They didn't really brought in something completely new, as far as I could see... It was expected for them to shutdown. The market is now filled with different kinds of wallets. In the end, only a few will survive (the biggest ones and the ones who bring changes and new functionality, and that are safe to use of course)

If this forum closed, we'd just migrate to another forum/platform for discussion... And the chance of bitcointalk closing is quite low

Also, you should have posted this in Meta

These exchanges from Brazil are getting more and more volume and they're starting to be noticed pretty much everywhere... I think their problems with the Brazilian Real is making them see cryptocurrencies in a different way, much like what happened (and is still happening) in Venezuela.

Good for us and good for them

Sorry I misunderstood the goal of your project. From what's written on the page I assumed it was an alternative client, a bit like Bitcoin-XT

Another nice date to remember... And to think about how would the world be without Bitcoin!


Ha, that's really nice Makes me remember that twitter account that posted a movie frame by frame

Thank you for the clarification.

From the OP, I can just guess that they cannot provide Armory on OSX with the same quality standards that they provide on Windows and Linux.

As for 0.93.2 + Core 0.11.1, I don't see why would there be any issue.

It's good to see developments in Bitcoin related clients... But why should I use this for my nodes instead of the regular client?

These kinds of crimes aren't normally money related, although some rapists do take what their victims have on their wallets/purses (small amounts). These crimes happen due to sexual dysfunctions. Also maybe because some criminal systems do not protect victims...

But I do understand your point Criminals probably feel safer doing crimes on the Internet, and using Bitcoin... And they're probably very adept in using both. But truth be told... Who is really anonymous on the Internet?


That "rotten fruit" is closer to Linux than Windows


Doesn't sound like a bad idea


Thanks for the link, I was definitely not aware of this... Pretty frightening

I understand that the connection could be pretty much untraceable, but something physical is not: after completing the "service" the drone would either have to be disposed of or return to it's point of origin... To be disposed of, the criminal would have to be sure that a ransom that covers the cost of the hardware would be paid, and he can't be sure of that... That sounds like too much risk and could safely (and fortunately) prevent quite a lot of crimes.

Thank you! A great update to one of my favorite clients And this:


Great! No need to remake my offline environment

How would transactions be verified? Some kind of hash from both pictures + a hash/ID of both phones? And what would connect both phones information on the blockchain? Doesn't seem very feasible, but I might be wrong

There's nothing stopping criminals from doing crimes, wither with fiat or Bitcoin. So you can't really stop bad things from happening because of money, unless people's mentality change, or we stop using money.

As for Ransomware, I do agree it's a serious problem, but these kinds of viruses date way back to early PC's, with the difference that they couldn't receive any money for the data back then... There will always be people doing it because "they can" or "want". It can also be stopped with good firewalls/antivirus solutions and with good attitudes from who's between the monitor and the chair

Didn't know about those drones with guns... Sounds pretty dangerous. If someone bothered another one using those drones with weapons, they could still be caught (unless the drone autodestructs itself and doesn't return to the owner - someone would have to get it back).

I think OP is quite right about the paradigm shift... But not right about people stopping showing their wealth. I think it's the other way around: everyone should respect each other's wealth. Me and probably the OP and many members of this forum don't look or act any differently in front of anyone with more or less wealth. Although I am not in favor of rich people showing off their goods, if they can afford it, there's no need to hide it. Example: if I was rich, I'd probably buy a gold watch and wear it everyday. Many people would notice and many people would call me a showoff or comment negatively about it... But I'm just wearing something I like and that I can afford, without shoving it in front of people's faces.

My post is now starting to be very long and I hope I managed to get my point across... Basically, summing it all up, as we stand right now there will always be people making crimes not because of social differences but because of mentality ("I have to have more than him, and I can't, so I'll have what's his"), and only a change in mentality would stop it.

Verified. Good to see you back, hope your project can pick up again.

I don't see how this could be positive in any way, especially in what concerns mainstream media and how they display Bitcoin. Virtual currencies are being shown to be powered by criminals, for criminals, just because someone buys drugs with those instead of fiat

Never seen this kind of propaganda about fiat currencies, especially on media that's controlled by governments.

That being said, looks like pretty much anything on the news about Bitcoin isn't that good...

Pretty interesting theory, but there's got to be more news than just a price bump and someone saying he knows someone well connected for me to believe in this. That being said I definitely don't think it's impossible that the government isn't somewhat involved... It's pretty odd that a nation that isn't widely known for being Bitcoin friendly is allowing so many high powered farms and nodes to be online.

I also guess we'd have to reach an extreme tipping point in fiat currencies for a government to show proof that he is indeed invested in cryptocurrencies, otherwise this will only be a backstage game.

Ease of use is pretty much the same, I think... You either touch your device in the NFC machine or you point it at a QR code. Configuration is probably more difficult on Bitcoin (although there are already mobile clients that are pretty simple to use); on your bank's card you just have an account, request a card and off you go, basically (but there's the fund limit problem present). Fees end up being higher on traditional banking systems.

As for specific advantages, traditional cards with NFC are something people are more used to, but Bitcoin is definitely more secure andyou can use it for any amount out of the box

I'm also questioning myself if this has anything to do with the surge in price... Although the money might have been paid in fiat, and it might not be too much to have risen the volume like it did. Anyone with exchange statics proving this?

As for the kidnap itself, well... Possibly some tricky business going on there, but that's not Bitcoin related

That's been discussed here and there and there are some valid points that are recurrent on those discussions... Where does Business Insider base their info on? Do they count addresses as one individual?

And yes, if you link 1 address=1 individual, wealth disparity is bigger than some fiat currencies, that's known for quite some time... But 1 address = 1 individual isn't always true

That's two blocks


They can't. Basically, maths used to compute addresses is different from maths used to mine.


Precisely...


Here you have it

As I've read on previous threads, they can keep him arrested without being judged, simply by being charged with something, but only for X days... Could this be only because those X days were over and they want to keep him arrested?

Either way, he's getting what he deserves for "misplacing" customers funds


Weren't all the funds on his personal account, anyways?


Of course not