That would be greatly appreciated by all average joe's running on windows: I will try it on win 7..

Thanks!

 I fixed the bc issue.
Now xxd seems like a problem (it's even listed as malware on some sites??). If there is a reliable download for the source I would happily compile it..

I got that part right: I am running Cygwin. But I must be missing one or two packages: which ones ?

I ran this on my Windows 7 machine and its works fine until the last step:

$ gpg < wallet.pem.asc |
> openssl ec -pubout |
> publicKeyToAddress

You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: "Boussac (nickname on bitcoin forum)"
2048-bit RSA key, ID 26B8AF92, created 2011-07-02

read EC key
read EC key
bash: xxd: command not found
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 26B8AF92, created 2011-07-02
      "Boussac (nickname on bitcoin forum)"
writing EC key
writing EC key
bash: xxd: command not found
bash: xxd: command not found
bash: bc: command not found
1111111111111111111111111111111111

I like the simplicity of this bitcoin address but I suspect something fishy with the "command not found" warnings.
Any idea how to get these xxd and bc working

I sent my French translation to yossarian yesterday via PM..

Aïe.  Mes craintes sur l'arrière fond Marxiste des défenseurs du dividende universelle se confirment cruellement, là.

Penses-tu vraiment que toute personne riche est quelqu'un qui a profité du travail des autres ?  Qu'entends tu exactement par "profiter" ?  Penses-tu que toute richesse est acquise de façon injuste ?

Cette conception du DU, ça existe:  ça s'appelle les actions.  Les actionnaires touchent, sans rien faire, une part des bénéfices des entreprises.  Et ce qui est bien avec ce système, c'est que quand les entreprises ne font pas de bénéfices, en général elles ne versent pas de dividende.  Ça permet de conserver une cohérence économique au truc.
[/quote]

Nous sommes tous "actionnaires" de la planète, non ? Toutes les entreprises lui appartiennent.

Etre actionnaire d'une entreprise n'est pas donné à tout le monde: il faut être en capacité d'investir.
Si ton travail te laisse juste un revenu de subsistance, ça va pas être possible.
Il faut avoir accumulé de la richesse en profitant du travail ou de la consommation des autres.

Ou bien il faut emprunter pour investir: mais "tout nouvel argent doit sortir de la banque sous forme de dette" dans la logique actuelle.
C'est donc la banque qui investit en réalité.
C'est pour sortir de cette logique infernale que le DU s'impose.
Pas forcément faire table rase de l'argent-dette mais commencer à trouver un nouvel équilibre avec un autre système.

Bon là franchement, on voit bien que ce thread est un grand succès, alors voici une deuxième raison de mettre en place le DU: le progrès technologique.
Avec le progrès, il n'y a pas de raison qui ferait qu'on serait capable de tenir un objectif de plein emploi pour tous, sauf peut être si on se remettait à construire des pyramides (ne rigolez pas la dernière date des années 80).
Donc, le DU s'impose pour prendre le relais du mythe du plein emploi.

Le réseau Bitcoin a une market cap de moins de $100 M: toutes ces valeurs (small caps) sont volatiles.

Pour moi, les bitcoins peuvent être vus aussi comme des actions dans un réseau concurrent de Visa ou MC (market cap de 55 et 40 miards respectivement).
Donc la valo devrait grimper et la volatilité diminuer.

I can help with the translation : has anyone volunteered before me via PM ?

braaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvoo 

mon prochain click après ce post sera sur login @ bitcoin-central

deflationary? the supply increases. it is not deflationary, except from the perspective of a mind steeped in excessive inflation. but he does get valuation correct in this paragraph.
[/quote]

IMHO Bitcoin IS deflationary by design because it is a limited amount of money chasing a growing amount of goods.

By the way, Satoshi sounds like Mark Karpeles getting a call from the core team: can you post this paper while you are in Japan so the FBI does not come after US ?
This is my answer but what was the question again ?

For some reason, I had to try 2 times to access MtGox with Chrome. Second time around it worked (from France). Is this a problem specific to Chrome ?

My point was there is no problem as long as user base grows exponentially.
Afterwards (that is after the inflexion point), commission fees must be the partial substitute for value and could maintain the profitability of mining in the long run by virtue of deflation.

If the chains aren't competing for hashing power, they are competing for adopters and users.
something called the "network effect" makes the assumption that the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole somewhat questionnable.

Beckstrom's law is interesting but I like the simplicity of that one: let's say, for argument's sake, that the utility of a network is proportionnal to the square of n, n being the number of users.
if N = n₁ + n₂
then N² > n₁² + n₂² , right ?

I guess "inflation" here means "money supply growth" because bitcoin offers a deflationary model.
Incidentally, my undestanding was that the period was four years so BTC generation will halve only at the end of next year, right ??

This thread deals with two issues, namely robustness against possible attacks AND sustainability of mining when new bitcoin generation dwindles to zero. Even if the two issues are connected I would like to focus on the second one, the economics of mining.

If K₀ is the generation rate of the bitcoins in the initial period (300 Bitcoins/hour) and P the duration of each period (4 years), according to the rules of the bitcoin protocol Qn = P*K₀/2ⁿ is the quantity of bitcoins generated in the n^th period.
In other words, the aggregate value of the money created in the nth period equals the aggregate value of the money created in the first four years (the initial period) if  the value of the bitcoins grows by an annual rate of 2ⁿ/4*n.

Now let us assume the utility of the bitcoin network is proportional to the square of N the number of users (a formula to factor in the “network effect”).
Assuming the utility of the bitcoin network correlates to the value of the bitcoins yields:
(N_n)² = k * 2^n-2/n.

The result shows that an exponential growth of the user base, i.e. a continued successful launch of the bitcoin network in line with what we are currently witnessing, ensures a steady growth of the value generated by mining at least until an inflexion point is reached.

All this is very interesting. Like a try to produce a remake of the Babel Tower story in the free software community. I have only one shovel so I will keep mining bitcoins and reading about the other mines.

+3 (sur les 3 conditions). Par contre, amha ça sert à quelque chose.
Pour commencer (piano), fusionner les aides sociales diverses, variées et conditionnelles, dont le coût de gestion est considérable.
Le dividende universel  versé à ceux qui payent déjà des impôts sera repris en partie par l'impôt.
Donc ça ne coûte pas forcément plus cher à l'Etat, c'est juste plus efficace et plus juste.

J'ai encore une centaine de raisons en faveur du DU dans ma musette mais je vais m'arrêter sur celle là aujourd'hui pour voir si ce thread décolle (c'est pas gagné).

My understanding is that the rationale for a resource based economy is precisely what you are pointing at: distributing scarce resources under rules that are not bound by monetary rules.
The caveat going with this scenario is that a global governance, being the only alternative to the governance of a globalized finance system, is not immune to the risk of a totalitarian shift.

This kind of post makes you sound like you work for Barclays