They try to fuck me multiple times and push me out of the process.

I just use the account functionality to separate, but symlinks would work too (as mentioned above) and are also easy to set-up. Or perhaps look into using something like sx tools to perform the transactions through bitcoind rather than bitcoind itself.

The accounts code does not scale up to thousands of accounts with tens of thousands of transactions, because by-account (and by-account-by-time) indices are not implemented. So many operations (like computing an account balance) require accessing every wallet transaction.

Multiple wallets, used serially, works fine today.  I manage multiple wallets using symlink replacement.

...which means he is at least capable of understanding what is going on and also verifying that no random sh*t is being presented to him.

I would not trust some random 20-years-in-the-business auditor from PWC to do this stuff. Mabye it could be possible to develop something REALLY fool proof and let this be run by a notary (obtain code, check + note down checksums of executables, post output of tools, sign this data)?

These things are unfortunately still too "techy"/strange for someone who audits fiat holdings (they in return usually just trust bank statements by the way). Until then we'll have to deal with Bitcoiners auditing other Bitcoiners I fear.

He is also Admin of this board here, wrote BitcoinJS and helped Bitcoin adoption a lot a few years back with the weusecoins video...

Still I agree that it is not ideal to have just someone trusted to look at these numbers instead of publishing bitcoin holdings and user balances.

The actual BIP37 standard, and existing implementations of it, have a number of other flaws that reduce privacy. For instance the standard lets the seed value of the hash function be tweaked with a 32-bit integer, nTweak. However on the one hand if randomly chosen and rarely changed, as suggested by BIP37, the 32-bit integer can be used by an attacker to correlate multiple connections from the same wallet. On the other hand if nTweak is changed an attacker that can link multiple bloom filters can AND those filters together to greatly decrease the
false-positive rate and determine exactly what funds are in the user's wallet.

The open source business model did not generate sufficient cash flow for expansion through support contracts.

We have some profitable projects like https://bullionbitcoin.com, http://bopshop.bitsofproof.com and http://www.bitcointrezor.com/news/2014-02-10-mytrezor-bop-bitcoin-server and a few undisclosed that proved the value of the software, that I could trade in for meaningful expansion See: http://www.iconcapitalsa.com/posts/8-icon-capital-reserve-s-a-acquires-leading-digital-currency-developer-bits-of-proof-zrt

I gave source code access to current customer and I evaluate every new piece of code we write if it is appropriate to open source it. Older versions and lots of useful functions are generally accessible open source even now.

BOPs development focus is now to create a software stack capable of issuing, trading, auditing digital assets. I am sure that we will open source huge portions of that and that others will be licensed with source code access.

I tried for one year, but the open source did not deliver any benefit to me. No substantial code contribution, no donation no offers from those who claim supporting the open source development of Bitcoin.

In contrary I was frequently attacked for being irresponsible releasing an alternative implementation, or rushing out features too early.

The same time I have paying customer and venture capitalists who wonder why I give away IP for free. I run out of arguments.

it only helps a little bit because it only saves the need to store some of the transaction headers. As far as the information inside of the body is concerned, you still have just as many inputs and outputs, its just as much data to be stored on the blockchain.

He probably is spinning PR or focusing on short-term implementation plans to avoid discussing the longer term plans discussed in the article.  If you read it with the PR-interpretation mindset its not so good.  

Whatever his intentions, he is not thinking through the implications or just selfishly doesnt care for quick buck reasons,  I dont know him so I cant tell.  Either way I think this will not end well.  I've been in the privacy tech / crypto business for 15 years, its quite common to encounter and have to navigate around people of all stripes: well meaning, neutral, dont care, and anti-privacy.  Even the ones that are neutral or well meaning often dont think about the long or even mid-term implications of what they are doing.  Thinking about implications is complex, requires concentration, deep understanding across many fields, and may conflict with short term objectives (ie rush something ill-thought-out but  "pragmatic" to get something out the door).  Sometimes making a buck even conflicts with user interests, or even the survival of the system.  Some of these people might even show concern and genuine remorse afterwards when it predictably blows up (to their genuine surprise because they didnt think more than the first chess move.)  Most probably though they'll be onto their next venture and pretend it never happened or more likely not even make the connection between their actions and the outcome.

The technology space is littered with implications from ill considered decisions.  Eg web pages are not signed, and jscript is not signed; a single server key is used for combined tunnel auth/encryption but no transferable signature on the content.  So people can hack servers and modify and replace code and steal eg jscript bitcoin wallets.

These things matter because architecture defines the internet.


So first they want to identify clean addresses (from the forbes article).


And then they want to distance themselves from clean addresses (from reddit).

So whats a clean address?  Its one that according to them has not got taint on it according to some threshold they decide against some blacklist.  Seems squarely what we are talking about.
Thats my interpretation.  Waters or the other people at CoinValidation are welcome to clarify.


The KYC part yes, the clean coins I am not so sure - they really do seem to think longer term that tracing coins is somehow a useful thing to do, which can only harm fungibility.  We may need a priority deployment of CoinJoin option into multiple clients before they get far with that.

DarkWallet could probably do with some funding help also.

Adam

That text about libbitcoin was posted by myself on the foundation forums; I just thought jdillon would find it interesting.

My guess is that Conformal Systems does have what it takes to create a proper reimplementation. They just lack the PR that Dark Wallet is getting.

That project needs a lot more attention.