raBE7VqBLyTfg4fofGgH173CyMZ6YxTQGi

Yes, that would be a requirement.  If the receiver is not online, then eventually, the sent packet simply falls off the network.

EDIT: Come to think of it, make the packet expire after say 10-30 minutes so the sender can safely assume the packet was not received.

PROBLEM:  New user buys BitCoins and then starts spending them, but at one point does not copy and paste the full BitCoin address into the client, or copies the wrong BitCoin address into the client.  The result is that BitCoins are sent into the gutter, never to be retrieved.

SOLUTION: Wrap the send packet with the receiving BitCoin address, so only the receiving BitCoin client can un-encrypt  the packet and transmit the packet back out to the network.  Thus, the sender can be assured he is sending it to a real client.

EDIT: SECOND SOLUTION: Create client identifiers where a BitCoin receiver can "bill" a sender through the network or to a specific IP.

BONUS SOLUTION:

PROBLEM: A sender may wish to obscure where he is sending his packet from.  E.G. Someone sending a large sum to a Falun Gong website monitored by the Chinese government, wishes to hide the sending IP address.

SOLUTION: Similar to the Tor network, give each IP a public and private key.  Allow senders to multiply wrap their send packet with public keys and sending IP addresses.  The network can unwrap the packet as it is sent from IP to IP until it reaches it's destination.  (Add a random time delay and garbage packet buffer at each stop for more protection.)

Yes.  Sorta like those.

I envision a tradeable contract.  For example... I create the following text and then sign it with my private key

-------------
Zerbie Contract #: 0000153

I promise to ship the owner of this contract $1 in 90% U.S. coins anywhere in the continental United States.

To redeem, contact me at:



Signed...
PGP key for Zerbie@bitcoin.org
-------------

Now I do an md5sum and attach it to the block chain in one of my BinCoin wallets.  Note that it does not have the text, but simply shows that I own the thing that has the given md5sum.  (Add more checksums to be sure...)  Now I go and sell this contract to whomever trusts me enough to give me BTC for it.  If my reputation is good, I'll get a good price for the contract. 

When I find a buyer, the buyer will give me his email address and his BTC address.  I will send the text of the contract to him as well as opening my wallet and sending him the ownership of the md5sum I created to show the ownership.  The buyer can then do the same for successive buyers of the contract.

When the final owner wishes to redeem the contract, he contacts me, then sends me ownership of the md5sum to show that he owns it and is now redeeming it.  I then take his shipping address and send him the silver.

NOTE: A more advanced system would store the contract distributively so everyone can see the text of the contract and there is no need to ship the text via email.

If my reputation is world rewound, then my contracts will trade for a premium.  If my reputation is shaky, my contracts will trade for a discount, and will probably be redeemed quickly.

Why create coins pegged to a particular commodities?  Instead, make a modified system of contract ownership that can be traded through a blockchain accounting system.  For instance, I issue a contract to ship 1 oz of silver to the holder of a contract I issue and then sell it for BitCoins through a block chain.  The owner of the contract can either trade it to someone else for a different type of contract or issue it back to me for redemption.  The block chain would use a similar accounting method to determine who the owner is along with added mechanisms to ensure trade takes place smoothly (e.g... one contract for another contract or BitCoins for the contract).

Anyone filing a protest may also want to include Google trend screenshots to further prove the use of "BitCoin" prior to 6-22-11.

It looks as if Cline M. Pascazi is attempting to sell all BitCoins to "Michel Mouchon" at a price of $17.50.  That would be around $367.5M.  The letter probably is an attempt to establish not only the writes of the trademark but all the "currency" it represents.  If I'm reading this correctly, they are attempting to establish ownership of the entire project.

I believe this is "Michel's" Linked in account.

http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/patrice-mouchon/6/222/b23

Not likely.  This appears to be a banking outfit.  "Magellan Capital Advisors".

The whole block chain is proof.

Registered owner is "Magellan Capital Advisors".  Looks like a banking outfit.  Any use of BTC would surly compete with the established banking system.

