Value goes up -> nobody spends due to hoarding
nobody spends -> value goes down due to the currency being worthless.

Do you think that it's at all possible that there could be an equilibrium here? Or do you somehow believe that the price will go up forever despite hoarding and no real use?

I think the point of the large sum of money is an incentive to allow the island to secede and form its own city state. Simply "buying" an island won't do this. You'll still be under the ownership of the government that claims ownership of the island.

This is like when people think they can hack around a stupid law by using some technicality.
It doesn't work like that. You will be convicted anyway, even though you found that watertight crack in the law that means you didn't, technically, break it.

Once Apple discovers how it is being used it will be banned. It doesn't matter what gimmick is used to camouflage the intended functionality. Or if you found a flaw in the TOS that means they should allow your app, they will ban it anyway, and maybe update the TOS, if they feel like it.

$19.80

bencoder, thanks

Yes I didn't fully investigate the differences between the two schemes. I understand the model, so I deleted the post.

Still though, what happens if you don't get enough plays on HC Lotto to cover the investments on HC Invest?

As somebody who had several thousand coins (from selling something small and cpu mining) back when they were they were somewhere around $0.005, It absolutely wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of the other "early adopters" from those days had no coins left.

I sold the majority of those very early coins when the price jumped 10 times(!) up to $0.05 in the course of a few days. I also gave many away to friends to convince them to try out bitcoin (I mean, giving away blocks of 50 or 100 coins at a time).

It's not like we knew the price was going to rise so much.

I don't think 2 and 4 are the same. 4 is referring to the mixer/anonymizer idea like you've talked about, but 2 is talking about the actual bitcoin tcp traffic, and is suggesting you should route it all through tor or another anonymizing network.

I've managed to spam the orderbook by doing tiny increments in rate and have drowned out everything on the USD side of the order book using less than 1 USD in funds. Now nobody can see what's available. I'm sure i could do the same on the BTC side if i had any left and there was anything to drown, making the orderbook useless.

I think to solve it the order book should be put into bins, so it's more a rough idea of the quantity at each rate, by combining all the quantities at the rates say between 15 and 15.01, or you shouldn't allow quite such small increments in rate. Or maybe it should be left as it is. I suppose when there's active trade across the spread it won't be an issue because those micro orders will be picked up as soon as there's a trade. But I think there should be some way to see more of the orderbook if someone does do this and while you still have low activity on there.



Not really a bug but the way the order book doesn't update even when you place an order kind of bugs me

looks like they are being attacked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40264.msg901601#msg901601

Could be the issue, give it a while I guess.

Attack surface is pretty low. I can't find anything obvious through fudging with form parameters but I'll keep looking when I have time.

Couple of trivial/minor things:

You can click new multiple times and it makes many rows of the new order form. I thought this was so you could create multiple orders at the same time which I thought was a good feature - However, you can only select one of the radio buttons across the whole set so this looks like a bug. (pic: http://i50.tinypic.com/34so4du.png)
IMO, If you do make this feature there should be a button at the bottom so you can place all the orders at the same time rather than having to click the place order button on each individual row.

Very trivial thing, don't know if it's an actual issue or a conscious decision:
on Signup, the terms and condition link changes the page rather than opens in a popup so I lost the password I had entered when I hit back.
Normally I middle click those links to open them in a new tab but sometimes they are javascript links(to open the t&c in a pop-up) which means that doesn't work. If you do decide to make it a javascript pop-up, leave the link as it is, and use the onclick to open the popup and return false so it doesn't actually change the page. That makes middle click work to open the link as normal, and left click calls the onclick handler to open the popup and cancels the normal link action.

Bitcoin address, if accepted: 1GgQn4VGwv75x2bNweua4Ko34tGvZXjkNj

You should put the link in the first post or at least in your signature or something:

https://strikesapphire.com/

So, I presume something like this:

Take the list of addresses you know belonged to MBC;
For each address in list:
    For each outgoing transaction from that address:
        If transaction has more than 1 input:
            Add any input addresses to the list if they aren't already there

Seems quite reasonable

I will look into making a simple JS client for the API this weekend. Remember that javascript restricts cross domain requests, so it will have to reside on your server (well, under the same domain, but that's likely to be the same thing in this case) in order to work.

(For dev, I'll write a quick proxy that will redirect local requests back to your server, so you don't need to give me access for development)

Assuming you're talking about a specific old and a specific new key then yes, it is equally hard to find the private key (which is incredibly, astronomically, hard).

That said, if you are trying to find a collision by brute force generating bitcoin addresses, then you're more likely to find a collision with an older address because it's likely there are considerably more "older" keys than "newer" keys. It depends on where you draw that line.

Care to explain further?

Unless you have more details (and I don't know why the host would have given out that kind of customer information), you're referring to the domain and not to the hosting.

The hosting can expire while the domain is still active.

Seems incredibly expensive. I've seen nice wood boards with decent go stones (convex & glass) for considerably cheaper.

Negative 2% (student loan)

Given that it is a specific address, it would indicate that the solution will eventually resolve into either a wallet.dat or a private key (and given casascius's service, I'd guess that the solution is a private key) and isn't the login to an online wallet, as those can't guarantee sending from a specific address.

The string is very short and generic, and so it seems a little unlikely that the private key somehow is encoded into it. A private key is 256 bits and the string (assuming casascius is only looking for a-z,A-Z,0-9, period, comma, space, even including the quotes, gives a total of 66 symbols, or ~6 bits per character) has a total of 324 bits... That really doesn't include enough to hide it stego-style in such a pretty sentence.

Given that this is ruled out, its probably more likely to be a logic or lateral puzzle. plain site... site, website... somewhere on his website, view source, ctrl-f, plain.htm, plain.html.

I think I'll give up, never very good at these things.

http://www.google.com/search?q=25+plus+%281.3%25%20of%2025%29

But regardless, I don't think that was the point - I'm assuming that lighter previously calculated that trades were charging 1.3 and was just attempting to make an example but failed on the calculation.