This response is such a perfect match to the intellectual level of the OP, I'm in awe.

I've never understood why those against increasing the blocksize *insist* that their opponents are always about "paying for cups of coffee".

Not all consumer transactions are in the $1-$3 range. Strange to relate, but many things that people want to buy cost MORE than three dollars. Sometimes a lot more.
Why should an advocate of bitcoin-as-payment-network, concerned about their future ability to buy

a) a computer game,
b) the week's groceries,
c) a laptop PC,
d) their monthly mortgage/rent/utilities,
e) a used car,
f) a new car,
g) a mansion on a tropical island,

with bitcoins, always have to defend their stance as if they were talking about cups of coffee?

I look forward to a day when I can pay at least items in the categories (b) and (d) using Bitcoin. But no, ignore *everything* I just said, I JUST WANT TO BUY CUPS OF COFFEE.

Why do this?

If you advocate for small blocks you are not only forcing three-dollars transactions off the chain. You're going to restrict thousand-dollar transactions too, they'll just drop off the chain a little later. If you're fine with that, have the basic intellectual integrity to declare that you are. Don't distort the debate with frankly stupid memes about cups of coffee. CIYAM, can't say I know you that well but you seem like a decent sort and I'm surprised you'd frame things that way.

I agree with you that the benefits of BTC to purchasers have been oversold. One benefit though, is that if Bitcoin reduces payment processing costs for merchants, consumers should see these passed on as discounts on their purchases. But of course that relies on merchants passing on at least some of their savings, which too few are prepared to do.
Of course I understand shoestring operations may not be able to - if they're just baaaaarely above water with credit card processing fees, they're not going to get to hookers-and-blow territory when they accept BTC. But mortgage lenders, utility companies, supermarkets - they seem to me to be good examples of sectors which (a) can afford to pass savings on to consumers, and (b) will pretty much have to, to stay competitive, at least once the first snowball starts rolling.

Thanks for keeping us informed, Brad.

Yeah. So basically, just backup your private key!

In fact now that I think about it a bit more, that's exactly how I've been guarding my stash these last three years!

If I understand the OP correctly they seem to be asking for some way for the 'rightful owner' of a private key, who then has it stolen, to have some sort of fallback method of moving the coins without the private key.

For this to work there needs to be some sort of 'proof of identity' that the rightful owner could provide in lieu of the private key. In other words they need to have...

another private key.

This seems doable to me. Take whatever existing coins you have and transfer them to a new address by means of a 1-of-2 multisig transaction. Then, you need some way of separating the two private keys into two separate files (wallets or whatever). That might be the tricky bit - I've never done multisig transactions myself so I don't know how the major wallets implement them. You might have to 'hand-craft' a transaction. Finally you need to keep the two private keys very, very separate - like, one on your laptop in a wallet.dat, the other on some laminated paper in the household safe.

Then, when your laptop gets nicked, you use the key in the safe to move the coins. And vice-versa if the safe gets broken into. Of course there are failure-modes:
1) If BOTH your laptop and your safe get nicked you're effed.
2) If the thief spends the coins before you realise they're gone, you're effed.
3) You can't do all this retroactively. If the thief's already stolen your coins protected with a single private key, there's nothing you can do about that NOW, just do the multisig for your future coins.

So it now appears that my implicit defence of amaclin's character may have been premature.

No matter. Amaclin is still exposing shaky parts of the protocol, and doing so (so far) in an honest and transparent fashion, so regardless of the motivation, thanks!

Thanks, I'll give it a go.

Thankyou for your very lucid explanation!

The pile of zeroes doesn't seem to be on any clear boundary - starting offset is 0x03fe526d and blocks resume at 0x04021fe6. I think your idea of shutting down midway is probably the right answer.

The python script I'm writing actually scans the block files bitcoin-core generates, and builds a new set of block files with the blocks strictly in order and without gaps. Could I replace the original block files with my new ones and expect bitcoin-core to work just fine? I'm thinking not, as the database files would probably not match up. So, if I deleted everything in the data folders (not using any wallets here) and just plonked my new blk00xxx.dat files there, would core just build a new database from them? I would not want it to try to redownload the whole blockchain from scratch!

Running core 0.10.2 here - just on and off - to get hold of the whole blockchain. Still ~42 weeks behind. Anyway I'm trawling through the blk00xxx.dat files with a python script, and I find that part way into my blk00065.dat, there's a long string of zeroes. 249209 bytes to be precise. They start just after the end of a previous block, where my python script is obviously expecting to see 0xF9BEB4D9. After them, I do indeed get the magic bytes and it appears the blockdata resumes as normal.

Bitcoin Core doesn't seem to mind, so I presume this is expected behaviour. Is there any reason for it? Should I expect more 'deserts' later on in the blockfiles? Should I be aware of any other 'surprises', along the lines of expecting to see magic bytes but instead seeing something else?

(Oh and the answer to all 'why?' enquiries is: for fun. No, I don't get out much.)

This is a good point. The simple fact that anyone CAN check the source code and find critical bugs is, as the openssl clusterfuck showed, not a sufficient guarantee that enough competent people WILL check the source code and find critical bugs.

Of course, that caveat applies equally well to both XT and Core.

    

It does, doesn't it?

Hot damn, but I *love* Visa and Paypal. I wonder if Bitcoin is the new VISA. Aaah, who am I kidding. Of *course* it's the new VISA.

All hail the new VISA.

Thankyou for clarifying the nature of our "interaction", hardly an apt word here. Bye then.

This is frustrating. If you don't want to answer the question I posed to you, please say that you don't wish to answer that question. But don't pretend I was asking you a different question.

You don't need to tell me that bitcoin is not visa because... YOU ALREADY TOLD ME TWICE. And I was not saying to you "but of course Bitcoin is visa".

And I was asking you a question that *is not* "Is bitcoin the new visa?". You see, if that *were* the question I was asking you, then "Bitcoin is not visa" would be a valid answer.

Let's try this again. Forget, just for the moment, the question "Why is it a bad thing for Bitpay to charge its clients?" Consider this question instead:

"HDbuck, do you like bacon sandwiches?"

Please let me know if your answer is "Bitcoin is not VISA" and that way I know I can leave the thread at no great loss.

You see some flawless logical chain from "Bitpay is going to start charging" to "Bitpay wants to be the new VISA", that I don't.

I asked you why "Bitpay is going to start charging" is a bad thing. Your response to my question is "Bitpay wants to be the new VISA".

Okay, does anyone else want to address my question?

Confused about the snark here.

Why exactly SHOULDN'T merchants have to pay to use a payment processor? Why should Bitpay offer their services to merchants for free?

Or is the idea that, ideologically, the costs "ought" to be borne either by the payment processor, or the purchasers, but not by the merchants? If so I'd need someone to help join the ideological dots for me there, and justify that "ought". It's not at all clear to me that merchants "ought" to be exempt from paying for services rendered to them.

With a username like 'druggy02' and a post count of 2, I'm thinking 'no'.

What about Bitcoin's most favouritest ever Romanian? Where was he?

Mr Gamow, you have a Beautiful Mind.

What exactly do you think computer security professionals DO? Or cryptologists employed by three-letter agencies? Or military strategists?

A person who wants to strengthen the bitcoin network and isn't constantly thinking of ways to break it, isn't doing their job.

"Maria" 5.0?

Bytecoin?

Really??

Jesus. Bugger off.