Blockchain evidence or it didn't happen.

Does that still allow the scammer to arrange a bunch of individual sales, opening a new Intersango account for each one?  Each Intersango account only receives deposits from a single bank account that way, and business continues for the scammer as before.

Maybe.

But I think the 500k BTC number people throw around is the number of coins pirate would have if he wasn't running a ponzi.  It's probable that the majority of those 500k coins never existed except on paper.

I think you need at least 100 posts to play this thing.

Don't take my word for it.  I don't have any experience of it directly.  It may be that the issue is worse for Australian banks, and it's even possible that the owner of the exchange didn't really have any problems with the banks at all, and simply claimed that he did, and kept the money for himself.  I have no way of knowing what really happened.

Re. 4a) This doesn't need to be SR's profits.  It's just the BTC they're currently holding.  Customers deposit BTC at SR then trade them with sellers.  While the BTC are on the site, they need to keep them safe.  Hence the use of this offline wallet.  Since the address became public knowledge they've split the contents up into several smaller addresses to avoid scrutiny.

Re. the other points, that's useless circumstantial evidence and doesn't prove anything.

It's SR.

Yes.  I didn't mention that, but if I restart the client it starts getting the new blocks almost immediately.

Maybe.

That bet pays out 64x, so if he bet 1 BTC, he'd win around 64 BTC.

The payout on X% bets is around 100/X times.  For 1.5% that would be 66.666x.  The actual bet is 1.52% and the payout is 64x.

The biggest win so far on that bet is http://www.satoshidice.com/full.php?tx=a45e844c6d3932cdca983d308ec546e35422af411f311809f1343d23b34fed83 where the player bet on 3 different bets at the same time, and won 352 BTC on lessthan 1000.  OP seems to suggest he only bet on the 1.5% bet, so that's probably not him.

The 2nd biggest 1.5% win (http://www.satoshidice.com/full.php?tx=e6e19c730ceae47964846bdec86f984ff953bd8b2a1ce14fbb20bc123aa1e7cd) also bet on 3 different bets in the same transaction.  That one won 316 BTC on the 1.5% bet.

So did the 3rd biggest 1.5% win (http://www.satoshidice.com/full.php?tx=201ab780b165bf3a4a6d4f1753d67ddd66c4a999e05075101dca2a63b50cd6af), winning 256 BTC on the 1.5% bet.

So I guess OP won less than 256 BTC from his bet.

Most of my experience with the Intersango code came from setting up the software for the "World Bitcoin Exchange", which allowed users to trade Australian dollars for BTC.  The exchange worked pretty well, but in the end the exchange closed down and claimed that all the users dollars had gone missing.  Whenever you set up an exchange bank fraud seems to be a real problem.  The owner of WBX claims that deposits to his bank account were somehow reversed after users had exchanged them for BTC and withdrawn, resulting in him losing a lot of money.  The exchange software itself however appears to have stood up very well.

Intersango currently uses a different set of code for their own exchange.  It's not open sourced (yet?) as far as I understand.

I made a whole bunch of changes to the open source Intersango code.  You can see my changes here:

  https://github.com/dooglus/intersango/

I've not been keeping up with it recently, but am able to assist with getting the code installed and running, and can implement custom features should you require them.

It's possible to spend these tiny prizes for free (no fee required) so long as you combine them with a suitably large other output.

For example, if you have a 1 BTC output which is 2 days old, you can send 1.00005 BTC to yourself for free, effectively spending the 0.00005 BTC output and combining it into a single 1.00005 BTC coin, which you can later spend as you see fit.

Of course, if you already have 1 BTC then I expect you probably won't be wasting your time hunting for 0.00005 BTC prizes, since they're insignificant in comparison.

I think everyone kept to the limit.  I guess when you have $5000 on the line you don't want to break any 'rules'...

I built v0.7.0rc3 from git, and have noticed on several occasions that it's very bad at catching up with the blockchain if I suspend the laptop for a few hours then resume it.

I suspended the laptop with the blockchain up to date last night.  Then today when I resumed it, the block download seems stuck at "55 blocks remaining" even though I apparently have "14 active connections to the bitcoin network".

I don't know if those are really "active" connections, or if it fact they are 14 connections which were active at the time of suspension, and which have really died out in the mean time.

I get the impression that v0.6.x was better at handling suspend/resume, but that may not actually be the case.  I'm suspending and resuming more recently than I used to, so perhaps I'm seeing a long-standing issue that's nothing to do with the 0.7.0 changes.

There's actually nothing in the code to limit balances either.  The per-account setting only changes the text that displays the "limit" to the user.

It's quite simple.  The winner is whoever sends the lowest amount that nobody else sent.  So if you send 0.1, you win, unless somebody else also sends 0.1.  It could be that all the amounts from 0.1 up to 10.0 are sent multiple times, and the winning bet was 10.1, because there was only one bet of 10.1.

Get it now?