Has anyone found a way to create a vanity onion address for use with a bitcoin node?

I've found plenty of generic onion vanity generators, but somehow the files created aren't useable by bitcoind. It's probably a minor tweak needed, but I've not managed to work out how to do it yet. Has anyone?

I'm getting this running Bitcoin Core 0.13 currently... would also like to know how to fix it!

Just for the record. I also had funds in intersango which I have so far been unable to recover...

The above is FUD. I had two cash deposits reversed with BoA and they happened several weeks after the deposits were made. It's now 18 months later, and I've still not managed to recover the funds that were reversed. The Bank of America is suggesting I sue them.

Request: merge-mining with Bitcoin - like namecoin does.

What happened with this? This seems like a very good idea - and it also facilitates more power to node operators who, if they want, can more easily choose not to relay blocks containing very few transactions.

yes, I got one also.

Does each and every individual need to register their claim with the Japanese court or can this be done as a group via some organised claim-related website? I was expecting mtgoxrecovery to be helping with this, but it doesn't seem like they are posting updates nor confirming anything regarding making claims on behalf of their registrants.

Hi all, I just wanted to share a recent experience I had with localbitcoins, which has left me substantially out of pocket, and most likely the other user in the transaction substantially better off.

I placed an advert selling bitcoins for cash deposits. Making it clear in the first sentence that I accept only cash deposits.

A person opens a trade and sends me the money via bank transfer (i.e. not cash), which is not as safe as it can be reversed.

Localbitcoins escrow service decides after almost 3 weeks of debate to release the bitcoins to the buyer even though the buyer, despite repeated requests from LB and myself, never provided proof that they were the account holder of the bank account sending the funds.

This doesn't seem right to me - that I was forced to sell bitcoins by a riskier method that I made clear from the beginning I wasn't willing to risk.

I'd be interested to hear comments from other people on here about this.

rNqvSSoLnYeZTJ5SR63bTD46pSnsASyNw6

I agree. Also, as long as well written clients keep an eye out for longer alt-chains, then there's no harm in hard forks occuring. The longer fork (as Gavin states) determines which is the de-facto bitcoin. It would also benefit bitcoin if miners didn't rely so much on the satoshi client as this also reduces decentralisation.

ownership is arguably unethical...

As far as I see it, Market Makers help to stabilize the exchange rate, Market Takers destabilize it. Surely, it's in mtgox's interests for the price to stabilize so that more people can adopt bitcoin and increase their customers.

The solution to this seems to me to be quite simple, and is something Intersango already implemented a while back. Simpy: reward market makers, and penalise market takers. IMHO, all exchanges would be wise to do this.

I'd actually like to see no more than 0% commission for market makers - perhaps even a negative commission considering the importance of their role. Funding from this would naturally come from the transactions made by the market takers.

I don't claim to be an expert on economics, so apologies if I'm completely missing something here. (If I am, Intersango was too, though!).

If enough people are interested in seeing this happen, and comment, perhaps mtgox will address this.

rPgC42cSx4tqHHu6mLrsEQ58YyaAvRg68P

This sounds good. Is there any way to determine which of the 10 pieces were used for the recovery when the bitcoins are spent? Ideally I'd like a solution where I can set 1 key that can be used to spend them, and another 3 keys, two of which need to be used together to spend them, and I'd like it to be determinable from the blockchain which of the keys were used to spend them. Is this possible?

If I ever find myself owning things claiming to be bitcoins but that allow blocksizes over 1MB, I will be selling them all, and keeping the official bitcoins,,,!

I think BTCGuild's decision to revert to 0.7 for mining was the wrong decision. Let's explore why I've come to this conclusion.

Firstly, let's ask - who do we want to be in control of bitcoin? By in control I mean, to define and maintain the integrity of bitcoin.

I personally feel that bitcoin should be defined as closely as possible to the white paper that Satoshi wrote.

I also feel that the people better skilled to make these decisions are the miners and mining pools rather than the average user of bitcoin (who probably just downloaded the first bitcoin client they found after a Google search).

The decision (to switch mining back to 0.7 version) was heavily influenced by the userbase. Most of the userbase are probably unaware currently that they are effectively voting on the definition by their choice of bitcoin client.

