Most systems can switch out one hashing system for another. For example, when md5 was shown vulnerable to collisions SSL signatures simply switched to another hashing method.

Bitcoin has the disadvantage of being set in its ways. The majority of clients would have to be updated to at the same time switch to another method. Even if such a thing could be coordinated and the bitcoin contract ammended in the wild it would take a lot of time to organize it. Those that failed to update would reject these new blocks.

Why does the standard client always send the change to a new address?? It would make more sense to send the change back to one of the sending addresses.

Wow, that is a good read. That is like putting up a sign saying "Lost paper bag with $4000 in it, please return" and someone returning it. I guess maricles do happen.

I like how the custom send menu has an option to send the return change to the same address you sent from. This lets me activate a paper wallet and still have it remain a valid backup of my key.

Careful, even if you get the card first and confirm its balance and then pay, the seller could still use a copy of the numbers on the webstore and get it mail ordered to him thus depleting your balance.

Not trying to accuse anyone specific, just wanted people to be aware it is a common trick. Where I live homeless people sell give cards on the street then run to the library and order a bunch of stuff with the card to a friends place. They then take the stuff back to the store and return it without receipt for... gift cards.

The card checks out when you call to check the balance, but when you go to spend it then it is empty.

Some gift cards even allow you to transfer the entire balance to a new card.

Has anyone ever recovered funds sent to the wrong address by going to this forum and asking whose address it was? It seems like a long shot, hope you manage to recover thought.

The idea that an officer or other public official must identify themself if asked is a myth propagated by undercover cops.

I think that once those in power realize how handy bitcoin is for bribes, kickbacks and hidden contributions they will embrace it and protect it.

Very nice tool. Am I correct that this could be the basis of a tool to monitor large numbers of addresses for activity?

Also, if it is easy to add a transaction to a black list then you can DOS the chain by blacklisting all over.

If it is not easy to add a transaction to a black list then a theif will have time to send it through an anonymizing/mixing service BEFORE it ends up on the black list.

I see blacklist management as the fatal flaw in this idea.

You cannot just return a payment. Many wallet and exchange services send from a common address and if you send the money back from the sending address it will not go to the correct person. You will need to ask the sender for an address to return it to.

You cannot reject payments as you say, you can refuse to spend them, you can refuse to honor the payment but not automatically reject them.

This would work well for anything that cannot be picked up and hidden. Land, intellectual property(patents, copyrights, trademarks etc) and other such items would be transferable without the need for a central authority.

Just when I think I am understanding bitcoin, n-of-m... Back to the docs for me!

#bitcoin-otc sounds interesting, I will have to check that out.

Ohh, for the last few days torwallet has been "deposit only", I hope they eventually fix that wallet up but I would not put anything there right now.

I did not realize escrow was available on blockchain.

Great service. I appreciate the security model.

Neat.

50 posts to show a picture? Damn, my lolcat will have to wait.

It would be nice to have 3 or 4 of those containers at your disposal.