiers where micro-companies, under some threshold of equity valuation, can be formed with more leeway than firms above that threshold.]

If you are happy with commercial offerings and don't need to do any over-the-counter (OTC) trading, then a good OTC trust history doesn't help or hurt you.

Now let's say you happened to notice that a person nearby to you is selling coins at the spot rates.  But that person has no trust history.  Is that person scheming to get you to send first and then run off with the cash?   If the person has a good trust history, you can know that's probably not going to happen.

This especially comes into play when shipping something.  Sure the tracking code can show that a package was delivered, but when the recipient claims it was an empty box, the sender can't prove it wasn't sent that way and the recipient can't prove it was truly received that way.  Because of this risk, the shipper might not even want to risk getting an unwarranted negative from a shady buyer and instead the shipper might simply reject any buyer that doesn't have a good trust history.  So essentially, building a WoT history now gives more opportunity down the road.

It all matters if you think you'll be trading with parties you haven't already transacted with and who you might not have any other reason to trust.

Late September was a bad time for them with extended DDoS attacks.   You might try placing another request, or PM here.

They re-use addresses so they might have some expiration that doesn't credit the payment to any of their merchant partners.  So they may have the funds yet.

That, ... well that's called minor outlier.  Because at 5X the normal rate, that means in under three days difficulty will readjust.  So sure there might be a burst of a lot of new coins minted, it lasting just a few days isn't enough to impact the exchange rate.


And this is known in advance ... when (late November, 2012) and degree (50 BTC to 25 BTC).  It possibly is already priced in.

Ya, sorry ... when manually building a transaction through BrainWallet's Transactions page, it doesn't stop you or notify you that you are not spending the full amount from the inputs.  Which, causes the unspent amount to go to the miner.



No, clients that construct the transaction will handle the change properly, either to a new address in the wallet or with some other method.

But with the Bitcoin.org client supporting raw transactions now, anyone constructing their own transaction and sending it through that API has this same potential issue.   Raw transactions is a powerful tool, but a dangerous one too if you aren't careful.

The funds in your AUD wallet can only buy from the BTC/AUD market.    Because traders buying and selling over and over (versus just depositing fiat, buying and then withdrawing BTCs) prefer the market that has the most liquidity, they mostly only trade on the Mt. Gox BTC/USD market so that is why there is such a big difference in the size of the order book depth.

Now whether you are better off buying with USD on the BTC/USD market or buying with AUD on the BTC/AUD market depends on the open bids at the time, how many you are looking to buy, and the depth (to know how much "slippage" will cost),  If you are talking about buying a large enough amount that you worry about there not being enough for sale at a decent price, know that there are people waiting for that to happen and will arbitrage between the BTC/AUD in on market versus the BTC/AUD on another exchange.  So just because you don't see sell orders doesn't mean they won't arrive once you start buying.

MultiBit has a bounty for translating to Arabic:

 - http://multibit.org/bounties.html

The bounty total received will be paid proportional to the amount of translations completed.

The bounty just got set up today but probably will grow a little over the next days.  The bounty cumulative total can be seen here:
 - http://blockchain.info/address/1BLDGGqK95LfTwkY8Zx7ZNAVs2Wap6f2CP

From the FastCash4Bitcoins,com thread:


Does that mean the Bitcoins Direct side no longer accepts OKPay as a funding method too?

Where do I set that?

That's 3 months, not 3 weeks.

Perhaps try to PM?
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=40345



Thanks for the kind words.

Ok, The EFF has been in DC and San Fran for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

Apparently they are being over-cautious.

Here's what the AML Compliance Guide from Moneygram says:


So if your transfer was under $900, they weren't required by Moneygram to check your ID.

You might print out pages 1 and 7 of the guide to show, maybe that will help the WalMart person "remember" instances where they don't need to collect ID.

 - http://www.moneygram.com/WCM/groups/mgicorp_content/documents/content/mgicorp_moneylegal_region1_209.pdf



No, it is an easier explanation.  See this?



That's the hotel where they hold the Spring AML conference:

 - http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/19526528411

That's the place where bankers send their compliance people.  These are the people that should be worrying about how their bank is being used by a PFG Best to abscond with hundreds of millioins of dollars or to ensure that when MF Global claims the money just "vaporized" that in reality, there is a trail for every million dollar transaction that occurred.

Instead, these compliance people come up with ways to figure out how existing AML regulations can be used to scare businesses like WalMart into paying big bucks for AML compliance software and compliance program to protect them.

But if the software simply shows an alert only on the odd occasion that someone is transferring $3K or more, then what good is the software?  Instead this software rises in visibility and importance by requesting identification for every transaction -- even an $87 Moneygram from someone who obviously ins't funding bin Laden or whomever is #1 on the list now,

So because some bank wants to sell some software and earn bonuses for the compliance product sales team and get them another vacation conference in Miami next year, people like you and me get inconvenienced when using a money transfer service.  WalMart plays along because this isn't their fight. They simply pass on to you the cost of the extra time for checking ID even though it wasn't required.

Converting between bitcoins and fiat incurs expenses.  If I have to cash out bitcoins to fiat, I pay a fee for that.  Or if the merchant receiving bitcoins cashes them out to fiat, then the merchant incurs the fee.  Sure, it might be less than 1% but it still is an avoidable conversion if I can pay with bitcoins and then the merchant can use the bitcoins for paying for some of its purchases.   So the more choices of places that bitcoins can be spent, the less the likelihood that the coins will need to be cashed out.

The debug.log will show the specific error, but if your blockchain was caught up and all you are doing is replacing the wallet.dat with an older one from a backup and the client won't restart after that then the problem is likely difficulty in accessing that wallet.

The newer clients perform more strict checking and a wallet.dat that was useable in a previous release can become unreadable with the most current release. [Clarificatoin: If it already had problems just that the old version was oblivious to them.]

Make sure that you keep another copy of the old wallet.dat intact and are only working with a copy of it.

What some people have tried is going back to an old version of the software (e.g., v0.5.x, or earlier even) and try accessing the wallet.dat with that.

You can also try using PyWallet or Gavin's BitcoinTools to access and export the keys:

 For linux,  ./dbdump.py --wallet

 - https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools

John Matonis just wrote an article and addressed FATCA in it:

 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/10/04/bitcoin-prevents-monetary-tyranny

Forbes- "Bitcoin Prevents Monetary Tyranny"
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115445.0