Finally remembered to come back to this thread. Just returning to confirm Otoh's account, sale is agreed, delivery to EU this year, all the details were correct.

Since a few people have asked, I can confirm that the digital certificate of authenticity does include the public key, or rather the shortbits version that appears on the coin.

It's located in Australia.

I don't currently have a solution for shipping it, and would not be comfortable doing so unless I could find a sensible way that included full insurance. I plan to speak to some art and collectible dealers and see whether there's an unknown world of high value couriers that I can tap into. Otherwise in the worst case I am comfortable delivering it myself, worldwide - but would still need to ensure I took sensible precautions regarding personal safety.

For sale is a mint condition silver casascius 10BTC with gold B. These don't come up for sale very often these days, and are definitely my favorite of all the casascius coins.

I'm the second owner, comes with a certificate given to the first owner, signed by like Caldwell.

Considering serious offers.

Did anything ever come of this?

They are still claiming to have replay protection, but the fork is in 3 days and there's still no code. They literally just created a bounty for it 18 hours ago, not exactly a strong indication that it's ready.

It looks like there is a scam within a scam - as in other opportunistic scammers are trying to set up a scam based on claiming Bitcoin Gold.

Check out this site claimbitcoin.gold - linked to from the "Bitcoin Gold" (@btcgpu) twitter account, but clearly a scam. It asks you to enter your private key or seed to "verify ownership" of the address you are claiming for lol.

Surprising that this isn't snapped up at this price - I sold a series 1 brass 1BTC with a much lower grade for 1.6BTC a month or so ago. People seem to really like the error coins, even though a lot more of them were made!

While we're necro-ing threads, I thought I should point out that 2013 prices actually do appear to have come back. $7,100 for a series 1 1btc on ebay a few days ago, and 2.1btc for one on this forum also in the last few days.

I sold an MS-62 series 1 myself for 1.6BTC just a month or so ago, and thought I was getting a great price. Now I'm not so sure!

What are you looking for? I have a 10BTC with gold B that I'd consider parting with for the right price. Or are you looking more for 1BTC coins?

Edit: Whoops didn't read the title - it's ungraded but in mint condition, only been taken out of the case it came in a couple times, and never taken out of the airtight protector.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-g20-banks-idUSKBN0GL0NN20140821

From August. Haven't found anything post G20 yet.

Why, because of your imaginary 'put'?

If it is algorithmically guaranteed that you can convert 1:1 from a parent chain to a sidechain, then the fiat exchange rates for each can not diverge, aside from a small spread reflecting time preference (because it may take days to transfer between chains unless you use atomic swaps. But then market makers will happily offer atomic swaps for a spread).

I don't understand why you find this concept difficult. I think you are getting confused by Altcoins.

Only if you make a bank transfer and buy bitcoin for every single bitcoin purchase you make. Which would be insane. Most people buy their BTC in bulk, then use them as currency or hold them with the idea of being a store of value.

To short bitcoin you are selling coins you don't own. To do this, you have to borrow them.

So 7300 bitcoins shorted are 7300 bitcoins lent out, that at some point have to be returned. And how will those borrowers get the coin to repay the lenders?

You guessed it, they have to buy them.

So that is 7300 coins of future demand sitting there. An what's more, the positions will have liquidation prices or 'stop losses' setup that will initiate a buy above a certain price (to prevent too great a loss). A cascade of such automated liquidations is called a 'short squeeze'.

Now you can (and should) look at the leveraged longs the same way however - they are bought with borrowed USD, so that is $17 million USD in demand to buy USD with BTC, aka sell bitcoin. (That's about about 35,000 at current price if we unrealistically assume no slippage)

I would say lenders benefit from this, as going forward it provides BFX with more granular control over leverage ratios - in particular, them being able to manage separate max leverage per currency is great. For traders it is probably a small negative or neutral.

It is also a slight reduction in the max effective leverage - 3.33 vs 3.5, though I doubt that this is an active constraint or BFX wouldn't have chosen that number. Going forward they may choose to reduce that number further, especially eg for LTC. That would be bad for traders that like a lot of leverage, and good for lenders. Also good for the ecosystem / reducing systemic risk.

Razick, I had this idea about a week ago and have been thinking about it constantly since. Funny how that works!

My thoughts lead to some extensions on this idea in the context of torrent tracking communities like What.cd, and the possibility of having monetized media sharing communities that collect royalties for the content originators.

To make this system work would require something more complicated than the ideas mentioned in this thread. I haven't had a chance to really develop my thoughts, but it could be something like:

- Use a blockchain as a decentralised 'copyright registry'. The best way to do this could be based on the hash of an uploaded file, a la proofofexistence, OR via content fingerprinting systems (unfortunately these are encumbered by patents). To make what I have in mind work automatically, you probably want to use the latter, but if we assume some centralization as in the case of communities like What.cd, then that isn't necessary.

- One of the problems with making a 'decentralised performance rights agency' work (if we assume firt of all, that users are willing to use monetized P2P communities) is that even is we successfully foster a P2P music platform that collects BTC royalties in proportion to the popularity/snatches of torrents, the platform has no way of distributing these royalties to the content creators, because it cannot verify their identity.

- By tying a file, or a sound recording or video (if we use content fingerprinting) to a Bitcoin address, via our blockchain 'copyright registry', we suddenly have a way that someone can stake an ownership claim to a piece of content.

Of course, this is a problem for everything that already exists - there's nothing stopping me registering David Bowie's back catalogue to my BTC addresses in the blockchain. But for new content, if such a system took hold it would heavily incentivize artists to 'blockchain register' their work as soon as/before it was released, which would in turn enable all kinds of automated monetization and flow of cryptocurrency royalties.

I coulda sworn I had falllling on ignore. Does he just keep registering more accounts with more l's in the name?

RDMiner seems to randomly quote other peoples posts - I think it may be a bot designed to confuse.

twiifm, you have misunderstood Gresham's law. It only applies to moneys having the same nominal value.

I noticed that you also took down the BFX forum, including the Wiki. The forum was barely used so I can understand that decision, but the wiki had lots of useful info that was not replicated anywhere else!

There are loads of existing solutions, many cloud based, for providing support and Q&A - are you considering using some of these? Even something like GetSatisfaction would be a massive improvement, and solve many problems at once (support, feature requests, bugs, with voting, feedback and persistence/sharing of answers!)

About the other questions/responses:

- I presume you meant to say 'trader' not 'lender' here: "lender should not be able to lose more than his collateral"

- The audit was neat-o, but only included BTC so it is inaccurate to describe it as a 'solvency' audit as there are USD liabilities as well.

- To everyone, regarding speculation on the 'insurance' of loans, please stop saying the loans are insured. It is pretty clear: without a contract, what you have is not insurance. Until BFX offer an actual insurance contract, we cannot say that any loans are insured.