As far as I know, you can perfectly try and bruteforce a bitcoin address. By simply using VanityGen. Your odds will be next to zero, but that DOES NOT mean it is impossible. Also, how do you know that in the near future there won't be asics capable of doing so?

Coins can be mined out of existence (miner selects a reward less than the max allowed).

There is no actual way of "destroying coins". Even sending to an address with a private key that isn't known, a person can also get a lot (and i mean a real lot) amount of hashpower to bruteforce the key. Although it would be difficult, the coins are still recoverable.

Is it me or is blockchain.info down?

maybe i misunderstood, but didnt Gavin Andressen kinda validated this info??

Come on now, try to think for one second..

I can think of hundreds...

"Did you work on a classified government project?"

"Did you work on a innovative technology project?"

"Did you program a (insert whatever you want)?"

"Did you invent (insert vague tech. concept)?"

"Did you head a group working on (insert whatever you want)?"

"Did you build the world's most realistic scale model train?"

 

Unglaublich, was für einen Mist man hier liest.....

If this man is not Satoshi, it would be quite simple for the real Satoshi to come out and make an anonymous statement (signed tx) that it is not him.

That sounds like a great source for false information and misunderstanding.  Please don't base your knowledge about bitcoins from sources like this.


It doesn't. That is a complete misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. There is no "unique id" that represents any portion of a bitcoin at all.  If you think that's confusing, it will really blow your mind when you learn that there is no such thing as "a bitcoin". The concept of "a bitcoin" is an abstraction that we humans use to make it easier to talk about the concept of transfering control of value.


Any reasonably designed bitcoin wallet (such as Armory, Bitcoin-Qt, Electrum, MultiBit, blockchain.info, BitcoinWallet, and Mycellium) all already do this.  If you transfer your bitcoins to any such bitcoin wallet, they are "locked" until someone with access to the specific 256 bit password that locked the bitcoins (called a "private key" in cryptography) creates a digital signature authorizing the bitcoins to move again.  This is the actual purpose of wallet software.  Unfortunately, many people choose to give their bitcoins to someone else and hope that the person/company they give them to will honor their promise to secure and return the bitcoins in the future.


Almost cetainly.


A phone call or email are far to easy to fake.  I prefer the security of industry leading cryptography that requires an electronic message with a cryptographically secure digital signature.  That way it is impossible to pretend to be me unless you can get your hands on my 256 bit password.


Yep.


Nah.  With well written software that can instantly create digital signatures at the request of the user, the specific value of bitcoins that the user desires to spend could be released from the "lock" in an instant while all the other bitcoins remain securely locked.  Furthermore, any bitcoins received could be automatically locked even if the software wasn't running.  This is the power of well executed cryptography (and is the design of bitcoin).


So, what you're saying is that bitcoin really needs more education.  Well, I think everyone would agree with that, but how to educate new users who don't bother to try to learn anything, while providing convenience that won't stifle interest?


Since Satoshi is the one that implemented your million dollar idea, you'll have to hit him up for the donation (if you can find him).


Technically it does work.  It works really well. Unfortunately, it can't work for those users that choose to give their bitcoins to someone incompetent.


They don't.


They can.  MtGox was just lazy and incompetent, and yet users chose to leave their bitcoins there anyhow.


Agreed.  Hopefully more companies that hold deposit accounts will implement better security protocols soon.  In the mean time, we can vote with our bitcoins. Don't send your bitcoins to a company that doesn't provide you with a secure way to link your identity to your withdrawls.


It doesn't.  Computers are very fast, and well written software can generate a digital signature with a click (and perhaps a quick 2-factor authorization).


The media doesn't bother paying attention to the details.  They need to sell advertizing, which means they need to attract viewers.  The easiest way to do that is to create sensationalist stories with little focus on facts and details. (most of the viewing public finds facts and details boring)

WTS 43 goxcoins

Solange die Mehrheit der BTC Bevölkerung den Betrüger rauslässt, wird Bitcoin IMMER kriminell sein! Die größten Transaktionsvolumina laufen doch sowieso über Geldwäsche, Hackingdienstleistungen und Co. und das nun wie OhScheiße WUNDERBAR sagte, die Wahrheit =>
Bitcoin zeigt lediglich den Spiegel einer momentanen weltweiten Gesellschaft. Gewähre der Bevölkerung "Freiheit" , Anonimität und das Geld und sehe seine Psyche!

Und nein, bevor hier ein "omg Geld muss kontrolliert werden du Kommunist???" Shitstorm Post kommt, möchte ich sagen, dass ich nie proklamiert habe , dass Geld explizit kontrolliert werden muss...

Bitcoin ist ZU anonym und ZU unkontrolliert und bietet nahezu einen straffreien Raum und das MUSS PERMANENT offen gezeigt werden!