If you happened to have copied Armory chain code and root key somewhere, you can recover your private keys without Armory at http://brainwallet.org/#chains

Otherwise, make immediately a copy of your armory directory (~/.armory if you're using Unix). It contains your wallet data, and I'm sure Armory's author will be able to help you if there is anything to be salvaged here.

username: signmeup

Playing as "signmeup".
ID 25838

(messages removed because it is moot)

Did Bitstamp accept your ripple, or did they send back to your ripple wallet? This happened to me a few minutes ago, I got a reverse transaction of the same amount.

rL9ou2BARF5Yo7itdhgnh8Z8eHyRdGUtPB

'I want to link my Bitcointalk name with BTCJam's. Verification code: 2dcc2928-8346-4d6c-aef7-a54fcbea4cb5'

Note that I was specifically addressing the page you get when your coins are "Ready to deliver" and the confirmation page that you see after your coins have been delivered.

This lasted only a few hours, and I got my bitcoin. I really like this service!

One suggestion though: when you are ready to convert the € to bitcoins, you should indicate the rate and the expected amount that will be sent. Same thing when bitcoins are delivered, the page lists  the "Complete Bitcoin address", the "Bitcoin transaction ID", and the "Notification email", but not the "Amount" (which was at this type the only information that interested me :-).

Great service!

This is anecdotical, but I don't think GLBSE ever acted as the underwriter of any security (they would have had to buy [usually at a discount] all the yet-unsold shares after an IPO, which they didn't).

Are the passwords salted using random salts? If not, rainbow tables are available for common passwords using common hashes, and the hashed passwords may well have been leaked from bitmarket.eu itself or a from a backup or any offline copy. And even if salted, weak passwords may be found using a brute-force dictionary attack against the hashed passwords list, even if it takes more time.

It looks like at least one user whose account has been hacked was using a unique but weak password. That would match this scenario.

I'm currently testing the service, but while everything went very quickly so far (I initiated the transfer around 22:30 yesterday if I remember correctly, and it looks like you already received it 20 hours later) my purchase entered a so-called "Pending risk assessment" state. Does this phase take long? (I've been using this bank account with bitcoin-central a lot, inbound and outbound)

One thing I constantly warn people about is self-censorship. If you think it is a good thing to remove Nefario as CEO, then put up a motion, and let him ignore it and take responsibility for this. By not putting up a motion because "he would ignore it", you are simply letting him go on as CEO.

Please do not censor yourself, and do what you think is right for GLBSE regardless of what you think Nefario might do then. That could protect you in the future.

(disclaimer: I don't have any coin or share on GLBSE)

You forgot a few things: first of all, the interests were not compounding, so this is not 1.5% weekly => 117% yearly, but 1.5% weekly => 78% early. Moreover, it ran for what, 10 weeks? So it means 20% max if it had been at 2% all along (which is not the case). This would mean a maximum investment of 748 BTC if Victor had to pay everything out of his pocket and everyone had kept their investment for the maximum time at a rate of 2%, or 655 BTC at a average rate of 1.75%. That's not really a big deal, and in reality the interests were probably lower than that (the detailed computation can be performed from the published data).

When he started doing this, it was easy to loan money at 3% a week, and get it back. Assuming Victor did this, I guess he started to build a reserve with the extra interests he got. When the other people rate went down, Victor promised interest rates also went from 2% to 1.5%. He probably had difficulties when others started to fail. He may even have had to compensate some defaults by buying more bitcoins himself. He wanted, as he announced it, to establish himself as someone that could be trusted. So far, he took upon himself to give everybody their money back with the promised interests, even if he probably endured a loss by doing so.

Moreover, you also forget that Victor gave his personal information, verified by several people, along with pictures, including at public events, we know where it works, I think Micon had it checked by a friend of his from his employer internal directory, so yes, this increases the confidence.

If Victor was to start a venture in the bitcoin world, I now think more people would trust him than before, because he stood by his word, with not a single deviation from the beginning, although a good part of the bitcoin world broke loose at the same time. I certainly would trust him more than before. Maybe I'm gullible, but what kind of guarantee would satisfy you?

Everyone is a *potential* scammer. Heck, I may even have dealt with people on #bitcoin-otc and used my real and public identity to do that to instill confidence, but nobody (not even me) can predict what the future will be made of! Even the most trusted person can become crazy. What you need if you want to ensure you will not be scammed is regulations (k out of n signatures for example), because you can never know what a person will do next, even if you think you can guess so.

This is standard practice. When you cannot reimburse a loan on time, you get late penalties on top of that. People report getting almost 40% of their investment back during the last 4 weeks, while the added interest would be a mere 1%. Doing that increases the cost of the loan for Patrick, but does not make the debt grow, added interests are fortunately much smaller than what is reimbursed during the same period.

I don't get the logic here. Who cares if he mines or not, as long as he gives the bond holders a dividend corresponding to the PPS output of 1 MH/s? What difference does that make for the bond holder whether he mines, he invests in mining or he does anything else with the investment? Would they get more dividends if Goat mined by himself? Would they have any claim to the mining hardware Goat would buy (those are not shares)?

From the contract, one can assume that the bond will never be bought back unless Goat doesn't need the money anymore. As long as he gives holders dividends corresponding to the contract, what's wrong with a bond whose returns are indexed on fixed mining?

Now, if the question is "are people wrong in investing in such bonds?", well, anyone can see the answer in this case. And if you agree that it would make no difference if Goat mined by himself, you will also see that investing in perpetual fixed mining bonds (the problem here is more "perpetual" than anything else) does hardly make sense.

Most likely #bitcoin-assets.

Thanks, that clears things up! You should publicize this somewhere (on a FAQ?), this is a good point for bitcoin central!

Do you mean you do not have any business insurance in case you get hacked?

I am very satisfied with bitcoin-central.net so far, but if you don't have insurance, could you describe the security measures taken to protect your customers EUR and BTC funds?

You mean, the infrastructure using IP addresses allocated by ARIN?