I polite warning would have sufficed.  However, this sub-reddit is poorly moderated.  There is only one moderator with a reasonable amount of comments, and his comments tend to be immature.  The other "moderators" appear to be puppets.  In fact, one of the moderators actually got .79 BTC from someone doing something similar to what you did.

Don't worry about it.  Live and learn.

EDIT: Actually, AtlasLGo appears to be reasonable, but has not picked good co-moderators.

Why even create a board of trustees?  That is to centralized.  Check out this post on reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/i7krs/idea_for_a_totally_distributed_monetary_exchange/

The author proposes an interesting twist on Open Transaction.  The basic idea is to use Open Transaction to allow people to issue digital contracts representing real world goods.  These digital contracts can take the place of the physical currency (be it gold, silver or FRN's).  Open Transaction facilitates the signing and trading of these contracts.  So long as the contract issuer has a good rep. and is well known, he can create these contracts and people can trade them with confidence.  Others can compete in the same manner... so it becomes a question of reputation.

Now further modify Open Transaction so that it uses a distributed block chain and clears the transactions so everyone can see the exchanges happen.

I bet the hacker was trying to push the price down to $.01 so he could cash out as much BTC as possible.  Tux mentions $1000 worth of BTC... but at what price?  If it was $.01, then the hacker could have walked away with 100k BTC.

I've had the same issue with Ubuntu and gave up.  I still run windows for my dual card systems.

Does anyone know how to fool a second video card into activating without plugging a monitor into it?  If so, I'll go back and try again.

Damn thread went AWOL.  Did anyone take me up on my offer?

Come on guys.  Let's make a better future.  Fighting only serves to divide in favor of those who wield power.  There has to be some common ground where we can improve things.

Does anyone on the forums have contacts in Spain?  I'll give a 10 BTC bounty to creates a protest sign with the BitCoin logo and protests in Spain.  5 extra BTC if you pass out business sized cards with the BitCoin logo and website address on them.  Please enclose pictures for verification.

The price of the cards I use for GPU mining initially cost me $270 per.  Comparable cards cannot be found on newegg.com, and the "out of stock" price listed is >$500 per card.  AMD and NVIDA cards are just not competing.  My bet is that ATI knows exactly why their cards are selling so well and would be willing to create low cost ASIC, FPGA, or GPU hardware specifically targeted to mining.  If I were NVIDA or AMD, I would be searching for ways to cater to this market as well.  

If you are really concerned about a threat to FPGA centralization of computing power, start an email campaign to NVIDA and AMD asking them to create hardware specific cards to meet our mining needs.  All that is needed is a bit more competition.

EDIT: Cleaned up awkward wording.

Hi all,

I just finished reading Jeff Hester's article about BitCoins entitled [url http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/21/the-bitcoin-experiment/]"Make.Money.Slow : The Bitcoin Experiment"[/url].  While he did not have a lot of good things to say about BitCoins, he did highlight a potential opportunity for BitCoins.

"…but the developing world is another matter. Consider Zimbabwe, recently plagued by hyperinflation so rampant that when I was last there prices doubled every few weeks and gasoline could only be purchased on the black market with hard currency. They’ve since given up and simply adopted foreign currency wholesale. Meanwhile, mobile electronic payments are taking off in a big way all over sub-Saharan Africa. It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine Zimbabwe in ten years’ time—or a whole group of developing nations with a history of crippling inflation—adopting a new currency that is independent, incorruptible, and anti-inflationary by design. In short, something a whole lot like Bitcoin. No, it isn’t the future, but it just may point the way."

What do you think?  BitCoin is no where near 100% inflation per week.  It is more like 50% per year at the moment.  Does anyone have IP maps of where BitCoin mining is happening, or does anyone have contacts in Zimbabwe?  I cannot get a feel for the infrastructure in this country.  Are smart phones?  Are online computers readily available?

If Zimbabwe is not a good target, let's keep our eye's open for any other countries that may need an currency replacement.  We may also find friends in South American countries that are attempting to ward off IMF and the Federal Reserve.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation - List recent problems with hyperinflation.