Stop with the false analogies. Bitcoin is faster than anything available from the traditional system.

Who says that you have to be able to spend that money instantly? I've used a lot of services which delivered the expected goods as soon as the TX arrived at their destination. This is a clear case of false analogy.

No, it does not. It requires the exact same amount of time that it always did, 10 minutes on average per confirmation.

Wrong. Transaction time is: ~1-3 seconds. Confirmation time is: ~10 Minutes.

No. There is no chance of this happening if you know how to properly use Bitcoin (which includes both knowing what causes these things and knowing how to avoid them). The chance for a confirmation time of 28 hours for a proper transaction (assuming rational size, and adequate fee) is 0.

This sentence does not make sense. Maybe you've meant after 1 block?

The title on the link is false though:"Encryption Security May Not Be Secure Anymore". They can't possibly talk about all encryption algorithms. I'm not fully certain, but I think that (all of) the algorithms that are used in Bitcoin should not be affected by this. This development of this story will certainly be interesting.

I'd like to know the meaning of the words 'intermediate keys' in this context. I would also not be surprised by this part:

You both got it wrong. Read:
There is a huge difference between selling your personal Facebook account and farming up likes and whatnot (e.g. accounts with a few thousand "friends") and selling pages. I was referring to the first one. Do you just go out there and sell your personal FB account when you need cash? You don't.

I never claimed that it does. What I'm saying is: If there is almost no incentive, why would someone bother to try and break into your system (which I assume is supposed to be secure due to the documents)?

I have. Is the idea behind this, that the 'hacker' gets rewarded for doing it? It doesn't seem logical as the hacker would not know whether it was unencrypted or encrypted either (they would only know that after they've attained the file).

Saying that you've included X fee is pointless. That fee might be adequate for TX A, but might be too low for TX B. What matters is satoshis/byte (which currently stands at 40 satoshis/byte).

Don't blame the network if you can't use Bitcoin properly. There have been no known problems with the blockchain either. You don't know what you're talking about.

Not really. If we are talking about a small amount of money, and you do not attract attention to yourself (aside from getting infected with malware and such) nothing is most likely going to happen.

Why?

Yes. That would take me a few minutes to use at most.

Again, we are talking about a very small sum of money.

How could you possibly know which moderator proposes which bans?

Exactly. Just because some people can't stay objective, that does not mean that nobody can.

You do not want to go down that path!

For Bitcoin <--> Altcoin: Poloniex.
For Bitcoin <--> USD/EUR: Bitstamp.

I would not recommend Coinbase as there were some 'suspicious' actions against some users (check reddit occasionally). Additionally, they might not like what you've done with you coins prior to sending them to their exchange.

I don't know about that website, but I've personally checked on one that is supportive of Classic (so I assume that information would be valid). If you take a look at the grid found here, there hasn't been a single Classic block in the last 4 rows (4x40 blocks).

It seems like KnC has shut down their miners, and the Classic hashrate has dropped at Slush. Time to wave goodbye; their total hashrate (in %) will drop quickly. On other interesting news, CSV support at: 81.17%.

I paid 0.11 at the time that we pre-ordered. Anyhow, have these started shipping out yet or is there another 1-2 weeks to wait?

It is expected to be released within the next version 0.12.x (most likely 0.12.2), and possibly before the halving. There isn't a fixed date yet, but it isn't that far away either.

This doesn't show the progress of the development of LN. This displays the necessary changes/additions on which the LN is going to be built upon. To get a closer look at LN you can either take a look here or here.

Possibly a reasonable number of inputs and outputs (i.e. total size). A transaction that is, e.g. 900kB big is not usually reasonable.

There's nothing to be "angry" about. This is how the system was supposed to work; you shouldn't expect free transactions (although it was possible in the past).

Wrong. You are most likely confusing blockchain.info with the Bitcoin blockchain. These are two separate things. When there are blockchain.info relevant errors, only blockchain.info users are affected; i.e. Bitcoin remains functional for everyone else.

It seems that a lot of members do not even know the difference between a confirmation and a transaction. As soon as the network receives the transaction, i.e. the other end holds an unconfirmed amount, your TX has arrived. This process is near-instant for Bitcoin. Besides, if you include the adequate fee then your TX will confirm (on average) in 10 minutes.

FTFY. Money transfer within the same bank? Unless you are talking about changing a few numbers within their database, then this process takes time. As an example, look at Visa purchases. They take quite a lot of time to clear, even though it seems that they are instant to the user (e.g. while purchasing at a counter).

Your thinking is completely wrong.

This. To add to this: I've never had a TX take longer than 10-20 minutes to confirm (excluding unusual block timing).

Wrong. This is a kind of thing that shows just how dumb the people in charge of these companies are (assuming that the story is not made up).

Allegedly, these companies use the following logic:
Instead of creating and keeping backups (which everyone should do for their own data) which costs X amount of money, we will buy X*k (k - number of incidents) amounts of Bitcoin to keep paying the cybercriminals.

Completely correct.

You just did.

Imagine it this way: All that accounts (and users that have tried to sell/buy them) that have been traded so far are permanently banned. Would it not have a positive affect?

Exactly. That's a pointless argument (do people sell their e.g. 'FB accounts' when they need money? Hint: No.).

I don't think that we can draw to a conclusion from such a specific and small amount of data. In addition to that, this is pointless without permanent bans (IMO).

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial thread.

Correct. However, some people are predicting that the price will rise into a few thousand USD per Bitcoin which is both irrational and overly optimistic at this point.

Depending on your age and areas of expertise, if you aren't a decent trader already you would most likely end up wasting your time. Trading is risky by itself.

BTCT is not the right place to look for a job.