I didn't see it mentioned, but I don't think using Instawallet is the best idea for this.
Any Bitcoins at unclaimed URLs will be lost. Not necessarily. Keep a list of all addresses that are funded. Give the card an expiration. If the Instawallet funds aren't spent by a certain date and time, they get recirculated to a new Instawallet address. |
|
|
|
Perhaps the card could also have printed a suggestion that the funds can be donated to the #OccupyWallStreet NYC General Assembly. - http://nycga.cc/donateSince the 0.01 BTC is worth only about a U.S. nickel / $0.05, these might otherwise be just discarded by many of the participants. This might be sufficient motivation to the participants and they will in the process learn how bitcoins are used. The alternate donation method to NYC General Assembly uses WePay which requires the contributor to give up identity, so perhaps include something suggesting that friends and family can donate (relatively) anonymously to #OccupyWallStreet using bitcoin. Additionally, I read this: "I was trying to buy some of the art here, but they say they don’t know how to facilitate the selling of it." - http://www.observer.com/2011/09/50-portraits-from-occupy-wall-street-slideshow/#slide44 So here's one method: Print both the wallet's Bitcoin address for receiving Bitcoin transactions as well as the Instawallet URL for spending the funds, but make it so the card can be folded and the receiving address visible but the InstaWallet's spending URL hidden from view. Included as well could be the suggestion to use http://bitcoinnotify.com to register that Bitcoin address. That service will cause an email alert to be sent when funds are received (on 0/unconfirmed) to the Bitcoin addresses registered. (for those who have email capability from their mobile but not web access to verify payment) |
|
|
|
delayed electrical bills to help stall miners from pulling the plug. That's like gambling with borrowed money. |
|
|
|
I'm reading about the problems if the limit is higher but this same reasons seem to work fine for a greedy community if they decide to lower the limit to 18000000 or what ever number. When I participate, I know the rules -- 50 BTC / block every 10 minutes, 21 million total, etc. Now if there were a fork with a change like that which only favors those who already hold the coins then that would, to me, be an unacceptable breach and I would either only trade with the client that doesn't include that change or would abandon bitcoin at that point. I would probably not be alone with that decision, and thus the value of bitcoin would be harmed. I couldnt see that happening. lets suppose automatic upgrade feature is installed and widely adopted, and so this could work for some days Having an auto-upgrade for the Bitcoin client would not be a good idea. |
|
|
|
When I accept a physical bitcoin, I need to make sure no one else has it. I a willing to trust as secure the manufacturer's processes and the distribution of the coins that were shipped to me. If I were to resell a batch of these the buyer would be trusting me as well as the manufacturer, etc. Perhaps simply a register or log of assignments is necessary. For instance, Casascius creates a signed message for each physical coin (its address) asserting that it was sold to me (to my gpg public key). When I sell one, I sign a message including the previous assignment and assert that I sold it and to whom (to the next party's public key). And so on, for each sale. So then when considering buying these physical bitcoins from a third party seller, the buyer can weigh whether or not all previous owners are trustworthy enough to feel comfortable that the bitcoin is truly authentic. Think WingCash ( http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=4232.0 ) meets Bitcoin. This ruins anonymity, though I suppose a party in the chain could remain pseudonymous -- just that I don't know how trusted the pseudonymous participants would be. [Update: Or, can the model that namecoin offers, w/dot-bit offer something here?] |
|
|
|
There is not a donation address for the whole development team; if there was, somebody would have to be in charge of keeping track of the bitcoins, deciding what they should be spent on, etc. Incidentally, there is a service called PieTrust being built specifically for that scenario -- a system to let a community produce a reputation score for recognizing contributions to a team effort, everyone from programmers, graphics, documentation ... and for those providing support to the community even. Using that score allocating of donated funds is one potential use of the service. That service's founder is a participant in the Bitcoin community and Bitcoin is expected to be used as a compensation method though compensation portions are essentially only an add-on/module fo PieTrust. - http://www.pietrust.com |
|
|
|
It can be dangerous because someone could get thousands of wallet.dat files and force from someone who has a lot. I don't follow. Are you trying to say something like if for some reason someone learns how many bitcoins you have you would have a higher risk the more bitcoins you hold? (Which is probably true, by the way. As you hold more bitcoins, the level of importance placed on security of the wallet should increase). |
|
|
|
If you have bitcoins you would almost certainly stick with the original one. Yup -- that is the winning answer. Changes that work in the favor of those who hold the already-issued bitcoins are possible if enough of those users accept the changes. Changes that would harm the value of those existing bitcoin users would likely not get adopted and would stay as an unused fork. There are at least two examples of changes occurring and being adopted. The overflow incident from August 2010 required a new client and because those holding bitcoins would be harmed BY NOT changing over to the new client they did so promptly. http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6290.0Another example is with Namecoin merged mining. That is a change that requires buy-in from existing namecoin users (i.e., to use the new client that changes the rules). If merged mining was rejected by those holding namecoins, the change would simply be a fork with few or no users as the namecoins issued or used in trade on the fork would not be accepted by those earlier users. Your specific question of issuing a greater amount of currency is a change that be harmful to those holding bitcoins (it would devalue their holdings) and therefore it is unlikely that change would be accepted. |
|
|
|
|
Hm ...
$ whois davincicash.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Will there be information as to who the owner of the service is, and where (i.e., what jurisdiction) this is operated?
|
|
|
|
Next door to a coffee shop that I frequent is a pawn shop so I stopped by today. I mentioned that the sign out front says "we buy anything of value" and put my Casascius bitcoin on the counter and asked what he would offer for it. He pulled out his magnifying thingy he uses to inspect it so I warned him that the metal was brass so that wasn't what to look for to determine its value. I took a minute or two to briefly explain bitcoin and he told me to hold on and took the coin into his back room. About four minutes later he came back out and was actually interested in buying it off of me (though used the typical coin dealer approach ... hmm, it is of a poor grade -- scratched and worn down -- heh). Apparently, these are also being sold on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170698650858#ht_500wt_128 so that gave the broker a point of reference for making an offer. I was surprised as I was expecting a less encouraging response. Though I just got mine and have only shown a few people I see it as an excellent conversation piece. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
