Don't forget blow..... I was told once that something like 90% of $20 bills would test positive for cocaine.

Is this still open?

I assume not as I had trouble signing up, but if it is:

• When signing up it is not made clear that you must verify your email before you can login (you just get an invalid user/pass msg)
• After verifying your email and logging in you get the header navbar, but a 403 body.

True.... this is all a very good example of how BTC are not private....

Also had he wanted to it would be very easy to see the following things with the knowledge posted above:

• I occasionally play SatoshiDICE (and obviously HOW I bet and in what amounts)
• I always use the same address, which would indicate a certain level of organization
• The amount of money that has moved through those wallets

All because I put an address in my signature because someone might send me some satoshi's (ya right).

Confirmed... those are all mine.

I would love to sub to that script... anywhere I can follow the dev process?  What language/platform?

I was just saying that they could have abused their power and made his life alot harder than it had to be.

Did you do that by hand thallium205, or do you have a script?

That sounds like EXACTLY something the US would do.

I think they would name it bernanke-coin

True Story... this could have not ended well at all.

I would agree with the highlighted statements above.

And for my turn to somewhat spread FUD: I would venture to say that most people don't check the signatures when they download, so they are relying on others to do that for them and check for discrepancies.  Also not all clients either can or do that (Bitcoin-Qt on OSX for one).  So most are just assuming that the clients are valid when we don't really know for sure.

HOWEVER, I believe it is highly unlikely that any well known client developer (or commiter) would sneak in some back-door code to turn on at a later date.  Possibility vs probability.  Now Uncle Jimmy's S00per S3kr1t Wallet on the other I might not trust so much....

I thought this was addressed before?  Perhaps in an older version.

IIRC:  There is 0 insurance; however I am assuming that is pirate does a forced withdrawal that he will return our coins.

As Epoch beat me to it, but perhaps the forced cashout should be clarified as well.

Ah I see now, I must have only dealt with compressed keys so I had never remembered seeing them before.

Aren't 5xxx addresses test net?  Either way I thought only 1xxxx addresses were valid?

I never said you didn't need to trust them, my point was you need to trust the publisher of any client you use.  This fact is no different with a desktop or web based client.

And while your quote above is correct it is also, in my opinion, misleading.  I believe that it implies that you do not have to trust the developers of other bitcoin clients, which is of course not the case at all.

I think he is:

I thought the SDK for OSX came with XCode?

I would but I have no idea what to set it to :/

Just tried that and i do *NOT* get an error.

I never did get it working with my main wallet (maybe because of 2-factor auth?).  But on retrospect I thought maybe that isn't a bad thing and setup a new 'mobile' wallet.

BTW: Where can we change the default miners fee?  I have looked and looked but can not see it, I am starting to feel very dumb :/

If you use -otc then you can use the WoT to make sure you are sending to someone with a good rep.