I do not feel they should be voting at all. Bitcoin's integrity is the responsibility of the miners, not the users. The miners should not be influenced to the extent they were by the users nor the developers of any client, in my opinion. Granted the miners depend heavily on the skill (and they are skilled) of the developers and need to work in close co-operation, and to ensure that the the mining is done using as similar code as they can manage and that it performs as closely to the white paper. The miner's have a responsibility to check that the code they are using keeps to the integrity of the white paper also.

The 0.8 version of the mining software adhered more closely to Satoshi's white paper than 0.7 did. They should have stuck with 0.8 for this reason alone.

Secondly, the miners have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of bitcoin. This means doing whatever possible to ensure that transactions are not reversible. Their decision to revert to 0.7 broke this fundamental rule. They should never do this again if bitcoin is to retain any credibility.

It is understandable that they have been so far following relatively blindly the advice of the core development team, but I think it is time for this to stop, given the recent situation. They need to think far more critically and recognize their responsibilities. There are going to be politics involved in the evolution of bitcoin. There is going to be influence and pressure from governments on all parties involved - the developers and the miners in particular. Anyone developing or mining bitcoin who is not anonymous is touchable.  (Read http://www.dgcmagazine.com/the-old-radical-how-bitcoin-is-being-destroyed/ to better understand why I mention this).

Staying mining on 0.8 would have been the safer option because 0.7 clients already were alerting the users to their being a longer chain. Users of 0,8 weren't being alerted until at least 11 (21 by some reports) confirmations had passed on their fork so during those confirmations all transactions were not trustworthy. Trust in transactions is the primary importance in bitcoin. Although some failure for alerting the users to this is the fact that most client don't alert the user to the event that another chain is catching up - they only alert when another chain is longer, and even then, only when by at least 6 blocks.

There will probably be events in the future where the miners and the developers disagree, and the miners disagree with other miners about the future of bitcoin, but I would like to think that the decisions will be based on what bitcoin was meant to be. This will often be subjective, but for me personally, the true bitcoin will always be the one mentioned in the Satoshi White Paper, and that paper defines the maximum block size as 1Mb. The currently running bitcoin is therefore not really bitcoin, and won't be until a hardfork is done to set this to the correct number. 0.8 did that - the miners were running with it and had a majority, until March 12.

I'll admit I don't know all the details behind the decision to switch back to 0.7 and to something less-bitcoin like. I'm aware that mtgox and blockchain.info were still on the 0.7 fork but they could have fixed this and arguably this was their fault for not keeping up to date. Although on the other hand, the miners may have switched to 0.8 without sufficient testing and notice. Mtgox's software would surely have noticed the longer chain and automatically switched to a safe mode where no transactions were accepted until resolved, so they'd not have lost any money, but it would have been a headache for the site maintainer to install the patch needed to switch to the 0.8 fork, admittedly. Still, I think this is what should have been done instead.

So, I've yet to hear a strong argument still for the decision. I'll keep looking though, and thanks in advance to anyone who can enlighten me.

What does this even mean? "independent devs doing it". Dependent on what/whom? If you'd had 100 variants of the original Satoshi client all being developed and bug fixed separately and 100 variants of the mining software all being developed and bug fixed separately then we'd have had many more hardforks by now, with no-one really knowing anymore which is the true bitcoin. Do you go by the first version of the client which allowed anyone to give themselves a billion (well, a lot) bitcoins? Or some arbitrary version someone developed based on that? It simply wouldn't work. Bitcoin needs a majority client in order to not hard fork, and therefore in this sense, it can never be decentralised. The developers of this majority client will always have the power and can make decisions to change what bitcoin is whenever they like. For example, let's say they decide to increase the blocksize from 1MB to 10MB. Who's going to stop them? The users downloading bitcoin-qt? I suspect not. Most people just download it and use it without caring what changes are going on. Yes, we were supposed to be able to vote with our feet, but the people who actually do that are usually in the minority and so will lose.

Fantastic! Thank you! I shall be using this now in preference to the standard bitcoin-qt project. Do you have a reference to where the source is on github please? Also, I'd quite like to compile this myself on Windows - so if you'd be willing to include info on how you compiled the windows binary, this would be fantastic.

Thank you again!

Is it possible that intersango bought only Bitcoinica's assets and none of their debts?

He's given better interviews in the past. Looking at another recent video of his, he seems very preoccupied with other things on his mind. Not surprising given the current ongoing lawsuits and potential personal liability.